• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Namtaru

Homer's slashing penalty and Z's disallowed goal

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest micah

OK, HERE'S THE DEAL AND SEE IF IT MAKES SENSE (IT SHOULD IF YOU'RE PAYING ATTENTION!!!!!!

you can legally redirect the puck with you skate, correct? Now, unless you are stationary at center ice, you will be moving your skates all over the ice, and the blades will provide an infinite number of angles through which the puck can be redirected. Does that mean that you must remain standing in the center face-off circle and wait for the puck to redirect off your skate? No, that's ridiculous, of course. Therefore, you may obviously move your skates all over the ice and take advantage of any opportunity to redirect the puck into the net. THIS IMPLIES YOU WILL BE MOVING YOUR SKATE AT SOME POINT BEFORE THE PUCK GETS TO THE SKATE!!! If the puck is approaching you, and (presumably) your desire is to score goals, you will legally be allowed to move your skate into a position that both contacts the puck and effectively redirects it in the desired direction. THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A "DISTINCT KICKING MOTION". "DISTINCT KICKING MOTION" shouldn't need any explanation so as to differentiate it from legally moving your skate into a position to intercept and redirect the puck!!! (Unless you are a replay official with the potential opportunity to bone the Red Wings!)

A redirection would be caused by a pivot of the skate. A kick is when the foot is moving in the direction that the player hopes the puck will go. In this case it looks to me like the latter. While there is some pivoting going on, there is also a push.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A redirection would be caused by a pivot of the skate. A kick is when the foot is moving in the direction that the player hopes the puck will go. In this case it looks to me like the latter. While there is some pivoting going on, there is also a push.

Per your unique belief system, "THE PUCK CAN BE REDIRECTED IF AND ONLY IF THE PLAYER IS ABSOLUTELY STATIONARY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PIVOTING OF A SKATE ON THE ICE" and a "kick" can "ONLY OCCUR IF THE PUCK IS PROPELLED IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SKATE'S MOTION." Hank's skate was being propelled OUTSIDE the net...look at the replay. Was he trying to "propel" the puck outside the net? If so, the puck OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have gone IN the net (unless he was trying NOT to score!!!) The puck bounced at somewhere around a 70 degree angle off his skate (OK, it's hard to tell, but give-or-take thirty degrees." THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT "the foot...moving in the direction that the player (Hank) hopes the puck will go." Now you have introduced the third option, the foot IS moving and DOES redirect the puck. BUT THIS DOES NOT CONSITUTE A DIRECT KICKING MOTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the rule was rewritten as you appear to think it's written that foot motion=kicking, then your're right...which is of course not the case.

I think it's more than obvious Hank's momentum (body in motion tends to remain in motion) drove him (and his attached skate) past the net. Does simple momentum constitue a "distinct kicking motion?" Then we're back to the concept that any time the puck glances off of a MOVING skate and into the net it MUST be waived off! I don't believe that's the intent of the rule, though Buttman's thinking is probably as fuzzy as yours.

Edited by donfishmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't see anything that looked like a slash in the first replay, but then again, I don't think McGinn's stick touched Lebda's face and he completely faked it (mostly because there isn't even the tiniest red mark anywhere on his face)

As for the goal, if you were to allow a player to redirect pucks in with their skates on purpose it would change the game completely. That's a good no goal call. Later in the game, the Wings scored when a puck accidently went off Holmstrom's skate, there was no intent to change the direction of the puck, therefore the goal it good. That is the difference.

As for the last Holmstrom penalty. He crosschecks Boyle in to Nabokov, that might have been okay, but he kept on hammering Boyle while he was on top of the goalie, driving Nabokov's head in to the ice. That was the thing that probably got him the gate on that one. I doubt anyone would argue that shouldn't have been a call once he "went too far" with the contact.

Oh, and yes you can legally deflect the puck with your skate, but not on goal. That's the difference.

Edited by hockeynut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn’t see anything that looked like a slash in the first replay, but then again, I don’t think McGinn’s stick touched Lebda’s face and he completely faked it (mostly because there isn’t even the tiniest red mark anywhere on his face)

As for the goal, if you were to allow a player to redirect pucks in with their skates on purpose it would change the game completely. That’s a good no goal call. Later in the game, the Wings scored when a puck accidently went off Holmstrom’s skate, there was no intent to change the direction of the puck, therefore the goal it good. That is the difference.

As for the last Holmstrom penalty. He crosschecks Boyle in to Nabokov, that might have been okay, but he kept on hammering Boyle while he was on top of the goalie, driving Nabokov’s head in to the ice. That was the thing that probably got him the gate on that one. I doubt anyone would argue that shouldn’t have been a call once he “went too far” with the contact.

So you believe "intentional redirection of the puck", is essentially the same as "intentional kicking motion??!!??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A redirection would be caused by a pivot of the skate. A kick is when the foot is moving in the direction that the player hopes the puck will go. In this case it looks to me like the latter. While there is some pivoting going on, there is also a push.

Based on your definition here, Homers goal shouldn't have been allowed. It went off of his toe, almost directly straight in the direction his foot was pointing, over Nabakov's arm and into the net. No, Holmstrom did not have a kicking motion, but neither did Z. They were both skating trying to make a play! Z was trying to make a hockey play by deflecting the puck to his stick to put it in the net. This type of deflection happens all of the time during a game, pass in the skates and a good hockey player puts it to his stick with his skate. The hook by the Sharks player prevented Z from getting his stick on the ice and scoring. Should have been penalized by the back official! The fact the off ice officials in Toronto couldn't recognize a good hockey play like that is terrible for this game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:thumbdown:

Didn't see anything that looked like a slash in the first replay, but then again, I don't think McGinn's stick touched Lebda's face and he completely faked it (mostly because there isn't even the tiniest red mark anywhere on his face)

As for the goal, if you were to allow a player to redirect pucks in with their skates on purpose it would change the game completely. That's a good no goal call. Later in the game, the Wings scored when a puck accidently went off Holmstrom's skate, there was no intent to change the direction of the puck, therefore the goal it good. That is the difference.

size]

Oh, and yes you can legally deflect the puck with your skate, but not on goal. That's the difference.

NHL Rule #49.

"A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident."

So, your fail...a puck CAN be legally deflected into the net, and NO mention of the INTENT of the player to redirect the puck into the net is made in this rule, nor is any mention of the need for the player's skate to be stationary at the time of the deflection. The only caveat is it can't be done using a "distinct kicking motion." As discussed above, momentum is NOT a "distinct kicking motion."

fail! :thumbdown:

Fail! :thumbdown:

FAIL! :thumbdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scottj

Didn't see anything that looked like a slash in the first replay, but then again, I don't think McGinn's stick touched Lebda's face and he completely faked it (mostly because there isn't even the tiniest red mark anywhere on his face)

I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything but how can you say that there wasn't a red mark on his face just cause you couldn't see it over the TV? are you the wings trainers or a referee or something?... starting off a post where you're gonna try to explain why you think or do not think that some things should have been penalties with a statement like that isn't gonna help your cause

but if you somehow saw lebdas face more than we did on FSD then let me know cause I'm still kinda confused as to how somebody could make a statement like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything but how can you say that there wasn't a red mark on his face just cause you couldn't see it over the TV? are you the wings trainers or a referee or something?... starting off a post where you're gonna try to explain why you think or do not think that some things should have been penalties with a statement like that isn't gonna help your cause

but if you somehow saw lebdas face more than we did on FSD then let me know cause I'm still kinda confused as to how somebody could make a statement like that

Perhaps because this person is troll?

Edited by donfishmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason I agree with the "No Goal" call on Z there is because of the precedent set on previous calls throughout this and previous playoffs. That doesn't make it right, but it makes the NHL refs consistent in at least one area of the game. Even if it means they are consistently wrong. haha.

The way I look at it, if that were Joe Thornton or somebody using their skate as Z did and the goal stood, I'd be super pissed for the simple reason that I've seen that exact goal waived off countless times before.

In short, NHL officiating is bass ackwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who cares, penalty shot was the fail, he could have made up that goal right there

bad calls happen, that call on homer is not why the Wings lost, SJ just wanted it more 3rd period and on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep calling me a troll because I disagree with you on your interpretations of the game? Really? I thought this was a discussion forum, but apparently it's a "Redwing homers only" forum.

My mistake.

Oh, and speaking of bad calls, the penalty shot was complete and utter crap as well. Couture pushed the puck under Nabokov's pads with his glove, something defensemen do all the time. At no time did he cover the puck with his glove. But it "looked" bad, so the Wings were awarded a penalty shot undeserved as it was. So we'll call it even between Zetterberg's kick in and the phantom penalty shot award. Deal?

Last comment, I promise. Look at the clip, you can clearly see Lebda's face sitting on the bench and there is no mark anywhere on it.

Edited by hockeynut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last comment, I promise. Look at the clip, you can clearly see Lebda's face sitting on the bench and there is no mark anywhere on it.

In fairness to the zebras, hockey is obviously a fast paced game and just about ALL players have a knack to snap their head back if a stick is near their face. IMO, it's 50/50 if the refs catch the embellishment or a real infraction. That's why I wish the NHL would get tough with diving and video review every potential dive and actually dish out steep fines and subsequently suspensions for repeat offenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest scottj

you're still goin with the "no mark" angle? I've actually never heard that one before lol...

well maybe they just wanted to make up for the high-sticking in which you could clearly see a mark on franzens face up until game 3 lol... oh wait, then they wouldn't have called that horrible slashing penalty on holmstrom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep calling me a troll because I disagree with you on your interpretations of the game? Really? I thought this was a discussion forum, but apparently it's a "Redwing homers only" forum.

My mistake.

Oh, and speaking of bad calls, the penalty shot was complete and utter crap as well. Couture pushed the puck under Nabokov's pads with his glove, something defensemen do all the time. At no time did he cover the puck with his glove. But it "looked" bad, so the Wings were awarded a penalty shot undeserved as it was. So we'll call it even between Zetterberg's kick in and the phantom penalty shot award. Deal?

Last comment, I promise. Look at the clip, you can clearly see Lebda's face sitting on the bench and there is no mark anywhere on it.

Funny! One of your many "mistakes" is implying that this can't be a discussion forum and you can't be a troll at the same time...the two are not mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest micah

Per your unique belief system, "THE PUCK CAN BE REDIRECTED IF AND ONLY IF THE PLAYER IS ABSOLUTELY STATIONARY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PIVOTING OF A SKATE ON THE ICE" and a "kick" can "ONLY OCCUR IF THE PUCK IS PROPELLED IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE SKATE'S MOTION." Hank's skate was being propelled OUTSIDE the net...look at the replay. Was he trying to "propel" the puck outside the net? If so, the puck OBVIOUSLY wouldn't have gone IN the net (unless he was trying NOT to score!!!) The puck bounced at somewhere around a 70 degree angle off his skate (OK, it's hard to tell, but give-or-take thirty degrees." THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT "the foot...moving in the direction that the player (Hank) hopes the puck will go." Now you have introduced the third option, the foot IS moving and DOES redirect the puck. BUT THIS DOES NOT CONSITUTE A DIRECT KICKING MOTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the rule was rewritten as you appear to think it's written that foot motion=kicking, then your're right...which is of course not the case.

I think it's more than obvious Hank's momentum (body in motion tends to remain in motion) drove him (and his attached skate) past the net. Does simple momentum constitue a "distinct kicking motion?" Then we're back to the concept that any time the puck glances off of a MOVING skate and into the net it MUST be waived off! I don't believe that's the intent of the rule, though Buttman's thinking is probably as fuzzy as yours.

Have you ever plowerd snow? Ever played ping pong? Tennis? The direction of force coupled with the angle of the device applying the force dictates the direction the snow, or puck or ball goes. You wouldn't watch a plow truck driving straight forward and conclude that he must be trying to push snow straight forward if his blade were angled and he were driving straight ahead. You wouldn't watch a tennis forespin hit and conclde that the player was trying to hit the ball into the ground before the net because that is where his racket was pointed.

Hank readjusted himself in the momments immediately before and durring the time his skate was in contact with the puck, and it looked to me like he did so in order to propell (not deflect) the puck into the net. That's kick. Regardless of which way your foot is traveling, regardless of which way your skate is facing.

The "Buttman" reference and the random caps did make your argument pretty compelling though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, just an ordinary line change to be frank.

The rule is

74.1 Too Many Men on the Ice - Players and goalkeepers may be changed at any time during the play from the players' bench provided that the player or players leaving the ice shall be within five feet (5') of his players' bench and out of the play before the change is made. Refer also to Rule 71 – Premature Substitution. At the discretion of the on-ice officials, should a substituting player come onto the ice before his teammate is within the five foot (5') limit of the players' bench (and therefore clearly causing his team to have too many players on the ice), then a bench minor penalty may be assessed.

If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player (or goalkeeper) retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of "too many men on the ice" will be called.

74.2 Bench Minor Penalty – A bench minor penalty for too many men on the ice shall be assessed for a violation of this rule. This penalty can be assessed by the Referees or the Linesmen. Should a goal be scored by the offending team prior to the Referee or Linesman blowing his whistle to assess the bench minor penalty, the goal shall be disallowed and the penalty assessed for too many men on the ice.

now that you know the rules.. do you agree that the two sharks heading to the bench are MORE then five feet from the players bench? If yes, then read 74.2

If no, look at this video (very beginning ) look at the two sharks returning to the bench (more then five feet) and as the video follows the puck, you can see Marleau already a good ten feet away from the bench (as they are still more then five feet away) and not long after already right in the play. Thus referring to rule 74.1 a penalty should have been given for "too many men on the ice".

Edited by EojUSAF0112

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's futile to stop LGW homers from being homers, but hey. Slash was ridiculous, I didn't see anything in any replay indicative of a penalty. Z's goal was disallowed because of other incidents that have already occurred in the playoffs, early on there was a precedent set and now the people in Toronto are sticking with it. Unlucky for the Wings, but at least they are trying to be consistent. Homer's interference penalty was because of the 2nd push after Boyle had already come into contact with Nabokov, and it was not one that was good to take. I have a little issue with that one because if Nabokov was not 5 feet out of the crease it would not be called, and the fact that goalie interference was called without any contact from Homer to Nabokov (instead of just interference being called). Still, it was something that Homer did not have to do that hurt the Wings' opportunity to end the game in regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now that you know the rules.. do you agree that the two sharks heading to the bench are MORE then five feet from the players bench? If yes, then read 74.2

It might be violating the letter of the law, but that's not how it's enforced. That very same line change is completed dozens of times a game, by all teams, without penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever plowerd snow? Ever played ping pong? Tennis? The direction of force coupled with the angle of the device applying the force dictates the direction the snow, or puck or ball goes. You wouldn't watch a plow truck driving straight forward and conclude that he must be trying to push snow straight forward if his blade were angled and he were driving straight ahead. You wouldn't watch a tennis forespin hit and conclde that the player was trying to hit the ball into the ground before the net because that is where his racket was pointed.

Hank readjusted himself in the momments immediately before and durring the time his skate was in contact with the puck, and it looked to me like he did so in order to propell (not deflect) the puck into the net. That's kick. Regardless of which way your foot is traveling, regardless of which way your skate is facing.

The "Buttman" reference and the random caps did make your argument pretty compelling though.

Micah, your precious interpretation of capitals intended for emphasis is delightful!

Maybe,(and I know this is probably radical for you) go back to the YouTube links at the beginning of this thread (sorry my dear Micah, there go those silly capitals again!) and watch WHY (tee hee to you!) Hank "readjusted" his skate. A Fish had his stick horizontal and was shoving Hank with said stick. Hank was "readjusting" to maintain balance during this cross-check, as shown in every view visible to us (and presumably, the Toronto "war room".) Moving his feet to maintain balance and not crash into the net/boards probably doesn't count as "distinctly kicking", and undoubtedly the Fishies would simply have collapsed and flopped, pleading for the merciful gods above to call a cross-check/interference/roughing, etc., etc., penalty.

So no MICAH, that "not kick" (sic)

...and the "Fails" continue!

Edited by donfishmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest micah

At the discretion of the on-ice officials... is the part of the rule that some here seem to be forgetting. If it appears that a player is more than 5' out while there are too many men trying to be involved in the play, that's a penalty every time the ref sees it. Players coasting into the bench area (even though they are outside the 5’ zone) are not a penalty. Flying into the bench area at full steam is reckless and unnecessary. This rule makes sense and last night it was interpreted the same way it was interpreted 20 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more that Homer gets screwed by the refs consistently. Calls that go against him are seldom called when players are pounding on him. However. Even Mickey said it last night. Homer was pushing his luck in and around the crease and if he didn't cool it he would be called (fair or not). They showed him pulling on somebody's jersey and trying to take him down in the Sharks' crease. I saw what I thought was a slash on the guy that took him down at another point in the game. Probably the same one you're all referring to. The player taking him down should have been called and was not. But the last thing Homer needed to do was to draw the ref's attention to himself.

Mickey said it. Don't give the (*******) refs the chance to call you. I know there's a fine line about how to play the game with that in mind, but it was definitely good advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this