59 replies to this topic

[Shoreline]

I don't think it was a kicking motion either, looking at every replay (instead of just one that Mickey wanted them to look at), and the rules have evolved to throw out good goals. Is this the NFL? Why did they need to go and put in all this gray area nonsense of what an actual kick entails. We know what someone kicking a puck in looks like. That was not a kick at all. Feel bad for Z but he didn't even seem upset by it in the slightest -- a rather apathetic look. Confusing.

Edited by Shoreline, 05 May 2010 - 10:49 AM.

[toby91_ca]

My take on all 3 plays:

- Homer slashing - he did give him a bit of slash from behind, ticky, tacky call, but you can't do that when you are behind the play with the ref standing there watching. Not a good call in my opinion, but not a total phantom call either.

- Zetterberg's no goal - honestly, I think this could have gone either way. I have no problem with it being called off, especially based on the other no goal calls so far in the playoffs. He stuck his foot out (had he not moved his foot forward, it probably would have been okay). His foot also came off the ice, which isn't good. Pissed because a Wings goal was called back, looking at it from a certain perspective, but if I was a Sharks fan, I'd be really pissed if that counted.

- Homer interference - not sure what the issue is here, he was an idiot, clear interference if you ask me. A Sharks fan might even go the extra mile and suggest he took a dive as well after skating around the pile.

[titanium2]

[donfishmaster]

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!)

[Namtaru]

- Homer interference - not sure what the issue is here, he was an idiot, clear interference if you ask me. A Sharks fan might even go the extra mile and suggest he took a dive as well after skating around the pile.

Here's my single beef with this play. Homer was doing that, the ENTIRE game in front of the net and it was never called. Both Homer and the San Jose players were battling, falling down, shoving each other.

The only difference here is that Nabby was 5 feet out of his crease getting in the way.

[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.

[zetterbergfan]

How about the fact that Z used his foot because he couldn't put his stick on the ice because he was being HOOKED under his forearm. Just sayin'

[donfishmaster]

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, 05 May 2010 - 12:05 PM.

[hockeynut]

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, 05 May 2010 - 12:25 PM.

[donfishmaster]

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??!!??

[UP Wings Fan]

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!

[donfishmaster]

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!
Fail!
FAIL!

[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

[donfishmaster]

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, 05 May 2010 - 01:00 PM.

[Wings_Fan_In_Exile]

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.

[Yak19]

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

[hockeynut]

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, 05 May 2010 - 01:27 PM.

[Wings_Fan_In_Exile]

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.

[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

[donfishmaster]

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.