But apparently Gary Buttchump can change them as he pleases:
Quote:
49.2 Goals - Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.
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. The following should clarify deflections following a kicked puck that enters the goal:
(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.
(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal. Any time the puck has been kicked, makes contact with any stick, and then deflects off any player (excluding the goalkeeper) into the net, it will be ruled a good goal.
(iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.
A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line.
I highly doubt Gary Bettman was watching, let alone making the decisions. Everyone knows he goes to bed, along with all of the Eastern journalists, before the West games even start.
But to me, it was clearly a kicking motion, perhaps not the most traditional, but without a doubt he intended to do it.
And you know how you can tell? There was no argument at all from anyone on the team.
Clear kicking motion? Come on yume, take off your flame glasses for a moment and look at it objectively.
When have you ever "kicked" anything like that. It has to be a distinct kicking motion, and I don't care how much you love the flames... there was nothing distinct about it. The fact that it has become such an issue proves there was nothing distinct about it.
Just more typical anadian teams getting the ol FU from the league office. I thought after your little crease incident in the 04 finals you would be well aware of the issue.
I'm not saying the call caused the game, all I'm saying is that it was the wrong call.
And also that Bettman is part of a global conspiracy to suppress Canadian teams and allow 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 southern markets to win games to build the fan base.
Seriously though according to the rule it doesn't matter if he intentionally "directed" it in. The rule clearly states the puck has to be put in with a "distinct kicking motion" which it clearly was not.
The call sucked, but the Canucks played a lousy game. They simply didn't deserve to win it. I suppose it's worth arguing about, and who knows whether it could have impacted the rest of the game, but in the end it wasn't what sunk the Canucks.
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.
Vancouver lost because their penalty killing is really really bad. And they stopped playing in the 2nd. But that call was just plain wrong, and for the NHL to come out with a comment like that is a slap in the face to fans.
Vancouver lost because their penalty killing is really really bad. And they stopped playing in the 2nd. But that call was just plain wrong, and for the NHL to come out with a comment like that is a slap in the face to fans.
Exactly my thoughts...
__________________ Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...
I am sorry it bothers you so much when someone brings the obvious to your attention: using the same person to sing the anthem (a song which has the potential for a variety of beautiful interpretations) year after year, without any variation, can get a little stale and that some new musical talent from time to time might be nice.
Donnelly has had a good run and entertained us all for many, many years. As charming and beloved as Donnelly's shtick has been, he has had his time. There really is no need to get so bothered by the prospect of change. It is healthy and offers new, exciting possibilities. Maybe we will even win the Stanley Cup for a change.
Year after year? A good run? Donnelly has only been singing the anthem for around 10 years. "A good run" is what Richard Loney did for 30 years. I can't remember anyone ever demanding a change from Loney, and Donnelly is definitely his superior. I'm surprised to hear you calling for Donnelly's head after "only" 10 years.
vancouver played like bums half the time, and lost. if they play to their ability in the next game, they'll tie up the series and we'll see a great game 5. i have to imagine that these guys feel more annoyed than anyone at their gaffes and, personally, i still have faith that they'll pull out the series (unlike my beloved habs where one has the ominous sense that the slaughter is just beginning). vancouver is a skilled team, maybe it's poor conditioning? a tendency to panic? a lack of heart? i don't know, but there's something that keeps these guys from playing with even basic consistency. it's aggravating for the long-suffering fan, as i'm sure we all know, the one constant.
Prev
Not that it matters. Try working on the PK before you worry about iffy calls.
Linear Mode
