Home HockeyBuzz Register Login
"As it Strikes Me"
Buffalo, NY • United States • 35 Years Old • Male
roccowrusso rwrusso

Kicking motion?

Posted 8:54 PM ET | Comments 8
Well, after yesterday's post and the absolute fiasco it turned into, I'm going to take my chances again with a reaction to an in-progress game. Ottawa-Pittsburgh, game 4. And Ottawa isn't getting much help from the refs. I try not to blame officiating for the outcome of games, but given the number of missed calls, I can understand the displeasure of the Ottawa fans. Maybe the telecast just isn't picking up the audio well enough, but it sounded like boos to me, and not obscenities being chanted. And I'd really like to see the NHL make a rule clarification that involves some common sense. That should be a goal. As the rules stand it's not. Not only was Vermette trying to kick it to his stick and not directly in, but he never got a chance to get his stick on the puck as he was chopped down. I don't want to allow all goals no matter how they go in; I think having skate blades kicking all around the crease is too big a danger and just not necessary. (Insert "hockey is a barbaric/neanderthal/tough sport" comment here.) What seems obvious to many people should be obvious to the refs and replay officials. Here's hoping.
Filed Under:   Ottawa   Pittsburgh   kicking motion  
April 16, 2008 10:22 PM ET | Delete
I don't have much of an issue with the non goal call. Regardless of his intent, the result was that he kicked the puck in. My biggest fear is, if you allow goals like that to stand, it'll create a mess of guys getting their sticks tied up by defenders and kicking the puck in. Granted, a lot of them won't count, but if they all get reviewed and argued over, it could be a huge clusterF. I suppose, I just don't weant to give any more discretion to the refs.
April 17, 2008 9:32 AM ET | Delete
It is what it is with the refs. They already decide more games with some of their phantom calls then they really should.
April 17, 2008 9:53 AM ET | Delete
I think kicking pucks in should be allowed and take away the speculation. When the puck is loose, players kick it all over the rink, but not into the net. Seems dumb. Plus it would increase scoring.
April 17, 2008 10:41 AM ET | Delete
I agree in thoery but as a rule, you need to draw a clear line. You cant interpret intention because it becomes a grey area, and goals need to be definite. So, the clear line is a kicking motin, regardless of intent.
April 17, 2008 10:55 AM ET | Delete
Regardless of whether there's a "clear" line or not it still gets screwed up. I agree that the less grey areas the better, but it'd be nice to see some hockey sense be used for when a guys stick is right there as well. Anyone involved with the game at that level can differentiate between a guy trying to make a skilled play from his skate to stick and someone actually kicking the puck with no chance of getting a stick on it.
April 17, 2008 11:06 AM ET | Delete
Intent with a kicing motion should not be factored in. He kicked the puck and it went into the net. Regardless of whether or not he *meant* to kick it up to his stick doesn't matter. He kicked the puck, it went it. It's against the rules, and until we have mind readers attending hockey games, this line is going to continue to be drawn. Everything looks different when you slow it down and take it out of context, look at the Pronger incident. Like I said, until we get some psychics to attend games, I don't see intent being factored in to kick plays like it is with injury plays. (Anyone else get the mental picture of Miss Cleo sitting in a box near the ice discussing questionable plays with the refs?)
April 17, 2008 11:10 AM ET | Delete
Besides that point. If he had managed to get the puck up to his stick without being held up, can you say one way or the other whether or not it would have gone in? Unless you've developed a wormhole that takes you into a parallel universe where that play occured, your answer is 'No'. Before you say that it should have been a goal because he meant to kick it up to his stick with a skilled play, ask yourself why he deserves the goal for that. Because he has the skill the kick a puck up to his stick? Everyone in the NHL has some kind of skill or they wouldn't be there, do they all deserve goals? Brendan Witt scores one goal a year, but he does his part in other ways. Yeah, there's easily a distinction between kicking the puck into the net and kicking it up to your stick and having a d-man hold you up and that puck going into the net, I get it, but the rules don't allow for the distinction, and they shouldn't at all. All this talk about questionable officiating and now you're calling out the refs for sticking to the guidelines of the rule that they have to work with. Make up your mind.
April 17, 2008 7:14 PM ET | Delete
Nothing will ever change on this because they wont want to set a precedent. It's not a question of slowing the game down it's just a simple question of putting some of the NHL's most valuable assets at risk... the goalies. Everybody thinks about how in this case or in that case it should count, but at the end of the day it's "we'll if vermette's counted from there..." All different players will be trying this from all different angles skilled players and goons alike. Is the goalie now gonna be confined to his crease as well when trying to cover the puck with his glove? They would almost have to for safety reasons. We have all seen goalies looking through legs in a scramble and trapping the puck with his glove. That happens in and out of the crease area. It wouldn't be a question of "if" but more "when" a goalie lost a finger or two to somebody trying to "bend" the rule. Some idiot like Boogaard would be impossible to handle and would probably relish in skating over luongo or kiprisoff's hand trying to score a judgement call goal. Who care's if it counts or not, job's done and now your facing the backup goaltender. This rule will NEVER change regardless of the fact that vermette's goal was harmless and could have counted.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment.