Jump to content

Simmonds Non Goal


King Knut

Recommended Posts

Would be a lot easier to swallow if the exact same play hadn't been deemed a good goal by Toronto last week.

Just some consistency is all I ask. Just so players know what the hell they're allowed to do and what they're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be a lot easier to swallow if the exact same play hadn't been deemed a good goal by Toronto last week.

Just some consistency is all I ask. Just so players know what the hell they're allowed to do and what they're not.

I must not have seen the one in Toronto you are referring to so i can't comment on that one.

Simmer's looks like he was deflecting it out to his stick sure his foot moved slightly but i didn't think it looked like a distinct kicking motion from the angle i seen in fact i didn't even see the actually contact.

Oh well....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is kicking illegal in Hockey anyways is there even a reason? I can kick it to a player or use my foot to redirect but I can't just directly kick it into goal despite that method being significantly slower method of scoring than with the stick in my hands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is kicking illegal in Hockey anyways is there even a reason? I can kick it to a player or use my foot to redirect but I can't just directly kick it into goal despite that method being significantly slower method of scoring than with the stick in my hands?

I've always wondered that myself. This is a reach, I think, but just throwing it out there: do you suppose it is an attempt to keep people from kicking around with skate blades while there is a goalie flailing around on the ice? Like a safety thing or something? No idea. But otherwise, I'm not sure why it's a big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered that myself. This is a reach, I think, but just throwing it out there: do you suppose it is an attempt to keep people from kicking around with skate blades while there is a goalie flailing around on the ice? Like a safety thing or something? No idea. But otherwise, I'm not sure why it's a big deal.

 

I suspect that is a big reason. I still think there's a better compromise to be found than what we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is kicking illegal in Hockey anyways is there even a reason? I can kick it to a player or use my foot to redirect but I can't just directly kick it into goal despite that method being significantly slower method of scoring than with the stick in my hands?

To protect goalies from a holes like Marchand who would attack the goalie like he was trying to sever his limbs. I am pretty sure it is to prevent injuries in or around the crease.

 

 

Edit...I need to finish reading threads before I comment and look like a worse goober than I am.......lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is kicking illegal in Hockey anyways is there even a reason? I can kick it to a player or use my foot to redirect but I can't just directly kick it into goal despite that method being significantly slower method of scoring than with the stick in my hands?

 

It's not just hockey....you can't kick a base hit, you can't kick a touchdown, you can't kick a basket. Kicking is allowed in some of those sports, just not for scoring (other than field goals). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is kicking illegal in Hockey anyways is there even a reason? I can kick it to a player or use my foot to redirect but I can't just directly kick it into goal despite that method being significantly slower method of scoring than with the stick in my hands?

 

So simple, but also a really good fu-king point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must not have seen the one in Toronto you are referring to so i can't comment on that one.

Simmer's looks like he was deflecting it out to his stick sure his foot moved slightly but i didn't think it looked like a distinct kicking motion from the angle i seen in fact i didn't even see the actually contact.

Oh well....

Sort that was confusing. I apologize. The goal j. Question wasn't against Toronto, I forget who we were playing, but it was basically the same kind f goal. Pass in front to Wayne whose stick was tied up so he used his foot to stop the pass and tried to direct it to his stick which he couldn't get to the puck fast enough, but it went in anyway.

Last week a goal because I think the ruling was that it was clear he wasn't trying to score off his foot. Last night not a goal because... I guess he kicked a little more?

Personally I think it's either all got to be legal or. One of it can be legal. Either no luck that touches a foot last before entering the net is a goal or they all are. I'd actually prefer it be none as opposed to all... But I'd settle for some uniformity from night to night.

Clearly Wayne wasn't trying to score with his foot. He was clearly trying to direct to get his stick in it. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just hockey....you can't kick a base hit, you can't kick a touchdown, you can't kick a basket. Kicking is allowed in some of those sports, just not for scoring (other than field goals). 

 

Baseball it makes sense, I touch the ball, I'm out.

 

Football you can't advance the ball by deliberate kicking, but if I accidental kick it 20 yards and someone scoops it up there they don't immediately flag me, they just call the play dead and the recovering team gets the ball. Basketball is really the only example here I'd agree with, all instances of a kicked ball are called dead intentional or unintentional and I imagine it's solely for the fact that it'd be really hard to stop steve nash from dribbling the ball if he didn't have to bounce it.

 

 

To protect goalies from a holes like Marchand who would attack the goalie like he was trying to sever his limbs. I am pretty sure it is to prevent injuries in or around the crease.

 

 

Edit...I need to finish reading threads before I comment and look like a worse goober than I am.......lol

 

I've always wondered that myself. This is a reach, I think, but just throwing it out there: do you suppose it is an attempt to keep people from kicking around with skate blades while there is a goalie flailing around on the ice? Like a safety thing or something? No idea. But otherwise, I'm not sure why it's a big deal.

 

 

Both of these make the same point, but honestly there is a huge difference between making a dangerous play and simply controlling the puck around the goal. Using your blades maliciously or carelessly should be an immediate misconduct, using your blade to sweep a goal home should be completely legal, especially when not a single limb of the goalie is anywhere near your feet and your "distinct kicking motion" results in your feet moving away from the goalie rather than towards.

 

You can clearly tell an accident like Clint Marlachuk vs Chris Simon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always wondered that myself. This is a reach, I think, but just throwing it out there: do you suppose it is an attempt to keep people from kicking around with skate blades while there is a goalie flailing around on the ice? Like a safety thing or something? No idea. But otherwise, I'm not sure why it's a big deal.

 

Without knowing the real full reason, I'd go with this.

Makes sense to me.

 

Can you imagine...... players crash the net, puck is loose, sticks are tied up...and three or four players are trying to kick away at the puck while the goalie is trying to smother it.

Bad things there.

 

And not just the goalie.

I can see errant kicks catching other players with skate blades in assorted lower body areas too.

 

If kicking isn't allowed around the goal crease for those reasons then those are reasons that SHOULD be driving the 'no kicking in pucks' rule.

 

Sure, plays like the Simmonds non goal and others aren't to the extreme that I described, but guartanteed if you made kicked-in goals legal, then things will get out of hand quickly and you WILL have dangerous situations arise regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd imagine it's simply a "nature of the game" rule. Much as you can't smack the puck in with your hand or head it in. The game is meant to be played with a stick. While the puck glancing off a body part and going in is OK, the player can't actively try to use anything but his stick to put the puck in the net. The "kicking motion" is probably just where they felt one could start defining intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A definition of Blatant is "completely lacking in subtlety; very obvious."  I don't know why you add that word to the rules instead of just "kicking motion" and then call Simmonds play a non-goal.  IMHO is wasn't BLATANT but indeed a kicking motion in that his foot moved forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without knowing the real full reason, I'd go with this.

Makes sense to me.

 

Can you imagine...... players crash the net, puck is loose, sticks are tied up...and three or four players are trying to kick away at the puck while the goalie is trying to smother it.

Bad things there.

 

And not just the goalie.

I can see errant kicks catching other players with skate blades in assorted lower body areas too.

 

If kicking isn't allowed around the goal crease for those reasons then those are reasons that SHOULD be driving the 'no kicking in pucks' rule.

 

Sure, plays like the Simmonds non goal and others aren't to the extreme that I described, but guartanteed if you made kicked-in goals legal, then things will get out of hand quickly and you WILL have dangerous situations arise regularly.

 

Exactly.  In all those other sports, it's a lot harder to kill someone with your foot than it is in hockey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A definition of Blatant is "completely lacking in subtlety; very obvious." I don't know why you add that word to the rules instead of just "kicking motion" and then call Simmonds play a non-goal. IMHO is wasn't BLATANT but indeed a kicking motion in that his foot moved forward.

Because they didn't. The word is actually "distinct."

Distinct: readily distinguishable by the senses.

Distinct kicking motion is readily seen. That's all. And the distinction is that the kick directs the puck toward the net.

Blatant is something else and not used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they didn't. The word is actually "distinct."

Distinct: readily distinguishable by the senses.

Distinct kicking motion is readily seen. That's all. And the distinction is that the kick directs the puck toward the net.

Blatant is something else and not used.

 

Exactly.

"Blatant" has more negative connotations.

 

Such as, "Brad Marchand is a blatant rat with his play; there is no question who the agitator on the Bruins is".

Notice, it is never said Marchand is a 'distinct' rat....that would be too kind...but rather he is a 'blatant' one. ;)

 

The kicking motion was not blatant, but rather distinct and I believe the rules, like you said, are pretty specific on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

"Blatant" has more negative connotations.

Such as, "Brad Marchand is a blatant rat with his play; there is no question who the agitator on the Bruins is".

Notice, it is never said Marchand is a 'distinct' rat....that would be too kind...but rather he is a 'blatant' one. ;)

The kicking motion was not blatant, but rather distinct and I believe the rules, like you said, are pretty specific on that.

Are you aware that you have agreed with me twice in the same thread?

Be afraid. Be distinctly or blatantly afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...