Bad Luck or Incredible Skill

[hf101]

Stars Roussel scores one of the most unusual goals I've ever seen. I'm not sure Toronto got this one right as the call on the ice was no goal.  I think if Roussel made the same motion with his foot in front of the net the call would have been that this was a no goal.

 

 

[pilldoc]

ok..WOW...35+ years of watching hockey...I have never and I mean NEVER have seen anything like that before.  I call it one of those fluky plays.  We will never know Roussels  intent because who tries to score by going over the net.  Agree, in front of the net I think it is no goal.  Back of net...new territory.  Here is the official rule....

 

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 with his skate/foot.  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.
(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.
(iv) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after deflecting off an attacking player's skate
or deflects off his skate while he is in the process of stopping.

 

So the question again boils down did he try to stop the puck with his skate and it deflected in or was he willing trying to "kick" the puck into the net vial the back of the net off the goalie?

 

To me it looks like a deflection BUT you ask 100 hockey fans (excluding Dallas and Minny fans) and I bet you it would come close to a 50/50 vote.  That certainly is a tough one for Minny to swallow.

 

 

 

[AJgoal]

To me, the question revolves more around the net being off than kicking. Seems like the net was well off before the puck actually falls between Dubnyk and the crossbar.

[SpikeDDS]

VEEERY interesting interpretation here. It seems they are adding intent into the rule, and the wording of the rule kind of allows for it.

 

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 with his skate/foot.  A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.

 

The underlined clause is the one that is being loosely interpreted to include intent. Roussel was not really trying to propel the puck into the net, even though there WAS a distinct kicking motion that actually DID propel the puck into the net. So by making the ruling this way, they are saying this clause is about BOTH intent and result, and not just result.

 

My thoughts:

 

1. I would not have interpreted it this way if I was in the situation room. I very likely would have deemed that a distinct kicking motion that did, indeed, propel the puck into the net, even if it was not intended to do so.

 

2. I have no problem with Toronto interpreting the rule this way ON THIS GOAL, SO LONG AS THEY ARE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO INTERPRET AND ENFORCE THE RULE THE SAME WAY CONSISTENTLY MOVING FORWARD! Allows for more goals to be scored.

 

3. But I seriously question Toronto's ability to determine intent in the future in other scenarios. This particular goal was an example that was pretty obvious that the intent was not to propel the puck into the net, but I'm concerned about the ones that aren't so clear cut. What will Toronto do when there is a kick in front of the net that, say, looks as though it is meant for the stick, but it ricochets off of an opposing player into the net. What do you do with that, now? Because the intent was not to propel the puck into the net? According to this interpretation of the rule, that should ALSO count. But will it? Probably not.

 

The purpose of this rule is to distinguish what IS a goal and what is NOT a goal. This interpretation makes that distinction cloudier. Now, it's no longer just the rule that determines what happens. It is also what Toronto THINKS at the moment. Is the guy looking at this in Toronto in a good mood? Has he gotten laid recently? If an interpretation of a rule allows the fact that a guy in Toronto did or did not get some last night to influence a call on the ice about whether or not a goal is scored in a hockey game, then I am against such an interpretation. (And for hockey's sake, ladies, let's make sure that the guys in Toronto are in proper moods for making these important calls shall we? And while we are at it, we should be able to think about this correctly also. And just so you don't feel this is one-sided @TropicalFruitGirl26 and other ladies on the forum, if you need me to speak to your husbands/boyfriends about this, I can speak to him for the good of hockey! ;-P )

 

4. Overall, I really don't like this interpretation, because it gives Toronto too much leniency for determining intent i.e. what was the player trying to do. I don't trust Toronto--or just about anyone else for that matter--to be able to properly determine what was going on in a player's head in the moment that they used their skate in a distinct kicking motion to be able to get this right. I like objectivity, and would have preferred to let this rule be based solely on the result. If a distinct kicking motion is used, and the puck ends up in the net, whether the player intended to propel it into the net would not matter. No goal.

[JR Ewing]

17 hours ago, AJgoal said:

To me, the question revolves more around the net being off than kicking. Seems like the net was well off before the puck actually falls between Dubnyk and the crossbar.

 

Well sure, but Dubnyk's the one that shoved the net off its moorings anyway (even though I think he was just trying to close off the space between his back and the bar).

 

[SpikeDDS]

1 hour ago, JR Ewing said:

 

Well sure, but Dubnyk's the one that shoved the net off its moorings anyway (even though I think he was just trying to close off the space between his back and the bar).

 

But I think Dubnyk knocked it off himself. You can't do that just to avoid a goal being scored.

[AJgoal]

Sure you can. But you take a delay of game penalty if it's intentional.

 

Rule 63.6—In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.

 

In this case, it didn't cross between the normal position. The puck and crossbar were pushed back beyond the goal line, allowing the puck to enter from a position in space where it normally wouldn't be able to.

 

ETA: In addition, in order for this to be permitted, the puck has to have been shot, or a player must be in the act of shooting the puck before the displacement occurs. In this case, there was no "shot."

[JR Ewing]

1 hour ago, SpikeDDS said:

But I think Dubnyk knocked it off himself. You can't do that just to avoid a goal being scored.

 

Well, that was my point.