It all seemed to be in place. The Rangers had a 2-0 lead and appeared to be in control of the game. Then, in a heartbeat, it all turned, as a call that many us believe was blown again - and one that despite the constant consternation over it, as it may be one of the most subjective ones in the rule books - turned the tide. Of course, that was just the tip of the iceberg, as a pair of bad goals allowed Henrik Lundqvist resulted in a 4-3 OT loss and another second period lead blown. But in the grand scheme of things, all of that pales to the potential concussion suffered by Marc Staal in the third period. Plus, when you take all this into account, the incidents in Pittsburgh-Boston game make all of this inconsequential.

Game Lowlights:



The Rangers led 1-0 after one, on a beautiful goal by Brad Richards early in the period, and extended it to 2-0 on a marker by Mats Zuccarello off a rebound from a blast from Ryan Callahan. Then the ode turned. The Rangers got caught pinching and Tim Sestito took a shot that Lundqvist allowed a big rebound that Cam Janssen put in - or did he?

Janssen Goal:



Even though we have read this rule more so than we ever care to, here is rule 49.2

Rule 49: Kicking

49.1 Kicking – The action of a player deliberately using his skate(s) with a kicking motion to propel the puck or to contact an opponent.

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.

(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.

This is the fourth time the season that the Rangers have been hurt by a no-goal, goal called on a kicking motion. Against NY, Alex Galchenyuk was awarded a goal having used his skate in a similar way to Miller's and Janssen's, yet that one was also allowed. Below are videos of two of them, the JT Miller and Dominic Moore overturned ones.

In my opinion, the Miller one is very similar to the Janssen one. The ruling on the Miller goal was as follows: From the NHL Situation Room blog, “At 5:36 of the third period in the Rangers/Flyers game, video review determined that J.T. Miller propelled the puck into the net with a distinct kicking motion. According to Rule 49.2 “A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net.”. No goal New York Rangers.”

Miller Goal (go to 3:22 mark on video):


Here is what I wrote at the time and what I still believe: "From the replay, and I have watched it several times, it looks like Miller is making a skating motion and not a kicking one. The rule is it has to be distinctive and it should have to be incontrovertible to overturn the call on the ice, which which was a goal. I don't think this was the case here, which was a huge turning point obviously in the 2-1 loss."

Moore Goal:


This one was more clearcut in terms of a kicking motion to be overturned.

Once again, the inconsistency of the NHL when calling these goals/no-goals has us in a frenzy. When the Miller goal was disallowed, the conversation has centered around whether goals put in via a kicking motion should count in general, should it matter if it was deflected in first, which as was pointed out in the blog, still wouldn't count per the rule, and should it matter if the kicking motion came inside or outside the crease. With the NHL looking to stimulate the game and boost goal-scoring, I am a bit unsure why a goal via kicking motion shouldn't be allowed, save for the possible safety issue, and can we at least define or have some consistency as to what is defined as a kicking motion versus a skating one? I can understand not allowing it in the crease due to the potential for injury given all the bodies there, but you can also tweak the rule so that if the skate comes off the ice, the goal is disallowed, but if remains on the ice with a kicking motion, it counts.

The Janssen goal appeared to exactly the same as the Miller one which was disallowed. One could make the argument that Janssen turned his skate to try and control the puck and maybe tip it to his stick, but it seems to be clear as day that the turning of the skate as he went to the net is what deflected the puck and should be viewed as a distinct kicking motion. Plus, Dave Maloney in between the periods hypothesized that because the call on the ice was so vociferous that the NHL was reluctant to overturn it. If that is the case, the league should be embarrassed more so by that than just getting the call wrong.

Henrik Lundqvist:

I discussed first goal above and you can say the second goal was just good work by Jaromir Jagr holding off Ryan McDonagh and poor defensive zone coverage by the Rangers, allowing Travis Zajac to get wide-open in front of the net, which is on Boyle and D Moore. But the third and fourth goals last night are on Lundqvist.

On the first, he was beaten five hole by Michael Ryder on a shot that absolutely has to be saved. Not as if he was in the slot or that close to the goal, meaning that Lundqvist has to squeeze the pads there. John Moore was undressed by Ryder, giving him a clear shot, but it came from a distance where the save must be made. On the second, yes, Eric Gelinas can blast the puck. But like the goal by Zdeno Chara where Lundqvist guessed wrong, I wonder if the same thing happened here.

Lundqvist is still struggling with goals over the glove. Against Boston, he was cheating to protect that and was beaten low. Here, it may have been the same thing, where he was so concerned about top-shelf that when the shot came low to the glove side, he didn't react quick enough. That's a shot he has to save. Granted, it was a stupid penalty by Ryan Callahan and the Rangers once again blew a 2-1 lead heading into the third for the second time in a little over a week, but Lundqvist has to make that save, regardless if he is a $59.5 million or $5.95 goalie.

Marc Staal Injury:



Unfortunately, the loss falls to the wayside in importance due to the likely concussion suffered by Staal. In this case, it was a hockey play, just like the hit by Eric Staal that gave him the first concussion of his career. In this case, Staal was trying to play the puck and Reid Boucher hit him in his chest but the shoulder caught his chin.

Right away, you knew it wasn't good as Staal was writhing on the ice. When he finally got to his feet and went off the ice, he threw his helmet in the tunnel, evidencing his frustration. Despite his recent struggles with puck possession, which were evident Saturday, as he missed a perfect cross-ice pass on a pinch that would have led to a close-in shot and had two bad icings, Staal was still a top-four d-man seeing major minutes. He was working his way back from missing 63 of 130 games the past two regular seasons, so his loss could be huge to a defense whose play on the ice have not matched their names or salary.

Now what? For tonight at least, I would expect Michael Del Zotto, who was a healthy scratch Saturday, to get back in the lineup. Moore probably moves up to play with Anton Stralman while Justin Falk gets paired again with MDZ. Personally, I would like to see Conor Allen, who scored yesterday and has played well in the minors and Dylan McIlrath, to bring a physical presence get called up. Play Allen with Stralman, pair McIlrath with Falk or Moore and see what those can bring to the lineup.

The team as a whole was not great. After the Janssen goal, they lost focus and all the momentum they had built up the first 26 minutes of the game. Kreider, Zucc and Richards played well, Miller provided energy on the third line, but the remainder of the squad was average at best. When they were up 2-0, you have to put the hammer down, especially when facing a team that had played the night before, was on their 11th game in 18 nights and was having goal-scoring issues. In addition, the inability to keep leads after two periods is growing more than disconcerting. The loss to Boston after being up 2-1 going into the third. Giving up two third period goals to Florida to make a 3-0 bulge only 3-2. Then this loss. Maybe the d-zone coverage needs tightening rather than just allowing the blueliners to pinch relatively at will.

Thornton/Neal/Orpik/Eriksson:

Another black eye on the NHL. I can understand Boston being upset after Brooks Orpik's hit on Loui Eriksson, given Eriksson's concussion history. To me, the hit looked like the one on Staal - clean but with intended consequences, as Eriksson may have suffered another concussion.

Shawn Thornton tried to engage Orpik in a fight, and maybe just maybe, the later incident doesn't happen, but that's a convenient excuse and doesn't come close to excuse what happened down the road.



To me, just as bad as what happened between those two was the hit by James Neal on Brad Marchand. It sure looked like Neal purposely targeted his head with his knee when he went past him. Neal, who is a repeat offender, will only have a phone hearing. That is ridiculous. He went after a player on the ice, targeting his head with his knee. He deserves double-digit games off for that.

Unfortunately, that was just the appetizer to the entree of disgust in that sequence. Thornton came down the ice, threw Orpike down and started pounding on him. I have seen and heard some compared this to the Steve Moore-Todd Bertuzzi incident, but Thornton didn't hit him from behind and drive his head into the ice. That said, Thorntom deserves a major suspension. I understand Thornton being annoyed. I understand him wanting a shot at Orpik, who turned down a shot to fight. Maybe his emotions got the better of him seeing what happened to Eriksson and Marchand but you need to be in better control of those emotions on the ice. If Thornton doesn't get at lest a 12-to-15 game suspension, Brandan Shanahan should hand in his resignation on the shot as the role has no teeth and control over what is going on in the game.

Join the Discussion: » 590 Comments » Post New Comment

» Game 2: Rangers hold on for 4-3 win and 2-0 series lead

» Game 1: Rangers hold serve at home 4-1 over Caps behind the fourth line

» 2024 Series Overview and Preview - Round 1 - Rangers-Capitals

» Rangers-Capitals: Reading the Numbers, Looking for an Advantage

» Rangers-Capitals meet again, though for first time since 2015, in playoffs