it hit the stick...more video voodoo
- bogiedoc

The puck changed direction, therefore it was not kicked into the net! What the F rule are they looking at?

it hit the stick...more video voodoo
- bogiedoc

what kills me is that the initial call on the ice was good goal. Nothing in the video showed that to be not the case. It showed a kicking motion, then the puck view being obscured by the goalies equipment, but the puck changed directions before we see it again over the goal line. there is no video evidence that we saw that showed the kicking motion driving the puck over the goal line before the puck changed direction. IMHO, that call should not have been overturned unless they see video that we don't.

The puck changed direction, therefore it was not kicked into the net! What the F rule are they looking at?
- powerenforcer

either off the stick or varlomov pushed it in or both...

what kills me is that the initial call on the ice was good goal. Nothing in the video showed that to be not the case. It showed a kicking motion, then the puck view being obscured by the goalies equipment, but the puck changed directions before we see it again over the goal line. there is no video evidence that we saw that showed the kicking motion driving the puck over the goal line before the puck changed direction. IMHO, that call should not have been overturned unless they see video that we don't.
- matt_ahrens

But again, it hit something before it went in the net, therefore the kicking of the puck is nullified. It never went in directly from the kick. And you wonder why the officiating sucks in this league, when they make a correct call the league screws it up. Why should the refs ever make a correct call?

But again, it hit something before it went in the net, therefore the kicking of the puck is nullified. It never went in directly from the kick. And you wonder why the officiatingg sucks in this league, when they make a correct call the league screws it up. Why should the refs ever make a correct call?
- powerenforcer

I don't believe so. If it hit his stick, that is fine, but if he kicks it into the goalie, it is no goal. I'm pretty certain that is the rule.

But again, it hit something before it went in the net, therefore the kicking of the puck is nullified. It never went in directly from the kick. And you wonder why the officiatingg sucks in this league, when they make a correct call the league screws it up. Why should the refs ever make a correct call?
- powerenforcer

No goal if it’s kicked in off of the goalie, which apparently was the ruling - looked like it hit Saad’s stick, but....

I don't believe so. If it hit his stick, that is fine, but if he kicks it into the goalie, it is no goal. I'm pretty certain that is the rule.
- breadbag

Think about that for a minute, if it is kicked into the goalie, it is not kicked into the net, therefore the kick is nullified. That is a deflection off the goalie.....

Think about that for a minute, if it is kicked into the goalie, it is not kicked into the net, therefore the kick is nullified. That is a deflection off the goalie.....
- powerenforcer

That is just semantics, it is the last touch by the attacking player that matters.

The great thing about the controversial call is it allows the Tin Foil hat to remain strong...

-no goal= the NHL hates the Hawks and wants them to lose
-goal=the NHL hates the Hawks and wants them to win so they lose draft position.

That is just semantics, it is the last touch by the attacking player that matters.
- breadbag

" Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately
batted with any part of the attacking player’s body. With the use of a
foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent
goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one
which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his
skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put
into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it
must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck,
after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and
then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. See also 49.2. "

I don't believe so. If it hit his stick, that is fine, but if he kicks it into the goalie, it is no goal. I'm pretty certain that is the rule.
- breadbag

I suppose that makes sense as a rule, but do they have video evidence that the puck went from Saad's skate to the goalie's equipment to in the goal without ever touching Saad's stick or are they just speculating based on what they can see on the video.

I suppose that makes sense as a rule, but do they have video evidence that the puck went from Saad's skate to the goalie's equipment to in the goal without ever touching Saad's stick or are they just speculating based on what they can see on the video.
- matt_ahrens

You are right, they must have somehow determined it didn't hit his stick I guess. I'm not sure.

The puck hit Saad's stick, though. Good goal. It was clear as day every time I watched the overhead replay. Toronto must be using the same iPad Minis the refs use. I am still angry about it.

The puck hit Saad's stick, though. Good goal.
- BDT36

I thought it hit the stick too, I'm not sure why they called that one off, but was just sharing the rule to clarify the situation if it didn't hit his stick. I thought the goal should have stood, unless they somehow can conclusively see that it didn't hit Saad's stick.

The puck hit Saad's stick, though. Good goal.
- BDT36

Well that was the call on the ice and they are telling me it was indisputable, it was obviously off the goalie not Saads stick and I say bull poop, call on the ice should of stood but you know this is the NHL where the refs forget what the actual rules are

" Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot or deliberately
batted with any part of the attacking player’s body. With the use of a
foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent
goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one
which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his
skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put
into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it
must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck,
after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and
then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. See also 49.2. "
- breadbag

The problem is that just because that rule exits you cannot just arbitrarily use it. It was just like the game against Min where the offside was waved off because of the rule, if a defending player has control and brings the puck back into the zone, the offensive player is not offside, Seabrook never had control.

I thought it hit the stick too, I'm not sure why they called that one off, but was just sharing the rule to clarify the situation if it didn't hit his stick. I thought the goal should have stood, unless they somehow can conclusively see that it didn't hit Saad's stick.
- breadbag

Good to know if it hits someone else on the way in it is still no goal. I honestly did not know that. I do not know what they were seeing to overturn the call on the ice, though. WGN was showing the correct angle in my mind. Ref should have at least explained what caused the puck to clearly change direction at the goal line though. It would have to be Varlamov, but they never even said anything about it.

The problem is that just because that rule exits you cannot just arbitrarily use it. It was just like the game against Min where the offside was waved off because of the rule, if a defending player has control and brings the puck back into the zone, the offensive player is not offside, Seabrook never had control.
- powerenforcer

Oh, I'm not saying they don't screw up their implementation of the rules at times and I thought this goal should have stood. I also thought the call on Seabrook sliding on his back was BS.

Many, many good chances but Varly!!

You know when Murphy starts looking good he does dumb poop. That last shift completely abandoned the front of the net to help Keith along the boards WTF, got away with a terrible mistake

Many, many good chances but Varly!!
- breadbag

many good chances are MTN (miss the net)

You know when Murphy starts looking good he does dumb poop. That last shift completely abandoned the front of the net to help Keith along the boards WTF, got away with a terrible mistake
- BetweenTheDots

Wasn't a fan of that penalty he took where the Avs scored either.

I thought it hit the stick too, I'm not sure why they called that one off, but was just sharing the rule to clarify the situation if it didn't hit his stick. I thought the goal should have stood, unless they somehow can conclusively see that it didn't hit Saad's stick.
- breadbag

probably because the NHL loves the Blackhawks and wants them to lose in order to get the top pick in the draft so they get better ratings for next season's stadium series game against Boston.

Many, many good chances but Varly!!
- breadbag

It would help if they could hit a top corner once in a while, not just the Russians chest.

Teach ‘em about Wee Willie Keeler - hit’em where they ain’t.

Wasn't a fan of that penalty he took where the Avs scored either.
- breadbag

You mean the tackle, yeah there's that to