Well . . who the Hell was I thinking of? I must have referenced the same list twice! I was surprised he was paid that much, and then I was surprised that he'd won a Norris. Campbell was . . . basically Brian McCabe.
- Monkeypunk

Brent Burns winning for being a 4th forward was pretty egregious. He is and was DOOOOOOGpoop at defense. Guy could score and hit like a truck, but (frank) he was a lost turnstile out there.

The rule is even worse, then.

Distinct kicking motion is in the rule, but they'll straight up ignore it.

Like I said, inconsistencies. The league needs to fix it.
- GreatGigInTheSky

Leafs43 posted the rule.

It says the puck needs to be “propelled” by the kick or it will just be considered a deflection.

Like I said, unless the puck is barely moving it will never be considered a kick.

Brent Burns winning for being a 4th forward was pretty egregious. He is and was DOOOOOOGpoop at defense. Guy could score and hit like a truck, but (frank) he was a lost turnstile out there.
- AdamFrench

Not surprising when the NHL is trying to promote more goal scoring as much as possible tho.

I would 100% agree with you. Except the NHL has created their own definition for "distinct kicking motion"

According to the NHL rule book, Rule 37.4, a “distinct kicking motion” will be deemed no-goal.

Plays that involve a puck entering the net as a direct result of a “distinct kicking motion” shall be ruled NO GOAL. A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net

That whole "propelled" thing basically means that the puck needs to not be moving, or moving very slowly prior to being kicked in order to fit into their definition of "distinct kicking motion"
- Leafs43

pro·pel
/prəˈpel/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: propelled; past participle: propelled; adjective: -propelled

drive, push, or cause to move in a particular direction, typically forward.

_____________________

So it's all stemming on an incorrect definition of propel.

Puck was going one way and he kicked it and propelled it in a completely different direction into the net.

According to the words definition, what he did propelled the puck into the net. So, yeah, no goal.

Just watched it for the first time.

I would have refused that goal if I was reffing.

But that's just me.
- Scabeh

I mean, he didn't bend it like Beckham but it was pretty close

I would 100% agree with you. Except the NHL has created their own definition for "distinct kicking motion"

According to the NHL rule book, Rule 37.4, a “distinct kicking motion” will be deemed no-goal.

Plays that involve a puck entering the net as a direct result of a “distinct kicking motion” shall be ruled NO GOAL. A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net

That whole "propelled" thing basically means that the puck needs to not be moving, or moving very slowly prior to being kicked in order to fit into their definition of "distinct kicking motion"
- Leafs43

I hate the rule, but I have to agree with this ^^:

Ultimately, the puck didn't have enough inertia to enter the net on it's own without a kick from the player.

It's dumb af.

Back in the 70s when the world was better because parents were beating their children and toys were designed to cause permanent injury, I swear if the puck went off a skate it wasn't a goal. I think this was changed in the mid-90s. I'm still not even sure they should have changed it then. The game is played with a hockey stick for a reason. That said, other sports (like Lacrosse) do allow kicking. I could just be old and cranky.

Sure find the one weird rule I mentioned that is insanely true! lol

So why don't more guys do it then? lol
- Cush29

it's hard to do something accidentally on purpose and score

pro·pel
/prəˈpel/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: propelled; past participle: propelled; adjective: -propelled

drive, push, or cause to move in a particular direction, typically forward.

_____________________

So it's all stemming on an incorrect definition of propel.

Puck was going one way and he kicked it and propelled it in a completely different direction into the net.

According to the words definition, what he did propelled the puck into the net. So, yeah, no goal.
- GreatGigInTheSky

I blame Marner

pro·pel
/prəˈpel/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: propelled; past participle: propelled; adjective: -propelled

drive, push, or cause to move in a particular direction, typically forward.

_____________________

So it's all stemming on an incorrect definition of propel.

Puck was going one way and he kicked it and propelled it in a completely different direction into the net.

According to the words definition, what he did propelled the puck into the net. So, yeah, no goal.
- GreatGigInTheSky

It should not have counted.. It was pretty obvious, it was intentional.

I blame Marner
- Canada Cup

Brent Burns winning for being a 4th forward was pretty egregious. He is and was DOOOOOOGpoop at defense. Guy could score and hit like a truck, but (frank) he was a lost turnstile out there.
- AdamFrench

His beard will be in the hall of fame - along with all the Kit Kats stuck in there.

I hate the rule, but I have to agree with this ^^:

Ultimately, the puck didn't have enough inertia to enter the net on it's own without a kick from the player.

It's dumb af.

Back in the 70s when the world was better because parents were beating their children and toys were designed to cause permanent injury, I swear if the puck went off a skate it wasn't a goal. I think this was changed in the mid-90s. I'm still not even sure they should have changed it then. The game is played with a hockey stick for a reason. That said, other sports (like Lacrosse) do allow kicking. I could just be old and cranky.
- Monkeypunk

it's hard to do something accidentally on purpose and score
- TheMussel

Listen there is no place for logic or reason in this argument or on the Hockey Buzz board at all !!!!

It should not have counted.. It was pretty obvious, it was intentional.
- PatC80

Absolutely

pro·pel
/prəˈpel/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: propelled; past participle: propelled; adjective: -propelled

drive, push, or cause to move in a particular direction, typically forward.

_____________________

So it's all stemming on an incorrect definition of propel.

Puck was going one way and he kicked it and propelled it in a completely different direction into the net.

According to the words definition, what he did propelled the puck into the net. So, yeah, no goal.
- GreatGigInTheSky

You’re misreading that.

If it meant what you think it wouldn’t say “cause to move” it would say “redirect”.

“Cause to move” means it wasn’t moving in the first place.

No more victory laps for guys like Leetch or Lindros.. I hope those days are behind us... No more Joe Thornton signings either
- PatC80

Leetch blew a tire, allowing Roenick to score.

I will always hate Brian Leetch.

I think the Matthews deal is ok; it's definitely not a bargain. Yes, it's very high, but he's just won the Rocket Richard at 23. If you adjust for era, he's scored more goals by 23 than Ovechkin had; you could legitimately argue that Ovi played one less season, but they've played almost the same number of games. Matthews makes 14.6% of the cap; Ovi made 18.96% on his post-ELC deal (over 13 years). There have been other guys who've won it early (Stamkos @ 19 & 21; Nash @ 19; Kovalchuk @ 20; Crosby and Ovi @ 22, and last year Pastrnak @ 23) and they've typically been rewarded if they were on expiring deals - like Stamkos who earned 11.66%, but I always take Tampa comparables with a grain of salt - it would have been 15% in most any other market.

If they had paid Matthews over the full 8 year period, the cap hit would have been between $12.5 - $13m - still lower than McDavid's hit % - and the Leafs couldn't afford that extra cap cost.

So your point is taken. We all feel the deal should have been longer, but they were pretty transparent about why it wasn't at the time.

The Marner deal is bad. His poor playoff performance subsequently coupled with his poor start to the season isn't helping perceptions any.
- Monkeypunk

With Matthews it's not the money. It's the five year term. He absolutely took Dubas to the woodshed.

They need to take the stupid rule out of the game. The "safety" argument made sense in the days of bad equipment. If you score you score. Simple as if you slam your ass into the puck or headbutt it in. I'm fine with the high stick rule, but could be convinced against it as wel.
- AdamFrench

You actually can't headbutt it in.

No goal.

https://www.nhl.com/news/...e-but-disallowed/c-768243

I hate the rule, but I have to agree with this ^^:

Ultimately, the puck didn't have enough inertia to enter the net on it's own without a kick from the player.

It's dumb af.

Back in the 70s when the world was better because parents were beating their children and toys were designed to cause permanent injury, I swear if the puck went off a skate it wasn't a goal. I think this was changed in the mid-90s. I'm still not even sure they should have changed it then. The game is played with a hockey stick for a reason. That said, other sports (like Lacrosse) do allow kicking. I could just be old and cranky.
- Monkeypunk

Is the rule not "distinct kicking motion"?

Because again, it's distinct. It's a straight up soccer kick.
- GreatGigInTheSky

I’m with you on this one. I think it was definitely a kick, not a redirection.

It should not have counted.. It was pretty obvious, it was intentional.
- PatC80

It has been a goal for years...

We can argue the definition of propel and kicking. But the precedent is that this goal counts.

This is one of the few areas the NHL is actually pretty consistent on I find.

You’re misreading that.

If it meant what you think it wouldn’t say “cause to move” it would say “redirect”.

“Cause to move” means it wasn’t moving in the first place.
- Dozzer

I think the argument to that, is the puck was not going in the direction of the net.. It was Tierney's skate that caused the puck to move in the direction of the net

Matthews shouldnt be paid what mcd is. Hes simply not at his level. His current cap hit would have been great for 8 years, not 5.
Marner is overpaid by 1million, however, his camp wanted to recoup the bonus money Lou screwed him out of. But dubie was expecting the cap to rise so he didnt mind getting bent over.
- Fakepartofme

Yep.

The game will evolve soon. Simmonds and Bunting will switch their skates for the PP and put on 24" blades. Stand at the far side of the net in a ballet pose (my daughter would call that 1st position) and tell the shooter/passer to aim low for the blades.

Bank shots!
- The Law

Dance family?

You poor bastard.

I think the argument to that, is the puck was not going in the direction of the net.. It was Tierney's skate that caused the puck to move in the direction of the net
- PatC80

Which is allowed in the NHL