Paul Stewart: Marner Penalty Shot Ruling Was a No-Brainer; Many Are Not

I was watching the Cornell/Providence NCAA Hockey game and a Providence player scored when a puck was redirected off his skate to put Providence up 2-0. The play was reviewed and the officials counted the goal according to the literal wording of the rule (ie: it is a goal unless the player "kicks the puck" with a forward motion of his foot). Well, he clearly and consciously extended his foot to stop the puck, and he positioned the angle of his skate so that it would direct the puck forward and into the net. And he did all of this in a predetermined fashion with one goal in mind (pun intended). Also, he was skating toward the net, so his momentum could do only one thing...direct the puck into the net.
So if "kicking" the puck displays "intent" to direct the puck into the net, what does turning your skate to direct the puck into the net signify, other than intent? What's the difference?!?!???
If a player screens the goalie, or directs the puck off his body, or hits the puck into the net with his stick on the ice or in mid-air, these are all strategies and techniques that require coordination, savvy, practice, and skill. Directing the puck into the net with a simple turn of your skate is essentially cheating. The ruling left a sour taste in my mouth and a feeling of unfairness and injustice. All things that fly in the face of sportsmanship.
So I disagree with Paul Stewart. He may be a very accomplished person in the field of hockey. But I played hockey as well. I also coached hockey for most of my life at every level from mites thru high school. And I grew up with some of the best officials in the state of Minnesota. In hockey, baseball, football, and basketball. I have heard just about every argument that exists in these sports numerous times.
It appears that the NCAA chose the "kicking" option to simplify the rule and take the judgement and subjectivity out of the picture. That may be convenient, but that doesn't make it right.
Fortunately, it didn't become a problem or alter the outcome of the game because Providence won 4-0. If the Cornell players had lost by one goal they would have had to live with that play the rest of their lives.
I believe there is a better solution to this dilemma. Take the skates out of the picture completely. If the puck goes off a skate (barring the opponents skate), no goal...period (again, pun intended). This would be even easier to enforce since it would eliminate the other half dozen exceptions to the "kicking rule," and would ensure standardization and consistency in enforcing the rule. No judgement. No opinions. No question about how and when to enforce the rule. No problem.
I also disagree with Paul’s assessment of the penalty shot. If a foul reduces the quality of a players ability to score it should be a penalty shot-period. What’s this “great to good baloney?”

Why aren't the refs enforcing the rules on Shoot-outs? I bet over 60% of the time the puck is not moving toward the net the entire time? And yes, Patrick Kane is guilty of it also!

Double post

Why aren't the refs enforcing the rules on Shoot-outs? I bet over 60% of the time the puck is not moving toward the net the entire time? And yes, Patrick Kane is guilty of it also!
- powerenforcer

It's not possible to be 100% with it. Stick handling alone will make the puck move away from the net. They just want to stop the egregious ones.

Marner dove

I was watching the Cornell/Providence NCAA Hockey game and a Providence player scored when a puck was redirected off his skate to put Providence up 2-0. The play was reviewed and the officials counted the goal according to the literal wording of the rule (ie: it is a goal unless the player "kicks the puck" with a forward motion of his foot). Well, he clearly and consciously extended his foot to stop the puck, and he positioned the angle of his skate so that it would direct the puck forward and into the net. And he did all of this in a predetermined fashion with one goal in mind (pun intended). Also, he was skating toward the net, so his momentum could do only one thing...direct the puck into the net.
So if "kicking" the puck displays "intent" to direct the puck into the net, what does turning your skate to direct the puck into the net signify, other than intent? What's the difference?!?!???
If a player screens the goalie, or directs the puck off his body, or hits the puck into the net with his stick on the ice or in mid-air, these are all strategies and techniques that require coordination, savvy, practice, and skill. Directing the puck into the net with a simple turn of your skate is essentially cheating. The ruling left a sour taste in my mouth and a feeling of unfairness and injustice. All things that fly in the face of sportsmanship.
So I disagree with Paul Stewart. He may be a very accomplished person in the field of hockey. But I played hockey as well. I also coached hockey for most of my life at every level from mites thru high school. And I grew up with some of the best officials in the state of Minnesota. In hockey, baseball, football, and basketball. I have heard just about every argument that exists in these sports numerous times.
It appears that the NCAA chose the "kicking" option to simplify the rule and take the judgement and subjectivity out of the picture. That may be convenient, but that doesn't make it right.
Fortunately, it didn't become a problem or alter the outcome of the game because Providence won 4-0. If the Cornell players had lost by one goal they would have had to live with that play the rest of their lives.
I believe there is a better solution to this dilemma. Take the skates out of the picture completely. If the puck goes off a skate (barring the opponents skate), no goal...period (again, pun intended). This would be even easier to enforce since it would eliminate the other half dozen exceptions to the "kicking rule," and would ensure standardization and consistency in enforcing the rule. No judgement. No opinions. No question about how and when to enforce the rule. No problem.
I also disagree with Paul’s assessment of the penalty shot. If a foul reduces the quality of a players ability to score it should be a penalty shot-period. What’s this “great to good baloney?”
- Gabeezlebub

Angling your skate is ok by rule. It is not a ‘distinct kicking motion’ which I believe is the rule wording.

My guess is it’s a safety thing. Angling your skate to deflect the puck doesn’t endanger anyone. Kicking at the puck with a boot with a sharp blade attached to the bottom does cause a dangerous situation.

Paul Stewart: Marner Penalty Shot Ruling Was a No-Brainer; Many Are Not
- Paul Stewart

Paul,
love to get your "unbiased" take on the quality and consistency of the officiating in that lovely Leafs-Bruins game last night.

Good thing the Marner call was a no-brainer, 'cause clearly a few of the new generation of officials lack the undercarriage to make other calls... you know .. .the ones requiring brains