Honnêtement, je ne comprends tout simplement pas pourquoi cela n’a pas été rappelé. Tout ce que je voulais, c’était plus de hockey. C’est comme si les arbitres voulaient une nuit de congé parce qu’il était 17 heures.
—
ErroRayn
@Ducks d'Anaheim
6 Comments
Really seemed like an inner foot pass to me. I usually thought the refs side with some abstract interpretation of a kicking motion so I don’t know how tonight’s motion didn’t fit the case.
It’s easy, NHL refs only work for half a year and they make their money in the other half by qualifying for financial assistance for the blind.
The reason it counted was it was a « redirect » as the guy stuck his foot forward to direct the puck in, if the puck stopped right in front of the guy’s foot and then he kicked the puck in that would not have counted.
The reason I see it as a kick is he intentionally changes the angle and moves his foot further forward to collide with the puck. He doesn’t « follow through » to increase the speed of the puck but the act of bringing your foot forward makes it a kick for me. I’m a bias ducks fan but if we start allowing goals like this where is the line between a kick and a deflection?
It’s pretty obviously not a kick imo. Yes he turned his foot but you are allowed to do that as a part of the stopping motion that was doing. Skate never even really came up to make it look like a kicking motion.
I don’t know. It’s right in the grey area for me, he’s still repositioning his skate for the redirect when the puck arrives, but blade is on the ice and no big follow through. Part of me says the league has a clear interpretation that consistently says no follow through = good goal. That’s logical, but I don’t know that I trust them that much. Either that’s the answer or literally nobody knows.