NHL provides an embarrassing explanation about the Flames 'no goal' call
Last night's Game 5 Oilers victory was mired by controversy. The Calgary Flames had felt they'd taken the lead late in the 3rd period. As Coleman fell to the ice it appears like he pushed the puck across the goal line, but under the NHL rules the no goal call, requires there to be a "distinct kicking motion".
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. A goal cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player propels the puck with his skate into the net (even by means of a subsequent deflection off of another Player) using a «distinct kicking motion.» A goal also cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player 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.
A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking Player's skate who does not use a «distinct kicking motion» shall be ruled a GOAL. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking Players' skate shall also be ruled a GOAL, as long as no «distinct kicking motion» is evident.
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. A goal cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player propels the puck with his skate into the net (even by means of a subsequent deflection off of another Player) using a «distinct kicking motion.» A goal also cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player 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.
A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking Player's skate who does not use a «distinct kicking motion» shall be ruled a GOAL. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking Players' skate shall also be ruled a GOAL, as long as no «distinct kicking motion» is evident.
Many fans were shocked by this decision and were hoping for an explanation from the NHL. On the play Coleman did nothing to "kick" the puck across the line. Well the NHL provided an explanation of their own and it truly bewildering.
Type of Review: Distinct Kicking
Motion Result: Call on the ice is overturned. No goal Calgary.
Explanation: Video review determined Calgary's Blake Coleman kicked the puck into the Edmonton net. 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 with his skate/foot."
Motion Result: Call on the ice is overturned. No goal Calgary.
Explanation: Video review determined Calgary's Blake Coleman kicked the puck into the Edmonton net. 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 with his skate/foot."
This play will go down at one of the most controversial plays in recent memory and the NHL couldn't even be bothered to provide more than a 42-word answer on the subject. This is another reason that the league continues to lose credibility with their fan base.
| POLL | ||
MAI 27 | 977 ANSWERS NHL provides an embarrassing explanation about the Flames 'no goal' call Should Coleman's goal have counted? | ||
| Yes | 608 | 62.2 % |
| No | 369 | 37.8 % |
| List of polls | ||
MUST READ
TRENDING NOW
