"Goal" in Canucks-Kings game?

[elocomotive]

What did people think?

The league says Daniel Sedin intentionally twisted his toe and that was why they disallowed the goal. To make things even more confusing, NHL VP Mike Murphy offered this....

"...When we looked at this one we thought the puck was moving one direction and in order to get it to move back another direction, it had to be propelled someway. We felt it was the skate, not in a distinct kicking motion, but in a kicking motion, that made it move back the other way. It wasn't a deflection, it wasn't a re-direct, it was a kick."​

"

First off, of course it moved another direction - it hit a skate blade! That's what happens. And second, so it wasn't a "distinct kicking motion," but it was a kick. That's just odd prose. That would be like me saying I was out moving my legs really fast one in front of the other, it wasn't a running motion, but I was running.

Could they be more unclear?

I thought it was a goal. The guy was hockey stopping, it hit his skate, and it went in.

 

[dash]

Canucks got screwed, and Stephen Auger has a big grin from ear-to-ear

 

[jstewismybastardson]

compare last nights goal to this

 

[UTVolCountry]

I don't quiet know what to think about that goal. It's had so say. I'm not gonna argue the call, though.

It would've been a huge goal for the Nucks. That would have tied it up, I believe...

 

[elocomotive]

I think it would have made it 4-3 and then they scored about a minute later.

 

[UTVolCountry]

It's had so say = It's hard to say

 

[dare2be]

it was not a distinct kicking motion, ergo, it was a goal. /end

 

[puckhead]

What did people think?

The league says Daniel Sedin intentionally twisted his toe and that was why they disallowed the goal. To make things even more confusing, NHL VP Mike Murphy offered this....

just to add some tinfoil to the discussion, the "non-kicking motion kick" decision by Mike Murphy was the same Mike Murphy you played for the LA Kings for 10 years. The same Mike Murphy who coached the LA Kings for five years.

my issue with the call was that it was called a goal on the ice. For that to be overturned, there needs to be a pretty blatant video evidence to the contrary. If it's an iffy call, as this obviously was (5 minute review?), then the call on the ice should stand.

 

[UTVolCountry]

just to add some tinfoil to the discussion, the "non-kicking motion kick" decision by Mike Murphy was the same Mike Murphy you played for the LA Kings for 10 years. The same Mike Murphy who coached the LA Kings for five years.

my issue with the call was that it was called a goal on the ice. For that to be overturned, there needs to be a pretty blatant video evidence to the contrary. If it's an iffy call, as this obviously was (5 minute review?), then the call on the ice should stand.

I agree

 

[elocomotive]

my issue with the call was that it was called a goal on the ice. For that to be overturned, there needs to be a pretty blatant video evidence to the contrary. If it's an iffy call, as this obviously was (5 minute review?), then the call on the ice should stand.

^ Yep. I totally agree.

To make it worse, Murphy recited they did not find it was a distinct kicking motion. I give you Rule 49.2: "49.2 Goals - Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net."

So they are saying it was not a distinct kicking motion, but disallowed the goal. That makes no sense. At least LIE to us!

 

[jstewismybastardson]

just to add some tinfoil to the discussion, the "non-kicking motion kick" decision by Mike Murphy was the same Mike Murphy you played for the LA Kings for 10 years. The same Mike Murphy who coached the LA Kings for five years.

my issue with the call was that it was called a goal on the ice. For that to be overturned, there needs to be a pretty blatant video evidence to the contrary. If it's an iffy call, as this obviously was (5 minute review?), then the call on the ice should stand.

to bfair, Mike Murphy was an assistant coach with the Canucks for 2 years in the late 80's

I posted the same issue on the other board ... what was conclusive about the video they watched in the war room ... especially when you compare it to the Bertuzzi April 1 goal.


the conspiracy theory is wack but no one really has mentioned that NBC has decided not to show any first round series games involving canadian teams even though the opponents are washington and pittsburgh (their regular season darlings) and LA (biggest tv market remaining ???)

 

[puckhead]

to bfair, Mike Murphy was an assistant coach with the Canucks for 2 years in the late 80's

yeah I was largely teasing about the Murphy conspiracy.

although I admit that when it started taking so long I envisioned the powers-that-be discussing political ramifications of the goal rather than the goal itself.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Murphy's explanation makes it seems like a player can't even intentionally put their foot in a position to deflect the puck into the net if they're in motion.

If Toronto allows the Bertuzzi goal, I just don't understand why they don't allow the Sedin goal.

 

[mooger_35]

just to add some tinfoil to the discussion, the "non-kicking motion kick" decision by Mike Murphy was the same Mike Murphy you played for the LA Kings for 10 years. The same Mike Murphy who coached the LA Kings for five years.

my issue with the call was that it was called a goal on the ice. For that to be overturned, there needs to be a pretty blatant video evidence to the contrary. If it's an iffy call, as this obviously was (5 minute review?), then the call on the ice should stand.

This is the same issue I had with it. "Conclusive proof" wasn't there in my BIASED opinion.