Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

[Patman]

Don't change a thing....this is a treat every time it happens like this.

We play tomorrow for the chance to play out east.... Errr... I mean win hockey east

[Scarlet]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Just saw the video. I totally think it should not have counted. However, if it was called a goal initially, reviewed and it was decided there wasn't enough to overturn it, that would have still sucked but been easier to take. Usually those are called goals, reviewed and then overturned. It's really rare to have it called no goal, reviewed and then overturned to count as a goal when there didn't seem to be any video that would prove otherwise.

[sterlippo1]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

What screw job would that be? Do you mean the HE Championship game in 2009 when they thought they scored but was called no goal early in the second period and when they had more than half the game left to actually try to tie it, not to mention several power play opportunities to give them a bit more of an advantage over BU who only scored one goal? That screw job?

yes, i know it's hard to distinguish though

[UML Puck Hawk]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

So alliance back on? If it survives this it'll survive anything.

Once it was double ot it just felt like it would be controversial somehow. Turning his skate isn't a kicking motion but if I were on the other side I'd be pretty ****ed. Was a great game, too bad it had to end that way

[UML Puck Hawk]

how can you say it wasn't a " distinct kicking motion"? it was clearly that , he angled his skate perfectly to deflect the puck into the net, whether he meant it or not. They cant assume he was kicking it to his stick

Directing isn't the same as kicking in the eyes of the ref.

[chickod]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

how can you say it wasn't a " distinct kicking motion"? it was clearly that , he angled his skate perfectly to deflect the puck into the net, whether he meant it or not. They cant assume he was kicking it to his stick

Because it wasn't. That doesn't mean that he didn't intentionally "turn his skate" to DIRECT the puck in (which I think he did and he knows it). BUT...if you go by the rule (which has been cited on here elsewhere) there was NOT a "distinct kicking motion." He didn't "push" his skate toward the net...he TURNED his skate. There's a difference. I don't like goals scored like this, but according to the letter of the rule, the call was correct.

[uncle_cliff]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

So alliance back on? If it survives this it'll survive anything.

Once it was double ot it just felt like it would be controversial somehow. Turning his skate isn't a kicking motion but if I were on the other side I'd be pretty ****ed. Was a great game, too bad it had to end that way

Only if BC wins the midnight game.

[Terrance]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

how can you say it wasn't a " distinct kicking motion"? it was clearly that. They cant assume he was kicking it to his stick

Yes.

Just saw the video. I totally think it should not have counted. However, if it was called a goal initially, reviewed and it was decided there wasn't enough to overturn it, that would have still sucked but been easier to take. Usually those are called goals, reviewed and then overturned. It's really rare to have it called no goal, reviewed and then overturned to count as a goal when there didn't seem to be any video that would prove otherwise.

Yes.

You're right. It was. It doesn't matter if he "turn[s] his skate" to DIRECT the puck in (which I think he did and he knows it). BUT...if you go by the rule (which has been cited on here elsewhere) there was a "distinct kicking motion." He did "push" his skate toward the net...after he TURNED his skate. I don't like goals scored like this, but according to the letter of the rule, the call was incorrect.

FYP

[John_Fuller]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

how can you say it wasn't a " distinct kicking motion"? it was clearly that , he angled his skate perfectly to deflect the puck into the net, whether he meant it or not. They can't assume he was kicking it to his stick

Easy, the NHL screwed this up 20 years ago by putting this rule in effect and it has now has trickled down to the lower levels. In turn, hockey allows soccer-type goals. As written, the rule allows to turn the skate (even towards the net) while "in the act of stopping" and by the same token is not truly called a "distinct kicking motion".

I'm sure some will say it's good and some will stay it was a kick. I've always been one to disallow goals off skates, regardless of circumstance.

Needless to say, there will be much more discussion on this game to come.

[brassbonanza]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

This would be made a lot easier if the rulebook clearly defined what constitutes a kicking motion, how forward motion of a skate is supposed to be interpreted, and whether a moving skate that is directing the puck is considered a kick.

My problem with the call is I don't think there's clear evidence either way to overturn the call on the ice. If it was called a goal, I'd have a problem with it being waved off.

[chickod]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

FYP

Wrong.

[GreenCat]

This would be made a lot easier if the rulebook clearly defined what constitutes a kicking motion, how forward motion of a skate is supposed to be interpreted, and whether a moving skate that is directing the puck is considered a kick.

My problem with the call is I don't think there's clear evidence either way to overturn the call on the ice. If it was called a goal, I'd have a problem with it being waved off.

I agree on how do you over turn the call on the ice. Additionally there was no attempt to put the puck to the stick it was directed directly into the net. In my opinion the intent of the rule is when a D and O are tied up and sliding to the net and it inadvertently goes off the O skate and goes in it is a good goal. Not sticking the leg forward but not 'kicking' and angling the puck in off the skate. I am sticking with the Jerry York calling up stairs conspiracy theory to end the game as he is getting old and still behind Jack Parker in playoff wins...:--)

[chickod]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

I agree on how do you over turn the call on the ice. Additionally there was no attempt to put the puck to the stick it was directed directly into the net. In my opinion the intent of the rule is when a D and O are tied up and sliding to the net and it inadvertently goes off the O skate and goes in it is a good goal. Not sticking the leg forward but not 'kicking' and angling the puck in off the skate. I am sticking with the Jerry York calling up stairs conspiracy theory to end the game as he is getting old and still behind Jack Parker in playoff wins...:--)

Well, no offense, but I don't think they care about your "opinion." Really...I don't see what the big deal is. We can all agree the rule sucks, but how can you argue that he "kicked" it in? He didn't...(and I understand that some of you at the Garden may not have gotten a good look at it). He CLEARLY TURNED his skate but did NOT "push" the skate toward the net. And what does "he didn't try to kick it to his stick" have to do with anything? If he had kicked it to his stick he would have had to go behind the net to get it, since he was about two feet in front of the net when the puck hit his skate.

[GreenCat]

I agree on how do you over turn the call on the ice. Additionally there was no attempt to put the puck to the stick it was directed directly into the net. In my opinion the intent of the rule is when a D and O are tied up and sliding to the net and it inadvertently goes off the O skate and goes in it is a good goal. Not sticking the leg forward but not 'kicking' and angling the puck in off the skate. I am sticking with the Jerry York calling up stairs conspiracy theory to end the game as he is getting old and still behind Jack Parker in playoff wins...:--)

Did I mention through his south Boston interpreter......JC would someone get that guy a speech therapist!!!

[Scarlet]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Looked like he kicked it/advanced it forward to me.