Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

The Vancouver No-Goal Controversy

from Jason Botchford of The White Towel at the Vancouver Province,

Henrik Sedin called it one of the worst calls he’s ever seen, and when a Sedin feels the need to speak out, you tend to listen.  “It was a very, extremely bad call,” he added.

To make it, National Hockey League vice-president Mike Murphy seemed to alter the rulebook and when that happens you can’t help but take notice.

continued

HNIC had Mike Murphy on after the game to discuss the no-goal call.

Watch below…

Or you could have been watching Versus and missed the goal call…

 

 

Filed in: NHL Teams, Los Angeles Kings, Vancouver Canucks, | KK Hockey | Permalink
  Tags: daniel+sedin

Comments

Avatar

Wah wah.  Rulebook wasn’t altered.  Sedin clearly came in with his legs spread very far apart with his right leg into the goal mouth.  If you’re really trying to stop, you don’t do it like that.  That’s the most incriminating evidence.  Also, his stick’s not on the ice trying to play the puck. A little extra follow through with leg, as tiny as it may have been.  It was a tough call and it could have gone either way.  But the right one was made.  If it had counted, you’d be hearing complaining from King’s fans too.  Only difference is that they don’t think the world is out to see them fail.

Posted by Chase from Hockeyville on 04/20/10 at 09:09 AM ET

Avatar

@ Chase
So, by your standards how would you have judged on this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0796IPywEPg

And just for the sake of not getting accused to be biased shouldn’t the NHL have someone not related to any of the two teams in Mike Murphy’s place?

Posted by Henrike from Cologne / Germany on 04/20/10 at 09:39 AM ET

Avatar

I don’t know if I would say you don’t stop like that. I think he has a defender right on his back, and if he isn’t turning to his left as he is trying to stop, he would crash into Quick.  And his stick is on, or close to the ice, its just that the puck came into his feet and not to where his stick was. 

You’re right, someone would be upset either way, but i don’t like hearing about addendums to rules in the playoffs.  I feel like that was a goal in the regular season.

Posted by jwad on 04/20/10 at 09:40 AM ET

redxblack's avatar

That was a terrible call. I’m not a Canucks fan and I’d sorta like to see them eliminated, but that was a good goal waved off. The rule is “distinct kicking motion” and there certainly was not any such thing here. You’re allowed to deflect a puck with your skate. This is another screw job where the third team on the ice has altered the course of a game. With each of these blown calls, the NHL loses credibility.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 04/20/10 at 09:48 AM ET

Avatar

Sedin altered his foot angle to direct it in.
yeah, its not a kick but he did use his foot as the “TOOL” to get the puck in the net. he obviously changes the angle on his skate to maximize the trajectory and path of the puck.

why kick when you already have the momentum of your STOP acting as the kick?
im fine with it being no goal

Posted by Death Metal Nightmare from MKE on 04/20/10 at 10:02 AM ET

Avatar

I think that Sedin absolutely knew what he was doing.

I also think that he did it perfectly and that there’s no way that shouldn’ve been called back.

And just for the record, if it’s called a goal on the ice and it takes as long as it took (with clearly as much discussion as it took) to reverse the call, then there simply can’t have been enough evidence to oveturn the call.

If it takes that long to decide that it was a distinctive kicking motion then it was not a distinctive kicking motion.

Having said that, suck it Canucks!

Posted by Garth on 04/20/10 at 10:08 AM ET

it_burns_us's avatar

The rule is NOT “if you know what you’re doing it’s illegal to deflect a puck in off your skate”.  The rule is NOT “you cannot alter the angle of your foot to deflect a puck in off your skate.”  The rule is, and says, CLEARLY, “A distinct kicking motion”. 

Foot drawn back, and pushed forward again quickly, is a distinct kicking motion.  Even if you don’t draw it back, you have to push it forward to get any real kind of momentum.  I can’t believe I’m explaining that.  Go try to kick a ball, see how well you do with Sedin’s foot angling.

Jeebus, people.  AWFUL no-goal.  Atrocious.  It’s not YOUR opinion of whether or not a puck purposefully deflected off a skate is a goal or not.  The rule is clearly stated, this clearly goes against the rule.

Posted by it_burns_us on 04/20/10 at 10:22 AM ET

Moq's avatar

I don’t think that “distinct kicking motion” is restricted to a soccer-like kick. Intentional or not, Sedin makes something akin to a pool shot with his foot, which in my opinion is closer to a kick than a simple stationary redirect. Certainly not as blatantly obvious as some seems to suggest.

If it had been my call, I would disallow the goal.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 04/20/10 at 10:37 AM ET

Avatar

I think that should have stood… I’ve seen goals with more “distinct” kicking motions than that stand. The bigger issue for the Canucks is 0-for-3 on the PK in the game, and 5-for-12 on the PK in the series.

Posted by TJ on 04/20/10 at 10:42 AM ET

Avatar

Doesn’t anyone just lose a game anymore?  What’s with the constant whining and conspiracy theories every day?

Posted by Greg on 04/20/10 at 11:08 AM ET

Avatar

Why is this even a rule any more?

Posted by BuzzFledderjohn on 04/20/10 at 11:12 AM ET

NHLJeff's avatar

Death Metal Nightmare from MKE,

A player IS allowed to direct the puck in with his foot.  Angling one’s foot to do so is permitted. It is only the “distinct kicking motion” that is prohibited.

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Chicago, IL on 04/20/10 at 11:43 AM ET

Chris from NOHS's avatar

It was a “sort” of kicking motion.  It wasn’t altering the rules, just a close call.  I’d like to see these count more often than not (or at least go with what was ruled on the ice) but I have no problem with the call either.

I understand the frustration on either side.

Posted by Chris from NOHS from Columbus, OH/Grand Rapids, MI on 04/20/10 at 12:17 PM ET

Nate A's avatar

Ouch. Nucks got hosed.

Any chance the rule gets changed from the surprisingly vague “distinct kicking motion” to keeping the skate on the ice? The whole point of that rule is so guys are in less danger of being cut by the blade.

Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 04/20/10 at 12:23 PM ET

Avatar

Mike Murphy, who was a Kings player for 10 years and on their coaching staff for another 5 years, saw what he WANTED to see and convinced himself and others it was the right call.

Could not agree more with it burns us’s post.

Posted by jugrnt on 04/20/10 at 01:04 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

Sedin altered his foot angle to direct it in.
yeah, its not a kick but he did use his foot as the “TOOL” to get the puck in the net. he obviously changes the angle on his skate to maximize the trajectory and path of the puck.

um, the rules clearly state you can redirect the puck into the net with your skate.  that is what he did.  the rules say that’s a goal.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26338

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/20/10 at 01:11 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

which in my opinion is closer to a kick than a simple stationary redirect.

nowhere in the rule does it say your foot has to be stationary to be considered a redirection.  in fact, the way the rule is written, the idea of a kick imparting momentum, and a redirect simply changing the direction, appears to be the difference.

he did not impart momentum to the puck.  he redirected it.  this is clear as day.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/20/10 at 01:14 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

Doesn’t anyone just lose a game anymore?  What’s with the constant whining and conspiracy theories every day?

did anyone say “the league is out to get Vancouver and doesn’t want them to win?”  I don’t see that anywhere.  THAT would be a conspiracy theory.

what this is, actually, is complaining about incompetence.  do you seriously NOT think NHL officiating is incompetent?

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/20/10 at 01:15 PM ET

Avatar

DISTINCT kicking motion….If it takes 10 min. to review how can it possibly be a distinct kicking motion?

Mike Murphy:

LA Kings player 1973-1983

Kings coach: 84-85 - 87-88


The optics are not good, was Marcel Dionne or Luc Robitaille not available? NHL needs to get an unbiased view, seriously.

Posted by Killerdg93 from Niagara on 04/20/10 at 02:12 PM ET

Avatar

For the past forever, “distinct kicking motion” has been the deciding factor, as a matter of fact it is written itno the rule twice. This should have been a goal, it was a re-direct with the foot which the NHL wanted to allow to increase scoring and yet prevent players from kicking away at lose pucks while the golatender is trying to cover it. 

The NHL really managed to “Brett Hull ” something simple once again. Agree with the comment it shouldn’t take 20 minutes to determine if it is “distinct” since something distinct is obvious.

Posted by hockey1919 from mid-atlantic on 04/20/10 at 02:56 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

Datsyuk nominated for the Selke along with Kesler and Staal.

Datsyuk 80GP 27G 43A 70P +17 132 takeaways 73 giveaways (+59)
Kesler 82GP 25G 50A 75P +1 83 takeaways 28 giveaways (+55)
Staal 82GP 21G 28A 49P +19 41 takeaways 31 giveaways (+10)

Datsyuk’s stats are clearly better overall than Kesler and Staal.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/20/10 at 04:23 PM ET

PaulinMiamiBeach's avatar

dammit wrong thread.  my bad.

Posted by PaulinMiamiBeach on 04/20/10 at 04:24 PM ET

Avatar

I agree with the comments if it took that long to make the decision that the call on the ice should not have been overturned.

The other thing is this.  When you review that in slow motion it seems like Sedin has all the time in the world to figure out what he was going to do but the reality is that the whole play was less than a second when you consider the player was trying for a wrap around.

Anyway, no conspiracy just incompetence.

Posted by AC from Canada on 04/21/10 at 09:12 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com

 

image

image

image