If that isn't a kick, what is?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?

    Should not have been a goal. Should have been goalie interference, as for the kick, wether the skate hit the puck or not the puck clearly went in because of Neils kicking motion. If Thomas has the puck smothered under his glove and a player kicks the glove forcing the puck loose without actually touching the puck to me, thats kicking it in...This call is worse than the one agaisnt Tampa earlier when the Tampa player clearly kicked it in on Turco.

    Lundqvist is right here, and he hardly, if ever gets emotionally riled up like that, and I wonder if the NHL has the guts to fine him for what he said. The most disturbiong thing to me is on plays like this, when the on-ice ref gets it wrong, i understand, by how the people in Toronto get it wrong as well. If that goal and the one in Tampa are still allowed then why the heck do we have instant replay?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?

    The only replay I saw of the play showed clearly that Neil's skate didn't touch the puck, so it definitely wasn't kicking. Goalie interference? Maybe. It was a scrum and I'm sure the refs lost track of what was going on exactly. But if it's in the crease, Neil is allowed to go for the puck, he doesn't have to get out of the goalie's way to allow him to make the save. Goalie interference (like all penalties) also isn't a video-reviewable offence, so the only thing being reviewed was the kick. It definitely wasn't a kick because Neil got nothing but air, so the goal absolutely should have been allowed.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?

    Good thing this wasn't in OT.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?

    Count me in the "I'm glad it didn't effect the outcome of the game" crowd.

    It sure looks like the puck only started moving when the kick was done.  The only thing (well, besides inconclusivity, which I can accept) that I can think of as a justification of the ruling is that they felt that Lundqvist's stick, which was over the top of the puck briefly, squeezed down on it enough to cause it to pop out and into the net.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?

    seems to me goalie interference should be reviewable then. why not take an extra minute or two to determine if it's a legit goal or not. one goal can be the difference between moving on or elimination. this non-reviewable nonsense drives me crazy in the nfl also. isn't the reason there is video review, is to get the call right? well, GET THE CALL RIGHT. i love the fact that all goals are reviewed, why handcuff themselves as to what they can and cannot review? makes no sense
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from OatesCam. Show OatesCam's posts

    Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?

    I saw a replay on TV at lunch that clearly showed space between Neil's skate and the puck. There was nothing inconclusive about it at NHL headquarters.

    In Response to Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?:
    [QUOTE]Count me in the "I'm glad it didn't effect the outcome of the game" crowd. It sure looks like the puck only started moving when the kick was done.  The only thing (well, besides inconclusivity, which I can accept) that I can think of as a justification of the ruling is that they felt that Lundqvist's stick, which was over the top of the puck briefly, squeezed down on it enough to cause it to pop out and into the net.
    Posted by DrCC[/QUOTE]
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?

    In Response to Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?:
    [QUOTE]I saw a replay on TV at lunch that clearly showed space between Neil's skate and the puck. There was nothing inconclusive about it at NHL headquarters. In Response to Re: If that isn't a kick, what is? :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]
    As others have mentioned.  I have yet to see this video.  I want to accept it, but unless the camera was at ice-level, I'm not sure that the determination that there was a gap is likely conclusive.

    What angle was it from?  Is the one at the end of this?


     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Eric66. Show Eric66's posts

    Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?

    In Response to Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?:
    [QUOTE]I saw a replay on TV at lunch that clearly showed space between Neil's skate and the puck. There was nothing inconclusive about it at NHL headquarters. In Response to Re: If that isn't a kick, what is? :
    Posted by OatesCam[/QUOTE]

    I'm reserving my judgement until I see this replay angle that a few people have talked about.  If you could supply us a link that would be great.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?

    Ok, so did in fact Lundquist have the puck covered or was the puck almost covered?  Then if the referee does not see the puck within 3 seconds a whistle is blown. I did not see that Lundquist covered the puck for any length in time.  I saw Neil pushed into the crease, Lundquist reaching for the puck, Neil's skate trying to kick the puck, Lundquist's arm reaching out to secure the puck, and guess what Neil did not kick the puck with Lundquist pushed the puck into the net. Not goalie interference just BS.  Embarassing and lame as Lundquist's post game remarks!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jalvis. Show jalvis's posts

    Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?

    I think Neil whiffed on the kick and Lundqvist knocked it in with his stick.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davinator. Show Davinator's posts

    Re: If that isn't a kick, what is?

    Last night I said to my wife (while they were reviewing the play), "If this was a Bruins game and that was TT, I'd be pi$$ed if this comes back as a good goal."

    I think the fact that the referee called a good goal on the ice really messed up the War Room in Toronto. They cannot voice their opinion on the goaltender interference non-call, and they have to have conclusive evidence to overrule the call on the ice.

    They must have looked at each other and said "Oh, cr@p...logic says it was kicked in but we don't have conclusive video evidence to overrule that bone-head call."

    I have said this to many people over the course of season watching many games, I believe the NHL knows they have an inferior and generally incompetent union of officials and will be scrambling in the off season to do something that appears to address the situation.
     

Share