Get Your Kicks
It's often been said that offense wins headlines but defense and goaltending win Stanley Cups. That's true most years but goaltending and D were spotty in the now-completed playoff series between the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames. The series was played more to the style that favors Edmonton and the top Edmonton players, especially Connor McDavid, took better advantage of it than their Calgary counterparts.
Normally, it's whichever team that scores first will win about 70 percent of the time. In this series, it was more like whoever scores last would celebrate a victory.
One goal that didn't show up in last night's 5-4 series clinching win for Edmonton in Game 5 was Blake Coleman's disallowed goal at 14:03 of the third period. Initially ruled a legal goal on the ice, the Uber Eats smorgasbord crew in the "Situation Room" in Toronto overturned it based on the agonizing and nebulous "distinct kicking motion" that negates would-be goals under NHL rules 37.4 and 49.2.
Last night's no-goal is a good example of the many different permutations that were created when the NHL loosened the rules about pucks going in off attackers' skates -- which wasn't a bad change, but it opened up a can of worms beyond the oft-debated topic of what is or is not a "distinct kicking motion."
The older rule books stated that any puck that was directed into the net by any means other than a stick must be disallowed. It was OK if another player's shot attempt ricocheted in off a teammate's skate but once that teammate moved his skate in the direction of the net, it was no goal.
The NHL changed this with introduction of what is now Rule 49.2.
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. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.
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.
I was happy to see the old rule modified. Goals are hard enough to score in this sport without disallowing ones where the "kick" is accidental. The old rules punished players for skating hard at the net and simply having an attempted pass tick off their skate and go in before they could touch the puck with the stick. For many years, officials had no other choice on plays like this one but to disallow it.
The problem with the current NHL rule is that it is vaguely worded: "distinct kicking motion" is far from a black-and-white working definition of when to disallow a goal.
Does it simply mean the player's foot came forward and directed the puck? A "kick" could easily be accidental. For example, have you ever dropped an object in the vicinity of your feet while you're walking, went to pick it up and then accidentally knocked it further away with your foot?
Does "distinct kicking motion" mean there must also be some discernible intent behind the attacker playing the puck into the net with his foot? This is a judgment call for the officials. Sometimes this is pretty easy to spot, other times it's not so easy.
In the case of last night's ruling in Calgary -- sorry Flames' fans -- I believe the right decision was ultimately made under the letter of the law. Coleman's skate provided the energy that propelled the puck over the goal line. As vague as "distinct kicking motion" is, the extension of Coleman's leg probably fit that description. It was "kicked" in, not deflected off a stationary skate. In terms of reading intent into it, that's an arguable judgment call. But the player seemed to know where the puck was and put it over the goal line the only possible way he could at that point.
Something else to consider: Per Rule 49.2, players are allowed to kick the puck deliberately in all three zones of the ice. The only thing they CAN'T legally do in this regard is kick the puck into the net for a goal.
In some instances, a player could be trying to kick a somewhat errant pass from his skates to his stick, but succeed only in sending the puck into the net. Even on the most clear-cut of kicks of the puck, so long as the player manages to touch the puck with the stick (presuming it's at a legal height), it's a good goal. It doesn't matter if he only grazes the puck with the heel of his own stick and all of the energy that carried the puck over the goal line came from the initial kick.
The no-kick rule on goals was originally created for safety reasons back in the days where goaltenders did not wear masks and were not nearly as padded or otherwise as well-protected as they are nowadays. Kicking at the puck in the vicinity of the goalie or a downed defenseman around the crease was a very dangerous proposition.
As far my own opinion on the rule, I am all for allowing re-directs with the skate but NOT outright kicks into the net. This isn't soccer. Hockey is primarily meant for displaying stick skills, and the stick shouldn't become one of several optional ways of getting the puck into the net. You can't swat a puck in with your glove, either, or grab it and drop it into the net.
****************
A History Lesson
Back in 1993, referee Denis Morel got into a heap of trouble with the NHL for allowing an overtime goal by Winnipeg's Nelson Emerson after the puck got tossed into the net. What happened was that Chicago goalie Ed Belfour tried to clear the puck around the glass behind the Chicago net, but a forechecking Emerson intercepted it in the football-like sense of the term. In other words, Emerson caught the puck with his right glove and, with puck in hand, skated around from the behind the net toward the right goalpost, where he then dropped the puck behind the goal line.
If you recall the furor over that play, think about what might ensue if a playoff series were decided on an overtime sequence where a player soccer kicks in the winning goal. It's just not a good precedent for the game to allow that type of goal to stand.
People have asked me over the years about various permutations of the kicking rules. Unlike the somewhat ambiguous "distinct kicking motion" wording in the rulebook, the rules are quite clear in addressing how to handle various events that can happen after a puck is kicked by an attacking player.
* If the kicked puck deflects into the net off the equipment (shin pads, hockey pants, etc) of a player on either team -- attacking or defending, including the goalie -- it is no goal.
* If a kicked puck deflects into the net off the stick of any defending position player EXCEPT the goalie, it's a good goal.
* If a kicked puck deflects into the net off the goalie's stick, it's no goal.
* As stated earlier, if a kicked puck goes in after it grazes the stick of the player who kicked it, it's a good goal. Same thing if it goes off a teammate's stick. The teammate would be the one officially awarded with the goal.
* If the player who kicked the puck dropped his stick on the ice on the play and the kicked puck subsequently hits the stick and goes in the net, it's no goal.
The kicked puck rules are a good example of the many shades of gray in the Rule book. Changing black-and-white rules into situationally based ones can be an improvement to the game, so long as the new rules are thoroughly considered.
****************
A Matter of Perspective
Shortly after the introduction of instant replay, I was working a nationally televised game in Colorado with linesemen Wayne Bonney and Jay Sharrers. Before the game, I was asked by ESPN if I was willing to wear a microphone on the ice. I said sure.
A puck went into the net off a skate. Wayne came over to me and said, "We've gotta disallow this one. It was kicked in."
I said thank you. As I skated around toward the scorer's table on the other side, Jay approached me and gave his two cents.
"Good goal, Stewy," he said. "It's gotta count."
I thanked Jay. As I arrived at the scorer's table, I looked up and said, "Now you know why they pay me the big bucks!"
In my own judgment, it was a legal goal. I had a good look at the play, and my ruling on the ice was to award the goal.
Ultimately, the goal stood as it should have. But this is an example of how there can be differing interpretations of the same play.
Distinct kicking motion or simply deflected off a skate? Was the soup too salty or seasoned just right? It's all a matter of perspective.
*********
A 2018 inductee into the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame, Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.
Visit Paul's official websites, YaWannaGo.com and Officiating by Stewart.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»