The NHL needs to remove this dumb, busted rule

The NHL's distinct kicking motion rule is one of the most difficult to understand in all of the rulebook, and I would argue is one which is the most questionably called. We'll talk all that and more on today's NHL hockey video!

[@100theDork]

This is the most well thought out and balanced approach to this topic I’ve heard and it’s so refreshing to hear it from an actual fan…can’t agree more that intentions are not what makes the rules as much as the action itself. Ditch the rule or replace it!

[@ThatBigCactus]

Really easy fix: You can kick it in at any time, but your skate has to remain on the ice. The blade can't come up

[@DriftedFlame]

@@ThatBigCactus That is a brilliant idea. You should phone up Bettman right now. I'm not being sarcastic or anything, but I like that idea. I'm with you on this

[@Meiamhim11]

How you been dork

[@rightthroughthecounterstri3961]

@@ThatBigCactus Big Cactus might be up to something..

[@terrybono5995]

Easy.. Off the skate, no goal end of argument

[@skateordiedev]

This rule and goalie interference are two of the most confusing rules in the entire game

[@marsupialsr]

indeed. So many offside reviews that go through slow motion analysis too. It could al be very simple clear cut rules, but this rule book is filled with gray areas.

[@smaug1234]

there is nothing confusing about either rule on paper, its the inconsistent implementation that requires a more black and white rule for each. Both the refs on the ice (understandable its a fast game) and worse the people who look at the replays are far toe inconsistent in how they rule what's what on each of these. Offside is another rule that needs work, crosschecking.... Bottom line is the NHL is just as happy with controversy as it is getting a fair game.

[@ElmoGetsLaid]

me and my ma have thought so for years watched a islanders vs flyers a few years ago where the guy CLEARLY bruce lee kicks the puck in the net and it was counted as a good goal so they should just remove it

[@angelobrattoli4663]

This is the Bettman NHL. Anyway the puck goes into the net is OK because "scoring".

[@jonathanduplantis1403]

Not true. Many good goals are disallowed

[@Andre-zh1jr]

This is the crease rule of todays era. Absurd rule that is enforced inconsistently and has changed outcomes of games with seemingly no reason. I agree with your take, good work

[@edamage]

I hated the crease rule so much but at least it was consistent and when you watched the replay you knew what to expect. (Apart from the Stanley Cup winning goal obviously lol)

[@auzmo]

@@edamagethe crease rule is very hard to enforce. Usa hockey still has the old rule and I think it needs an update as an overly ambitious referee could just ruin games by correctly calling crease violations constantly.

[@FHL-Devils]

@@edamage - consistent until the Stanley Cup Overtime, when they somehow retconned a 'modification' into existence... because changing a rule mid-season (but not telling anyone) is a thing that happens.

[@lordrayden3045]

@@FHL-Devils Still complete BS

[@logand3957]

My main issue is the rule invites inconsistency. Your video does a great job outlining how to either fix the rule or either make it more consistent.

[@tw1nn319]

Watching this live I thought surely this was a kick, I have no clue how this could ever be called a “deflection”

[@darthvader3742]

This is the issue with the NHL rulebook. Everything is really written in a way that's so confusing and open for interpretation. They really need to simplify the rulebook.

[@8dopey5]

Clearly no kicking motion he turned his skate and reflected it in

[@edamage]

He didn't propel the puck into the net and he didn't make a distinct kicking motion. The first two examples shown as "moving their skate into position to deflect the puck" were more of a kicking motion and they both counted. I agree though the rule is so unclear I had no idea what to expect as the call here.

[@kellyduriez898]

Puck hit skate then , It hit the goalie skate then went in ... good goal

[@kjo14]

@@8dopey5 LOL

[@TheMexicanKnight]

It's a tricky rule that's for sure. I'd change it so that any puck to foot contact in the blue zone is a non goal. While anything outside the crease with foot contact could be considered a goal. That way they would be entrusting some semblance of safety while maintaining realistic deflections of the puck.

[@KingofClubsMCDLXXXVIII]

not a bad idea, makes it unquestionable and easy to see and judge. although i hate scoring with skates and i personally think it shouldnt be allowed at all. i understand unintentional deflection but still

[@eweber6911]

I don't think this is an ideal solution but I would be happy with it over current rule. This is always going to be a hard rule to enforce because deflections will happen and even beer leaguers can intentionally deflect it in with the skate. Almost need to change it to the scoring team last touch can be on the skate for it to be consistent, even if some deflections should count. Also not sure if the blue paint is enough buffer, you can make contact with the puck outside the blue but the follow through ends up in the blue, the follow through is the scary part normally. It would need another line added to ice like a foot beyond blue. A goalie should be able to go to the edge of his crease without fear of someone kicking him

[@johnnyc.31]

@@KingofClubsMCDLXXXVIII why do you hate scoring with skates? Do you hate passing with skates? Both take uncommon skill to pull off.

[@KingofClubsMCDLXXXVIII]

@@johnnyc.31 its hockey, not football. use the stick is what i think :P

[@TheCMGiordano]

It definitely needs to be better clarified as to what constitutes a "distinct kicking motion", but I think the rule needs to stay in place because I don't want to see goals being kicked in, either.

[@Extasei]

Its pretty clear to me and now with all the replay angles and slow motion it's ridiculously easy to tell what is a deliberate kick/deflect from the accidentale one. The issue is the incompetenty of the referrees. The one from The Avalanche (he just seem to try to stop the puck with his skate but it bounced more than expected due to velocity) and Maple Leafs (just a shot that hit him on the way) look accidental in this video but all the others have clear motion toward the net.

[@TOMMYGUN6]

If you’re screening and it deflects off your skate into the goal id count it even if the skate is in motion on or off the ice. Where I believe this rule should stand is swiping your skate in or above the crease to attempt to score.

[@TheCMGiordano]

@@Extasei You've opened up a great point here in that this is actually just a symptom of a much bigger problem: The inconsistency of the officiating in the NHL. Even the same referee will call regular season games by a different standard, not to mention how much that standard changes between preseason to regular season to postseason games. It doesn't make any sense, and the Situation Room in Toronto isn't very consistent, either.

[@quietman208]

I honestly don’t see what’s wrong with kicking in the puck tbh. Could anyone explain to me what the big deal is?

[@TheCMGiordano]

@@quietman208 Well first and foremost, making deliberate kicking motions when you have skates on is just a safety issue. Secondly, the puck is supposed to be directed into the goal with your stick, that's always been the point of the game. If we start saying you can direct the puck into the net by kicking it, it starts looking more like bandy than ice hockey.

[@RookieRatcliff]

Even as a Flames fan I thought it was a kick as well. Silly to waste all that time deliberating on kicking/not kicking, I would say I thought due to the refs calling it a good goal that's why it was harder to get overturned, however like you said with the Coleman goal I'm pretty sure it was called a goal on the ice so who tf knows. Regardless that was a stellar game, unfortunate for the Flames but fun to watch. Also props to Trouba those were all good clean hits that just happened to catch us with our heads down (which in turn made for 2 powerplays). Wish Lucic had of actually stood up and done something rather than chirp but we'll see what happens in a weeks time when they meet in cgy!

[@leytonsmith6897]

I got tickets to the next game against NYR @ the dome so I’m pumped. Also was surprised mangi’s goal there didn’t come back. However, I thought that the officiating was kinda all over the place.

[@mrmercedes8528]

: regardless of the call on the ice - if it’s obvious it’s a deflection; like this “ goal“ it should be overturned- the narrator is correct about this rule As for LUCIC ; be never liked his style - he was dirty in Boston & he’s a crybaby in Calgary - my guess is some dirty head shot coming from in Calgary- fuck that guy

[@BrownKnee666]

See I don't see this as a dillberant kick. I could say it was a kicking motion but not delibrent...the puck got in his skates and he tried to stop it and actually fell down in the process...

[@CastleBrookKrew]

Flames fans are used to getting away with bs

[@milktobo7418]

@@CastleBrookKrew lol

[@RangersFan94]

I remember a Pavelski (?) goal a couple years back against the Rangers that was nearly identical and also counted. I believe the current rule's reasoning is that you are allowed to reposition your skate to redirect the puck, like what happened here, so long as the motion itself isn't responsible for propelling the puck into the net. I personally like the WHL's kicking rule: anything outside the crease is fair game, but no skate contact is allowed inside the crease whatsoever (it makes for no interpretation, besides maybe something extremely close to the crease and it being hard to tell), but I thought the goal would stand when they were in review, and I think this was probably the right call.

[@5lanediver]

that is a great rule. kicks legal outside the crease for more offense and less ambiguity, but not allowed inside for safety. of course bc this makes sense the nhl will never do it…

[@christopherokeefe756]

Reposition of your skate is pretty much kicking. The Calgary player didn’t even swing his stick at that puck.

[@RangersFan94]

@@christopherokeefe756 It looks like that, but really I don't think the motion contributed anything to the momentum of the puck, it was all redirected from the shot. And you're allowed to redirect the puck into the net with your skate, there's no stipulation that you have to make an attempt with the stick in order for it to count.

[@jamesberry3230]

the rule was originally to allow a goal in which the puck accidentally defects off a skate into the net; any deliberate direction of the puck into the goal with the skate is kicked in and disallowed

[@RangersFan94]

​@@jamesberry3230 Do you have any source for that claim? If I remember correctly, going back the 1930, the banning of kicked goals (rule 55d) allowed for accidental deflections off of skates, but then that was changed in '96 to allow deliberate redirections with the skate as long as they didn't constitute a "distinct kicking motion", and that's been the wording ever since. Unless you're talking about wanting to return to that rule?

[@eddiebenzee]

I know it’s not related to this video but I went to the Devils VS Canucks game tonight and it was a crazy one. From 3 goals to 50 seconds, 4-1 comeback, questionable no calls in OT. I know this game was crazy, but so was the devils one

[@CoachMacdaddy]

BOOOOOOOO

[@lochnessspeedwerkz6557]

I was listening on the radio and for a moment I thought palat scored a hat trick in the span of 1 minute. I was like 🤯 until I saw it was hughes on the third.

[@gushers500]

Yeah I was watching the game on ESPN and it was crazy

[@sethers]

Joe on the MSG broadcast said something like “I don’t think this is a goal but with my track record on these plays it probably is.” Then when they called it a goal he said “Yep. Still don’t think it was a goal, but on we go.”

[@timothypeters8095]

Definitely agree! All or nothing -either you can score off your skate or you can't. And if you can, you can supplement with some sort of dangerous play rule to keep players from swinging their skates at the goalie. Pretty easy to figure out #NHL

[@skyscraper5910]

I like the idea for an nhl rule video. They shud honestly make a bunch of those videos for unclear rules, and for people that are just getting into the game.

[@rockstargirl]

yes!

[@jeremyswanson6513]

Eck for commissioner!

[@jstnrgrs]

So one option is just allow kicking. Another would be to say that anytime the puck goes directly from skate to goal, it’s no goal. I don’t know enough about hockey to know what would be a good idea, but anything that makes it clearer seems good to me. (I love your channel even though I’m not a huge hockey fan btw.)

[@Ben-zv4mv]

No one knows what the rule is. Even the refs. Regardless was an unreal game, probably game of the year so far

[@alexanderbasile3938]

Key & Fox vs Dallas?

[@Ben-zv4mv]

@@alexanderbasile3938 True, but I'd say overall this one had everything u want in a game

[@deanstevenson1649]

i think a good change would be do what you want with your skate to redirect it into the net, so long as the blade remains on the ice the whole time. it's meant to prevent injuries, and that ought to do it.

[@walterkjelshus3759]

I'm a flames fan and when watching it I was so surprised that it wasn't called back. I was of course happy but when it showed the review I just said "okay that's not a goal" but this rule is so stupid I hate it because it can help you are screw you over.

[@jfrfoodreviews6509]

As a Flames fan watching this, I immediately thought back to the Coleman goal in the playoffs last year. I was sure that the goal last night was going to be called back in comparison to that goal. It would be really nice to see more consistency.

[@kylek29]

The purpose of the rule is to fall in line with other aspects of hockey -- that goals should be scored from pucks being propelled by sticks. This is why you can't throw pucks in the net or propel pucks in by other means. The problem is the education aspect you touched on, the NHL needs to take a queue from the NFL and really lean into educating fans (during broadcasts and via social media) on what is and what is not considered a "kick." To be honest, they should do this for many other rules, fans being educated on rules in general is always better. Your test for "did the player add force/momentum via the skate" is one I use as well. This is one of the rules the league really needs to clarify in their ruleset and try to make it as black & white as possible -- that was proven with the CGY playoff goal last year, as I think that came down to the very (very very) subtle heel twitch the player did when contacting the puck (visible from the overhead), sure he added a slight amount of force, but it didn't change the outcome.

[@jeremymercer5655]

I would agree that if the best way to score was to pick up the puck with your glove and throw it into the net, then there would be a problem. It would be too easy to score and would sidestep the skill that is supposed to be involved in hockey. However, using a skates is a core part of controlling the puck in normal hockey play, so I think it would be more natural to just allow goals to be scored with the skate. I also don't believe this is a safety issue as I doubt someone would try to drop kick a puck flying through the air. If you think that is a concern you could require the skate to be on the ice or close to the ice when deflecting. There are other options to ensure safety while allowing kicking goals.

[@TheNighthawke502]

I understand that the rule is there to keep goalies and players safe from having sharp knife-shoes flying at them blade-first, but it is currently worded so vaguely that it creates a wode range of different interpretations, while the league (run by a bunch of lawyers and businessmen, no less) can't seem to nail down a properly succinct definition for a majority of the rules in the rulebook! As a result, I've personally thought for a while now that as long as the skate blades remain on or even along the ice surface (to account for a player adjusting his stance or otherwise moving the position of his foot) then the goal should count, since, a deflection off of a skate is realistically no different than a deflection of any other part of the body, and it always counts in those other cases!

[@adamwade8801]

please do a separate video of Troubas great hits tonight 😂

[@NCS06]

I think they called it a goal because he doesn't really propel the puck into the net, he kicks his foot forward into the pucks trajectory and the puck deflects off his skate and into the net. He doesn't push the puck. I think the overhead camera shows my thoughts the best.

[@Smokewadwinslow]

It’s a beautifully put together argument and video, however you forgot the golden and most important rule. “Rule 74.5: if it goes into a video review it must go against the New York Rangers at minimum 88% of the season”

[@goalhorncrazy9779]

I’m one of the few who genuinely thinks that the rule should be eliminated completely

[@KramerWaifu]

Yeah it needs to go. I don't care how the puck gets into the net. As long as it isn't thrown in with your hands, it should count.

[@formertitan4935]

@@KramerWaifu Yea forget about protecting goalies and let skates fly near their necks.

[@KramerWaifu]

Idk man. I'm not a rules expert here or a player safety expert. It just seems stupid that it can't go off your foot and in but off of any other part of your body is fine. And honestly it wasn't always a rule and I don't recall in the past a ton of goalies getting decimated like that in the past. I'm sure it is safer for them which is a good thing though.

[@KramerWaifu]

Shouldn't say wasn't always a rule btw. Bad wording. More like, not nearly as ticky tacky with what counted and what didn't. Maybe it's because replays have gotten better. Idk man.

[@joshuaneal7552]

@@KramerWaifu Do you want it to count when guys smack the puck into the net? Seriously?

[@philipcoggins9512]

I’m a Pens fan, and that’s a kick. I think they should just say “purposely direct the puck into the goal with a foot.”

[@mhicaoidh1]

Generally I agree ... but then the argument would be around "purposefully" ... someone would post a video on YT showing two frames where the player's skate appears to move. The underlying issue, as with many rules in the NHL, is the subjectivity of interpretation.

[@philipcoggins9512]

@@mhicaoidh1 We are never going to be able to eliminate subjectivity completely. Lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As long as the ref or the league is able to explain themselves clearly, I'd be happy. I might not agree, but I'd be ok with it. There is recent history of changing a rule that was for the better, because not to long ago, any puck that went in off a hand was disallowed. Now it has to be "... scored when the puck has been deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player’s body into the net." I don't want to go back to the "any puck off a skate" standard of the 90s, but some of these plays are ridiculous in their purposeful manner to score using skates.

[@mhicaoidh1]

@@philipcoggins9512 fair point. I guess the question is: Do you want a good rule with good enforcement; or, do you want to eliminate controversy? I suspect most people would be in the former camp rather than the latter. As you said, we'll never eliminate subjectivity completely ... unless you go to ruling through absolutes (i.e. no pucks off skates period). But, I think, given the creativity and athletic ability of todays athletes, you're shooting yourself in the foot (no pun intended) if you do that. What I really think is the issue, and I have thought this for a while, is that the leadership of the officials is just bad. One thing that would explain what I've seen over the last several years is the officials getting constant, and likely contradictory over time, instructions on what the "flavor of the month" will be on penalty calling. While things seem better this year, I think the officiating instruction, training, and continuing education system the NHL has could use a critical examination.

[@jake.p533]

The inconsistency is what kills me. I would even be okay with "any goal scored off the skate is no goal" same as off the helmet. Might be some flukey goals where they were tipped off skates called back. But id prefer that then seemingly refs making up judgement calls

[@kevinpettigrew4792]

I remember a goal that counted off William Nylander who's intention was to kick it in the net (or at least towards the net) but because the kicking motion was after the puck hit his skate it counted. So intention is only sort of part of it. Which you brought up of course.

[@maekoh]

As a flames fan, this was 100% a kick and a missed call for sure. If he would've just angled his skate it was a deflection, but he pushed it forward while angling it which is a clear kick. Honestly it's a dumb rule but its hard to find an alternative solution for it

[@edamage]

I don't agree but I would love that the rule would be clear enough to know wtf to expect. I watched the game and didn't even think it was controversial and should have counted but had no clue which way it would go.

[@Alex-ll4mc]

What was your opinion on the Blake Coleman goal?

[@romaliop]

It was a kick but not what the NHL means by distinct kicking motion. Basically the line seems to be around if the player gave the puck the momentum to go in or not. Paul Stastny even scored a, frankly quite reckless, kicking goal in the '18 or '19 playoffs iirc, where he lifted his skate off the ice to deflect the puck, but it was called a good goal anyway because it was a deflection.

[@martharunstheworld]

THANK YOU!!! This was so frustrating! If the Rangers had lost this game, I would have blamed this call.

[@Knumpty]

I'd like to see it changed to something like: If the skate is on the ice, or just slightly above it (say, 1-2in), and the puck goes off the skate and in to the net, then it's a goal. Regardless of any 'kicking motion'. If the player is deliberately lifting their skate way up to try and deflect the puck, or y'know outright lifting up and kicking their skate forwards, towards the goal/goalie, then it's disallowed. It would be much simpler, and quicker, to review. Edit: And while we're at it, allow players to headbutt the puck in to the net. That Shawzy goal from years ago was hilarious and amazing and should not have been deemed no goal. Still a bit salty at that 😂

[@kylecastillo2761]

Thank you for posting this, thought the kicking motion rule should be revisited for a while. As a sabres fan I would love to hear your thoughts on the '99 game 6 "no goal" by Brett Hall if you have the time for a throwback video.

[@tonyc8752]

Good goal. Obviously. Only idiots think Hull’s goal was illegal

[@OldRustySteele]

@@tonyc8752 Hi Tony, I’m not an idiot, but have been watching hockey since 1968. Under the rules back then, Hull’s goal would have been illegal. Back then, you couldn’t go into the crease unless the puck was there first. In Hull’s case, the rebound came back out of the crease slightly which under the old rules meant that Hill would have need to get out of the crease as well. I’m OK with Hull’s goal, because I think that when the rebound comes out of the crease but is still reachable, it should be fair game. I think the problem is that it was reported that the NHL had changed the rule before the playoffs but hadn’t made it public. That left a bad taste in fans mouths, especially those who were Sabres fans. I had no dog in the hunt - I’m a Blues fan.

[@JerofBear]

I am a Calgary flames fan I missed the entire game This was my first time seeing this play I would expect this goal to be called back

[@phlexcrew]

Dude is the most biased Rangers fan on KZbin lol

[@frankog6510]

Hey, at least he admits to it, gotta respect the honesty

[@phlexcrew]

@@frankog6510 yeah I agree. Ain’t throwing shade just stating the obvious lmaooo

[@jordannewman177]

Do you genuinely believe that was a good goal? Are you a moron, or just a flames fan? Actually never mind… being stupid and a flames fan are the same thing.

[@darkbreaker9767]

So the biggest problem I have with this rule is exactly what you said at the end about the Blake Coleman goal, it was already going in. I was at the Wild @ Bruins game on October 22nd and there was a Matt Boldy goal disallowed for kicking when the puck would've been going in anyway, and it looked like, on the ice, in real time, he was just trying to stop. On the replay, it looked like he was trying to stop and incidentally hit the puck with his skate. Linus Ullmark wasn't going to stop it whether Boldy touched the puck or not. If the NHL has such a problem with skates touching the puck, call it not Boldy's goal and whoever played the puck before him. It was going in anyway

[@bngngb]

love your channel! much better than all the tv commentators

[@lepireification]

The NHL wants these types of rules to be vague as it creates hype/buzz/discussion when its being reviewed. Your video are an example of this. Plus, its easier for them to control the flow of a game... if you get what I mean...

[@wiunderstand]

I think you should just allow it if part of the skate blade is still touching the ice when it comes in contact with the puck and the skate does not come in contact with another player/goalie during the build up/follow through (maybe rephrase the last part but something along those lines)

[@DriftedFlame]

Didn't watch the game, but must have been a good one. I think you can tell my favorite team by my profile picture, but you are right about this. He clearly stuck his foot out and tried to kick it into the net. Have a great rest of your week Eck and keep up the daily content.

[@edamage]

I'm calling the flames police on you for desertion 😆

[@DriftedFlame]

@@edamage Calgary still on top though.

[@parteekist]

QUESTION! How do you use the video with SN logo in it? don't you get copy right claim? how do you avoid it? I am thinking of starting a YT channel but I can't get my head around the copyright rule.

[@37Kilroy]

NHL officiating is frustrating. Like any of the big US sports leagues, the NHL refs come into each season hard with certain "focuses." These rule tweaks not fun to watch, but before long, the players have adjusted, and the tweaked rule is set. These focuses, or tweaks, often improve the game in some manner (like rule clarification) and if they don't, they can easily be reversed in the offseason. But the NHL refs... they do their early season "focuses" inconsistently, and by mid-season, the players have gotten their way and the rule stays as it was. And you addressed the other big issue, the NHL is often officiated on intent, or severity, rather than action. Most sports actions are simply disallowed. Intent and severity are called into question only when the action warranted harsher punishment. But the common foul was the common foul. But in the NHL, all of the penalties are ambiguous because the actions are judged rather than witnessed. Just recently, the NHL tried to hammer down the crosschecking to becoming an "action." I think for two seasons in a row it was a focus. But for whatever reason, it never lasts more than a month or two in that ice league.

[@Bushman9]

If the skate and the puck move in the same direction after contact, call it a kick. If the skate and puck go on separate trajectories after contact, call it a deflection. I believe this approach would at least reduce the number of inconsistent applications of the rule.

[@oscarthoms3330]

Ironic because that’s exactly the rule and it is enforced in that way

[@Dragon_Fyre]

I think where it is murky in the wording is in what is “deliberate” re: propelling the puck forward. Typically, the player is in motion to the net, so they will be propelling the puck forward.

[@heyblondie28]

Eck can you make a video touching on all the ads that we now have to see just to watch hockey? I HATE the LED boards and actually stopped watching hockey this year because of it. Would love to hear your thoughts on if this is related to viewership being down this year. Also the ads on the jerseys 😪

[@MrStcrook69]

100% agreed. You can flying knee the puck into the net MMA style, and you should be allowed to "kick" or deflect the puck by any means necessary.

[@SDGhoster]

I think the simplest solution is to create a rule similar to this "(a)No puck can be deliberately altered by a kicking motion while in the crease (b) not puck and be kicked in from anywhere on the ice if it is determined to be a kick where the leg swings back and forth (c) a puck deflected off a skate where the player is fighting for position in the crease shall count as long as no goaltender interference is called (d) if a player is pushed and his foot creates a kicking motion in the crease it shall be deemed a good goal as long as there is no goaltender interference of the opposing player's position" This to me creates multiple tests if a player moves his foot within the crease where the blade has the potential to come up and be dangerous to a goalie making a save its a no-goal, crease rule, not quite the no foot in the crease of the early 2000s can't make a true kick anywhere and have the puck go on but, if you want to stretch and deflect 3 feet outside the crease, go for it and allows for players who are on the edge of the crease and have it bounce where the foot may be in and its happenstance good goal, or if they are pushed. so for Calgary last night = goal - foot outside crease

[@ed4bs]

OMG! I totally agree with you. The placement of the player’s foot to deflect the puck is not a kicking motion. I’ve disliked this rule for years. We need this rule changed.

[@braydongeiger7984]

Yup your right like always as I don’t see any kicking motion only gliding motions n you just somehow got me lol so hard when u said that about Doug g

[@Blue-bv1ur]

When I saw your tweet I knew this video was coming lol

[@76Ibenez]

You are correct. Let them kick the puck, My other beefs: -Let them clear the puck over the glass, It's not an advantage to have a face-off in your defensive end. Too many five on threes for simple slip ups. -Let them change after icing. I would rather see the best ten skaters on the ice than watch a tired fourth line play the number one line. -I don't think a stick check should be a slash because the unpenalized plater has a stick that breaks easy. Thanks for the video. It is a great game!

[@76Ibenez]

Sorry I went off topic. Your right though. Let them kick the puck.

[@AzNightmare]

*I don't like gray areas. This is what I would do to fix it.... Chose one of the following:* *-Only deflections where the players don't even have time to react or see the puck. Angling or repositioning the skate in any way would be a disallowed goal. Basically dumb luck goals, sort of how it goes off defensemen's skate, except it happens off the scoring team's player.* *-Allow all intentional deflections or angling (kicking) motion, but the skate blade has to be in contact with the ice surface at all times. No skate lift on the followthrough. So that way, you don't have players actually trying to boot the puck in like soccer with skate blades flying up waist height.* *I don't care which option, either way is fine with me, as long as it's consistent.*

[@YungFitzy24]

Eliminate the "smart deflection". Allow the puck to deflect off skates like and other body part, but disallow it if the player intentionally redirects the puck with the skate. I think that would help minimize the gray area

[@celticstephenhill]

0:25 - Nate Thompson (from the Jets) made a kicking motion BEFORE his foot became fully extended. And the puck only touched him AFTER his kicking motion was done. It's therefore subjectively interpreted as a "Kicking motion" but I remember seeing it live and thinking they definitely got the call wrong.

[@bearwooden660]

My 12 year old yesterday - "How is this not a kick?"

[@EchosTackyTiki]

Screw it. Just make it legal. As long as you're not putting someone's health at risk by using your skate to direct the puck into the net (whether that directing happens to impart energy, or not), I say it should be a good goal so Wes McCauley can make the announcement with some gusto.

[@joaquinspandex7870]

1000%!! This is one of the most arbitrary and non-sensical rules in hockey. Kicking rule isn't fixable, it needs to go.

[@ExasBits]

The key is propel. So you can break it down to simple physics. The puck will loose momentum off the skate on a deflection. Like a cue ball off a bumper. A kick is more like an 8 ball to the corner pocket off the cue ball, without putting the cue ball itself in the corner pocket. It will gain momentum on a kick. If the puck slows down off the skates? Deflection. Speeds up, or in other words, propelled? Kick.

[@andyland5555]

I've always thought they need to go the opposite direction. Intentionally angling your skate to deflect the puck in is basically the same thing as kicking it in. Its usually pretty clear if the deflection off a skate was intentional or not

[@bradlywiebe3673]

I'm not even a rags fan and that was clearly a kicked in puck. I'm not sure why but Calgary always seems to get lots of love from officiating.

[@SAJe_53]

To me, a "distinct kicking motion means the use of the hip and/or knee muscles, as the forward motion of the player will impart kinetic energy to the puck even without kicking at it.

[@austinmk6555]

i watched this game and i just knew you were gonna cover this

[@saviorofthelion]

I was at the garden for this game. Even the flames fans in front of me were surprised at the call.

[@evanswanson8862]

As a soccer player, I find the NHL's attempt to define a "kick" to be convoluted and unnecessarily complicated. It's so hard to determine whether a dude is "just getting a leg in there" or actually "providing momentum with the leg." Just allow the players to tap it in with the skate. They can pass the puck, settle the puck, and even perform tricks using their feet. Ditch the goalscoring restriction and make a new rule to address player-safety in the crease.

[@richardmorrill3253]

I wonder if with the precision monitoring they have now they could measure the speed and position of the puck and the player precisely enough to determine if the player imported momentum to the puck with their skates that wsn't a result of their existing forward velocity. It would probably require a bunch more sensors, and the data would be a bit noisy, but I think they could still create an algorithm that would be able to make the right call 90% of the time, and just favor the scorer in the cases where it's within the margin of error. Not sure fans would react positively to a call being made by a computer, though.

[@haydenring1940]

Thank you for bringing up that Blake Coleman no goal from the playoffs! That's exactly what I thought of when I saw this video. How can that goal not count yet the one Mang scores against the Rangers does? It makes no damn sense to me, the rule is judged so inconsistently and I really hate it. Sometimes, the refs decision in these cases (whether they are the right call or not) simply play god and it's such a terrible way to potentially decide a game.

[@ethann1625]

As a Flames fan I 100% agree. I definitely thought that was gonna be called back. It very much should’ve been a no goal.

[@LocalCretin]

Well reasoned argument. Whenever I see a goal go off a players foot, kick or deflection, my stomach sinks and I know we are in for a shit storm. Maybe the rule should focus on specifications for windups or follow throughs on any "kicking"

[@christophelarochelle8052]

The moment I saw the goal, I knew you we’re gonna make a video on it.

[@robertrouthier2603]

For the NHL, the action of moving the puck forward with your foot seems to be the defining criteria in a no-goal call. If the puck was already moving and you move your foot forward to redirect it (even when it looks like a kick), that does not seem to count as a 'distinct kicking motion'.

[@Lava1964]

I was at a Junior B game in Ontario last Saturday. A player standing about six feet from the net kicked a puck that was about two feet off the ice into the net. The "goal" was properly disallowed, but everyone sitting near me agreed it was such a skillful play that it should have been allowed on merit. Yes, let's change the rule so that you can kick the puck into the net as long as it is not in the crease where the kicking motion might endanger the goalie.

[@csolivais1979]

If they are worried about player safety (which I understand) just make the rule simple: as long as the skate blade remains on the ice, good goal. But if the skate comes up in the air in a non natural skating motion (basically the skate blade pointing at an opponent) no goal.

[@myronachtman4304]

The "hub" in Toronto uses a coin-flip to make their rulings on kicking goals. But it's a very sophisticated coin and therefore it's always correct.

[@jackyshighlightvideos3481]

The NHL’s kicking rules is almost has bad as the NFL’s catching rules. Like what is a “football move” and what is a “distinct kicking motion”?

[@flaaavadaaave3197]

The difference between a kick and a non kick (I am not a fan of either team in this example): In this example, yes, his foot is moving forward in a typical kicking motion, HOWEVER, it is a deflection IMO because the forward motion of his skate doesn't affect the momentum of the puck based on its trajectory. The puck is coming from the side, the player moves his foot forward into a position to cause deflection, the puck deflects off the side of the skate as intended. If the the puck had hit the toe of the skate in this instance, and then was propelled forward in the direction of the "kicking" motion, this would then be a kick. Similarly, if the player here had moved his foot sideways, towards the incoming puck in an attempt to make the puck move in the same direction as the sideways kicking motion, even though the deflection in and of itself would move the puck in the same direction without the sideways kicking motion, the added momentum imparted on the puck would designate this example as a kick. If players are going to be allowed to deflect the puck into the net, they have to be given the right to move thier foot into position to cause a deflection. Moving your foot in any direction could be considered a"kicking motion", so clarifying that momentum cannot be added to the puck is an important distinction IMO I think the rule could be clarified by adding a statement along the lines of: If the motion of the foot "adds momentum to the puck in any direction" (whereas a true deflection would actually dampen the momentum), this is considered a kick, and the goal should be called back.

[@kekke2000]

While I agree with most of your points. They should absolutely not remove the rule and allow kicked goals. I don't want to read those news articles when an incident happens because people were kicking with sharp blades to score a goal. The clip is clearly a kick btw.

[@raymondtalbot6104]

I'm a goalie and .. ah, the good old days when players had to score with their sticks... No discussion necessary.

[@deansilva2291]

This is a simple fix in that the words "kicking motion" should be replaced with intentional deflection with skates. Just as a deflection with a high stick resulting in a goal is illegal, so should an intentional deflection with skates be. The same goes with batting in a goal with ones hands is illegal so should intentional skate deflections. If a player is standing still and a puck deflects off his skate resulting in a goal, then that is clearly non intentional. If there is movement intentional or otherwise then it is an illegal goal. If the NHL wanted to eliminate any controversy and long review delays, then just make any goals scored by skates illegal. End of story! This is not ROCKET SCIENCE People!

[@ScottGostick]

I think the issue is the lack of understanding what propel means. Use last nights example. If that puck is travelling at 80MPH when it hits the deflects it will then lose some of some of it's momentum, the motion of the skate imparts some momentum back to the puck which likely doesn't even make up for the amount of momentum that is lost. The puck was propelled by the shooter, not the skate. We've been confused about this rule due to the lack of consistency, but the spirit is that we don't want to see soccer goals. To me they need a little less focus the skate motion and more focus on where the pucks real momentum is coming from. Maybe decide if the skate was in the same position prior to the puck arriving instead of as it's arriving what changes? The only change is that there is no review on the play, good goal, and more of them should be.

[@thelifeofoothyo4023]

The rule like you said was put in place so there is no kicking in the crease, but I wouldn't like the idea of a player making a good defensive play by tying up an opponents stick and the opponent is allowed to just kick the puck into the net even from further out. That would just take away the whole point of the game...using your stick to score.

[@truenorth2615]

The problem is with the word 'kick'. A kick is a very distinct motion. I think they should remove the word kick and change to the wording to say something like; "Any motion of the foot with intention of touching the puck that then immediately results in the puck going in the net will be disallowed"

[@MathieuFerronMusic]

You should be able to place your skates in a way that it could deflect on your skates(staying in front of the net and angling your skates before the pass/shot is made) not changing the angle of your skates as the puck goes your way.

[@AaronCanb]

I think I understand how the NHL calls it, usually when I see a challenge for a puck kicked into the goal I know what call they are going to make. Simple rule is if the puck has enough speed to deflect off the player and go in it basically doesn't matter what they did it won't be called back. Where as if the puck is sitting in the crease with no speed and it goes in because of the propulsion of the kick than it will be called back, and again it doesn't matter what the kick looks like.

[@noeybalbonzers9755]

Was 100 percent a kicking motion. Coming from a rangers fan, if a ranger did that I would also say 100 percent a kicking motion.

[@TheeMasterDoge]

I think deflections with your skates and a minor kick is fine, but obvi no full soccer kicks

[@jamesberry3230]

originally the rule disallowed any goal that resulted from an intentional use of the skates to put the puck in the net; this intentional use was referred as kicking the puck and was not limited to a literal kick; that is why the words "distinct kicking motion" are in quotes it is an interpretation to allow more goals to please the fans, who the NHL believes want high scoring games, a game that ends in a 0-0 tie no matter how dramatic and exciting the play is "BORING!!"

[@vinniehat]

A similiar thing happened with the NJD vs TOR game. I think they should just remove the rule and allow goals to be scored with a kicking motion, regardless of intention. Because half of these you can see it both ways. I personally think that it was not a distinct kicking motion, but he did add speed onto the puck as you said, so it's a 50/50. Once again, the NHL is not clear on its rules.

[@kd-pt1zy]

They been needing to fix this for a while now. King Henry said it best years ago vs ottawa. A play like is scary. They need to remove it altogether that way there is no confusion among players and goalies. Treat it the same way was a high stick.

[@ryanbencze]

HOT TOPIC: If a puck goes in, it counts. The ONLY exceptions are throwing the puck in. If a player touches the goalie in any way INSIDE of the blue (before the puck is lose then no goal) but enough of the MINOR touching while the player is outside of the crease not counting. Enough of the minor highsticks not counting. If its A major highstick then obviously no goal but if its so minor of a highstick count it. Andrew shaws head butt goal should count too. The goalies and teams are good enough to score goals. It goes both ways, every team has had a goal count and called back by stupid "kicking motion" goals. If the league has rules where commentators dont know the answer to, and even ex refs dont know the answer to, then theres a problem. 99% of the time if the puck goes into the back of the net, count it and move on.

[@TheAstrobleme]

My take is to allow kicking of the puck. However, in order to protect players, make it an extreme penalty (like automatic multi-game suspension and fine) for kicking an opponent.

[@troydejong6206]

As a Calgary Flames Fan - I total thought this would be called back! Was totally a kick... moved his foot/skate forward enough he lost his balance and fell down!!! lol

[@quickdry3]

it has been bad in any league not just NHL with NHL specific rules, either remove it entirely and the puck can go in off anything except a high stick (and while we're at it, tidy up that rule to be "high stick" not "above the cross bar") or make it disallowed any time it is off an attacker's skates - only allowance being if the defender pushes the attackers skate into the puck - then it is the D's fault (just like the goalkeeper contact rule)

[@bluethunder1951]

Simple, If the puck is in motion along the ice it’s a redirect, if it’s not in motion it’s kicking, to kick a puck in motion it’s obvious to see the knee being bent backwards and then forwards to make the kick, to see a redirect it obvious to see the knee not being bent backwards and the skate guiding the puck.

[@aliviachaudhuri1841]

As a person who has been playing soccer for 9 years that is the definition of a kick u look closely he's moving his skate forward to give halak no chance of saving it also as a rangers fan I watched this game I've watched hockey for 3 years and I swear it's really exciting but I've seen a lot of dumb calls my favorite moment was Artemi Panarin overtime winner game 7 against Pittsburgh

[@IceWarrior101]

We had a similar play with Coleman in the playoffs go the other way for us also.... very confusing rule. I think deflecting the puck in with your skate should be allowed... they want more goals right?

[@kevinkarbonik2928]

A deflection and a kick are very different, that was a kick.

[@oscarthoms3330]

The Coleman goal was a very very very different situation and motion. I knew that was illegal when I saw, and I knew this was legal when I saw it. If I’m being honest I just don’t think you understand the rule

[@IceWarrior101]

@@oscarthoms3330 If I'm being honest maybe there is no real purpose to you being a smart ass when you don't understand my comment at all. I never said I dont understand the difference, I was just pointing out we had a 'similar' play go against us, and the next part is me agreeing with him that it is a confusing rule. Similar doesn't mean exact. So maybe learn some English first.

[@oscarthoms3330]

@@IceWarrior101 if I’m being honest i don’t think you understand what similar means

[@IceWarrior101]

@@oscarthoms3330 Okay tough guy.

[@forzanerazzurri2339]

If you allow kicking of the puck you're going to get a ton of dangerous skate injuries. This isn't complicated.

[@darthollpheist1156]

I have always said this. I think the rule should be, if it deflects off your skate without your trying to deflect it, it's good. But if you move your skate in any way to create the deflection on purpose, it should be called back. This is hockey. Not soccer. If someone throws the puck at the net and it deflects it, fine. But if you stick you foot out or move it in a way that looks like a purposeful deflection using anything but your stick, no goal.

[@SpicyPotatoe]

I wonder if someone hasn't seen Goon and is now convinced that picture of Glatt was a legit hockey game.

[@kevinfromalberta]

The easiest safest way to call the rule is allow kicking goals so long as the blade of the skate does not break contact with the ice. Sweeping/shoveling = good goal. Punting/soccering = no goal

[@louisduquet4003]

as long as the skate stay on the ice during the kicking motion, I see absolutely no problem permitting scoring with your skate.

[@impossiblepie]

Nhl situation room , " ok heads it's goal, tails it's not , call it" "heads" " it's heads".

[@MallowPokes]

Yeah honestly that looks like a good goal to me. It does not seem to me that he made a distinct kicking motion. I think they got the call right this time, but it’s true that the rule has definitely been miscalled before.