NHL Worst Plays Of The Week: WHAT ARE THE RULES!? | Steve's Dang-Its

Steve Dangle shares his picks for worst plays of the week in the NHL. He goes over everything from Blake Coleman's "kick-in" goal to Cale Makar scoring a goal that looked off-side to 99% of fans at the time.
----------------------------------------------
Subscribe to Sportsnet on KZbin - sprtsnt.ca/2paAT2L
Visit Sportsnet.ca for more sports news and highlights - www.sportsnet.ca
Follow Sportsnet on Facebook - sprtsnt.ca/YTFB
Follow Sportsnet on Twitter - sprtsnt.ca/YTTWTR
Follow Sportsnet on Instagram - sprtsnt.ca/YTINST
Follow Sportsnet on Snapchat - sprtsnt.ca/YTSNAP
Watch Sportsnet on Sportsnet Now - sportsnet.ca/now

[@nicksojka7457]

One of the few positives about getting knocked out of the playoffs is you no longer have to worry about your team being featured in Dang-Its.

[@DC-yl4vc]

or being F'd by the league

[@loltrip2741]

my teams out but still making dangits like trading our 1st round pick to Columbus when we are rebuilding.

[@metalheadcol]

​@@loltrip2741 now that is a dang it 😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@allthingshockey9688]

As a capitals fan I can agree with this

[@Beljeth]

Man, all this time as someone who got into hockey after already being into soccer I had been thinking "At least offsides in hockey is really straightforward, unlike offsides in soccer" and now I have to come to grips with being wrong about that.

[@ciqme]

I’ve been a hockey fan for years but I too had to rethink how I thought about offsides

[@SomeSortOfLandCow]

To be fair, hockey's offside rules are straightforward and less ambiguous than soccer. It's just that most fans don't/didn't completely know them.

[@TheHebrewHammer]

Fun fact about offsides in Football (Soccer): If the goalkeeper is the second-last opponent and you are behind him, you will be deemed offside. However, if there are 2 players behind the goalkeeper, you will only be offside if you are ahead of the second-last opponent. I don't get it either.

[@Stumbler69513]

The weird thing is, everyone's understanding of the offside is correct. What most people got wrong was assuming where Makar had "possession" of the puck. The ruling gave him possession way later than what passes the eye-test and that's why it doesn't make sense without the context of what that "push ahead" of the puck is.

[@buzzsaw1000]

Since when does offsides in hockey have to do with possession (other than bringing a puck in behind you.) It's all about touching the puck (or interfering with a defender) on a delayed offside. Makar doesn't touch the puck until the tag-up is completed. While it's not as exaggerated and probably not on purpose, it's the same as when a player purposely doesn't touch the puck going across the line. (The Bunting example is perfect) I do this exaggerated type in beer league about once a month or so.

[@Oxmen33]

Maybe it's just me but kicking motions are pretty hard to make when you're standing on that same one leg.

[@cha0s883]

He was gliding with his right leg and used his left to push the puck in

[@DC-yl4vc]

@@cha0s883 which has been allowed 100 times

[@onyblitz9178]

He was gliding with his right leg while his skate was off the ice? That's a neat trick.

[@Oxmen33]

@@cha0s883 3:46 you can CLEARLY see his right skate is not on the ice, it comes down and toe picks the ice. His full weight is on his left skate which is also the skate used to "kick" the puck.

[@cha0s883]

@@onyblitz9178 Correct, watch 3:33 in 0.25 speed. He was gliding with his right leg, and his left skate was off the ice. He then brought his left skate in front of his right to push the puck in the net, which is obviously an unnatural movement

[@leighgolding2771]

The "olé olé olé" singing got me 😂😂😂💀 That song is for Soccer, Habs fans!

[@misslolohannah]

The “Nevermind!” had me dying when it happened, oh boy, perfect timing 😂

[@t2av159]

Remember when you were a kid, and there was always that friend who made up things while playing games. Thats the NHL, in corporate form.

[@MrNeeko777]

"So what are the rules?" "We'll figure it out while we play." Lol love your comment

[@CoryCat65]

sure seams like it

[@kc9602]

"Knife Shoes!!" 😂😂😂 Good one, Steve.

[@Captain_Nightwing]

I will be at work tomorrow and I will start randomly laughing and people will ask my why I am laughing and I will reply "knife shoes" and people will walk away from me slowly.

[@mcj88]

As for The "Kick", you said it at the start of the year when the Kraken got burned by a blatantly-kicked in goal that counted, and it bears repeating again: *if officials can't determine what is or isn't a "distinct kicking motion", then maybe kicked-in goals should just count.* Either that or _no_ goals that bounced off of skates should count - make it all-or-nothing, but I know which end of that spectrum would be _less_ controversial.

[@jasongamer8649]

Yeah just make everything except palm of the hand legal, short of throwing it in, kicks headbutts, anything should count

[@Stumbler69513]

The problem is you don't want people going into the crease swinging around their foot-knives just to try to get a goal. IMO the best solution is to say no goals off of skates that are not on the ice during any part of the motion that resulted in the goal. So you can deflect/kick it in by angling or sliding into the puck but you can't lift your skate to "kick" it in.

[@jasongamer8649]

@@Stumbler69513 I mean it can only make the game more exciting at that point. How bout no high kicks?

[@kirillthethrilll]

@@b.y.2460 lmao you said it best 😂

[@ethancrisp3491]

I feel like an issue is when you are an expert in the rules and do this everyday, you are more likely to analyze it and really need to define a 'kick' whereas someone watching could easily just identify a kick or no kick. Having more experience seems to make it more difficult to determine it if that makes sense.

[@bassnhockey]

Forget casual fans, I don’t think Makar knew this! I honestly believe Makar pushed the puck to gain speed, not wait for his teammate. Hell I play minor pro hockey in Europe and I didn’t know that was how it’s written.

[@peterpike]

Yeah, Makar was screened initially and his angle toward the offensive zone shows he didn't see Nichushkin. It wasn't an intentional play, but it didn't violate the rules anyway. Also, I don't think the linesman saw it when it happened either. I suspect on close calls, they default to just saying it's onside (and really, when you look at the play in real-time, it was about 1/10 of a second--3 frames on the normal speed film--where it would have been a delayed offside). They know that if a goal is scored, there's video review, so better to err on the side of allowing a scoring chance than incorrectly terminating one. And since 99% of the time this happens, the puck is just cleared or the goalie makes a save, that's the smart default mode to have on the ice: unless it's clearly offside, assume it's onside and let the video review take care of the rest.

[@bassnhockey]

@@peterpike I completely agree that if a linesman is unsure that they should call it onside on the ice. I was just saying that if I had to bet, I’d bet Makar watching on the Jumbotron was thinking yeah that’s off. I don’t think he knew the way the rule was written during or after the play.

[@bruxi78230]

@@bassnhockey ---- In an interview after the game, Makar admitted he didn't know about that particular detail in the offside rules. He was just going full speed and it just worked out for him. But it's conceptually no different from a dump-in on a delayed offsides. If the offensive player doesn't touch it until his teammate touches up, it should be and was allowed.

[@jkliao6486]

It honestly doesn't matter if Makar knows the rule or not, because if a player doesn't know the rule, he/she got punished for violating the rule without knowing that. However, the good thing about this rule is like to see whether a goal crosses the line or not. There is no ambiguity. So you know that if a similar situation happens, if those conditions checked out, the same call would be made. As for all of those fan-made changes to the rule, the fans need to be better in order to learn the rule when there is no ambiguity and if there is no ambiguity, there is no way you can improve the rule to make it clearer.

[@GPEVOX]

The reason I knew this rule with the Makar play is because it happened to the Avalanche against Vegas.

[@brenengjesdal9023]

20:41 Me and my friends were complaining about that call for the entire game as Oilers fans. We have all played minor league hockey and (I guess ) we have a very good understanding of how offsides work. When Elliotte Friedman explained it after the game, we both sat there and realization struck us HARD. No matter what Steve Dangle says I always seem to agree with it or have thought the same ideas before. Great commentary

[@unjourdef2]

Just imagine if Makar had dumped the puck in the corner instead of that small push-over. It didn't matter if he had possession or not, as long as when he ends up touching the puck in the zone, his teammate is out of offside position. I thought it was offside too at first, but it's a tricky rule indeed. Good call on the ice and review, but tough to grasp.

[@boogiedownbrown]

@@unjourdef2 I agree, I am an Avs fan but texted my friend saying it was coming back, followed shortly by THEY BLEW THAT CALL. But after hearing the explanation, it made sense. Its a tricky call that we Avs fans will cheer about and Oilers fans will bring up when pissed... depending on how this series plays out.

[@factbeaglesarebest]

You played minor league? What league? Do you mean juniors? Or are you actually talking about youth hockey. The Makar goal was a good goal, he did not acquire possession of the puck until a few strides into the opposing side; oilers still would have lost.

[@burningfarts]

@@unjourdef2 it actually is offsides because makar is in clear control

[@unjourdef2]

@@burningfarts He does control the puck. He does have possession. But he doesn't touch the puck in the offensive zone or crosses the blue line plane until his teammate is back on the blue line as well, so the delayed offside doesn't get called. It all happens in a fraction of a second, but it's not offsides (by a hair, but still).

[@brma3124]

The hilarious thing about Kyrou not shooting that is that the commentator immediately started gushing about how "poised" he was on that play. Yeah, amazing play to sit with a puck on an open net until it's not really an open net anymore.

[@christyouredumb956]

It’s blues analyst Darren Pang. The fact they let him do the series on a national broadcast is a fail

[@angelinaliu1816]

@@christyouredumb956 it’s been physically painful listening to him during the entire playoffs

[@patricktwyman2730]

@@christyouredumb956 but the guy that’s talking is not Darren Pang. Not saying he’s the best broadcaster in the world but that’s not him.

[@rickseiden1]

Rangers' fan. I was watching Game 7 against the Canes and when Igor did that, I said, "IF YOU'RE A GOALTENDER, TEND THE GOAL!" And I knew I'd see it again today.

[@urNbrTotoro]

same here, couldn't help but say out loud "that's a dangit."

[@JaredChenkin]

I did the "shesty, WHERE ARE YOU GOING???". On a related note, he IS really good at handling the puck in other situations.. dude has 3 assists in the playoffs already

[@rickseiden1]

@@JaredChenkin some day hell get that elusive short-handed goal.

[@JaredChenkin]

@@rickseiden1 that would be so money

[@Captain_Nightwing]

I watched the clip with Coleman's kick. "I see how they called it that." See's the other clips of 'kicked' goals "I don't see how that's not allowed."

[@mattoiler9714]

It’s not soccer bro

[@GetTheFOutOfMyWay]

#NhlConsistency duh

[@StrykerZeals]

Yeah, same I see the Coleman one and I can see the argument for it being a kick. Then I see the Nate Thompson one then I'm like.... Okay nevermind.

[@mattoiler9714]

If they start allowing kicking in pucks it’s defeats the purpose of the game go watch soccer

[@montuckyman4982]

@@mattoiler9714 it's true its not soccer but the main reason for not allowing a kick is for safety. I mean you can slide and angle your skate for an obvious deflection off your foot. It's just a really bad idea to have a kicking free for all in a net front scrum , with dudes faces and necks down by the puck. That's the main reason.

[@sportsforlife17]

Me: Im having a bad day Steve: Posts Me: Nevermind

[@lrba5524]

"distinct kicking motion" is in the rulebook to allow purposeful redirections with your foot and disallow "shooting" with your foot. plus they tend to rule the instep as a kick. I don't think the Calgary example was an egregious example of the kicking rule, but some of the others you looked at were. while it's unfortunate, I also think this example was consistant with the spirit of the rule.

[@Khaine85]

Yea I saw the same thing, he lifted his left leg and extended it towards the puck doing more than a full cross over.

[@rickybobby9885]

@@Khaine85 what are his options? Not do that and eat the crossbar??

[@Tyler1330]

He wouldn't have eaten the cross bar he & both his legs would have stayed with the defence man. Making them both slide pass, but close, to the right goal post. I wouldn't call it a kick rather a purposeful move to the leg to ensure your skate contacts the puck. I'm not sure if those specifics are covered in the NHL rules or what constitutes an official "kick" in hockey.

[@Bullshirt1983]

@@rickybobby9885 What he did stretching his leg across his body to kick the puck was much more dangerous. Risked cranking himself on the post instead of following his line and just missing the post.

[@rickybobby9885]

@@Bullshirt1983 watch his right skate. His balance is taken from him requiring him to use his other leg to stop his momentum from carrying him directly into the post. If he doesnt use his left skate he goes straight into the post. Its easy to see

[@Cartergarrett26]

The tnt broadcast in America explained the rule perfectly

[@meadRL]

Its still dumb

[@Cartergarrett26]

@@meadRL rules are rules

[@johnr5808]

I'm not sure I agree on the offside call. Full disclosure, I am an Oiler fan, so obviously biased. But my argument is he had control. Maybe his stick wasn't touching it at that moment, but he had control. Picture this, a player receives a breakout pass at the opposition blueline, he spins around to accept the pass while skating backwards. His skates enter the zone before the puck. While his skates are in the zone, but before the puck crosses, he lifts his stick over the puck and sets it on the other side to stickhandle. By the interpretation of the Makar goal this should be offside. He wasn't touching the puck and therefore did not have control for a moment while his skates were in the zone. In my opinion, both instances have the player in control of the puck even though they are not touching it in that exact moment. What am I missing?

[@pyRoy6]

I can find no wording in rule 83 that says the play should be whistled down because Makar has control. 83.1 does account for the scenario you are referring to, but it doesn't account for the situation that actually occurred (someone other than the puck carrier was offside). Basically, for one player skating backwards with the puck, "control" allows their skates to cross before the puck. But if someone else is offside, "control" does not determine when the whistle blows. And it gets more complicated from there. I've been typing explanations all over this thread... and my fingers are getting tired.

[@Doom5115]

Delayed offside doesn't refer to having possession, only attempting to gain possession, under the rules Makar had possession having been the last player to touch the puck with either his stick or body, hence why he wasn't attempting to gain possession

[@pyRoy6]

@@Doom5115 The key is that "possession" is defined in the rulebook in that very strange way that you pointed out. Just imagine that the same play should TECHNICALLY be offside if the puck touched a player on the same team before crossing the line, even if Makar retained control.

[@Doom5115]

@@pyRoy6 Honestly, whether or not its weird way to define it is neither here nor there, in this situation the fact is that it is defined that way, which means that the play was onside, Whether or not the rule should be changed is a different conversation, because they don't and very much shouldn't, call the game based on what the rules "should" be, but rather what they are.

[@pyRoy6]

@@Doom5115 Yeah. I'm not saying that the call was wrong. I will say that none of the experts on TV has been able to explain it correctly (or, at least, adequately)...which does say that the rules need some fixing..

[@rushilb6]

nah when Igor left the net I literally screamed "Igor... IF YOU'RE A GOALTENDER"

[@lisalockhart5407]

"he went wayyyyyyy to far this way and wayyyyyyyy too far that way" LOL classic

[@MessiRonaldoandaviationfan909]

I always love hearing Steve say IF YOU'RE A GOALTENDER TEND THE GOAL!

[@DDWyss]

If you're a defenseman, TEND THE GOAL!

[@TheKyykky]

I think kicking should be allowed as long as the blade stays on the ice. Then it would be easier to determine if it was a goal or not. Then the idea of why you aren't allowed to kick(safety, as nobody wants knives flying around the net) goals would stay but there wouldn't be as much controversy.

[@kaydenshepherd510]

Was about to say the same thing. I mean if the thing they're trying to prevent is players getting cut from kicks, then I think as long as the foot stays on the ice then it should be a good goal

[@oliverbowser]

Hahaha the “BOOM…Ole Ole Ole Ole” at 5:40 had me cracking up 😂

[@randalgregory9045]

Thanks for videos. Your narration is the best! Goaltender interference and kicking mystery decisions are definitely a bummer.

[@user-iz3gv5vo6b]

I think that the biggest problem with the non-offside, is that the linesmen are going to the video to see if the Avs player's skates have looped back across the line yet, which they confirmed have not. They then spot a faint half inch of space between Makar's stick and the puck while he's carrying it across the line, and say" "hey I can say that I was right and it's a good goal because we can subjectively rule that since Makar's stick is not actually touching the puck at that particular instant, we can say that he's not in full control of the puck and that he passed it to himself waiting for his teammate to get onside before he touches it again". It's not true, but we can call it that way because then we've confirmed that we're right, and the what the fans and players see with thier uneducated eyes are all wrong.

[@pyRoy6]

That seems pretty close to what happened, but it's worth noting that there's nothing in the rule (that I can find) that says an offside is whistled down when a player has control of the puck crossing the line (while someone is offside).

[@loltrip2741]

unpopular opinion: makar's goal is a good goal. that rule is a good rule and should not change. you should be allowed to do what he did. there are countless examples of players pushing it in the zone and only touching it once everyone tags up (or at least trying to do so) but its very situational, requires a lot of awareness and most of the time it doesn't lead to a goal because most teams don't have an absolute sieve in net who lets in wrist shots from that far out.

[@kipper1314]

Steve you forgot the dang-it of when you said "watch a leafs game" during the watch a playoffs game.

[@TMJ32]

The Makar play was a quirky play but it's onside according to the rules. And that exact play has been called onside over and over for years. I get why people think it's offside initially and it's been challenged unsuccessfully several times as well. But it makes perfect sense why that's onside.

[@angelinaliu1816]

Agreed. I understand the initial challenge cause in real time it really looked like it could’ve been offsides but it is clearly stated in the rule book and the review made it obvious 🤷‍♀️

[@MadBulletz]

wait... so if someone steamrolled him there when he enters it would be called interference cuz he didnt have "possession" of the puck. Cool so I could enter the zone while my teammate is way offside but instead of touching it I could just stick handle close to the puck without touching it and wait for him to touch up? And if someone hit me it's called interference. Because according to you I don't have possession of the puck?

[@TMJ32]

@@MadBulletz no dummy not at all lol. Everything you just said is completely wrong.🤦‍♂️I can't believe how many people don't know what delayed offside is. I don't think you're going to get this but I'll try once...Makar did have possession of the puck, that's big part of why this was onside. On a delayed offside, the rule says you aren't allowed to try to GAIN possession if the puck is loose, or a defender has it (ie. You cant chase a guy while you're offside, or go running into the corner to pick up a puck you don't have). Neither of those apply to Makar, he had the puck. Next part, your feet still have to stay onside until all offside players have tagged up. So your comment about running around after the puck makes no sense, you'd be offside. Makar's feet were still in the neutral zone. The last part of the rule says if there's a delayed offside and the team HAS THE PUCK it's offside when and if they TOUCH it while their team is still offside. Makar didn't touch the puck or enter the zone until Nichushkin had tagged up. If you still don't get it then read rule 83.3 and read up on what delayed offside is.

[@boblawblaw6875]

The officiating in these playoffs has been a complete mystery. Never have I seen so much inconsistency

[@colinmazzella7948]

Don’t we say this every year?

[@ziggle5000]

Never? Except for literally every other season lol?

[@boblawblaw6875]

@@colinmazzella7948 ya but this is it’s friggin bad !

[@gamingshowerthoughts9723]

The offside was nonsense. The implication is that you can just enter the zone offside as long as you sort of "hover hand" the puck until your teammates tag up. On a giveaway + partial breakaway you could realistically enter the zone SEVERAL SECONDS offside. and just do some shoulder fakes or tee up a slapshot while you wait for your teammate to tag up. This is not how it's ever called, nor should it be called this way. Also if "possession" of the puck now means having it glued to your stick, does this mean if you skate the puck up the ice in full control but you havent touched it for a few seconds....is checking you interference???

[@TheGoalieMan100]

Not entirely how it works. If any player enters the zone with a player currently offside (based off of foot position), the play will remain offside. Feet tag up before the puck carriers feet also enter the zone (both feet completely cross), therefor onside.

[@ayewhosthat2083]

"Thompson... OLAY OLAY OLAY OLAY" killed me lmao

[@blainbruce9597]

I’ve been a fan since the early 80’s and an oilers fan and I was surprised with both calls

[@pyRoy6]

Tim's explanation at the end is objectively wrong (of course, Sportsnet has failed to do a proper deep-dive into this with someone who actually knows what they are talking about). I believe the call was correct, but not for those reasons. First off, the offside rule (83) doesn't actually explain when the play should be whistled down except in the section of delayed off-side, so we definitely have to look at 83.3 to determine how it should be called. 83.3 is NOT only for situations in which the defending team has the puck, but also for this situation (by its wording "...or, the attacking players are in the process of clearing the attacking zone"). Because of this, the play could arguably be whistled down since Makar was attempting to gain possession of a loose puck. But this is tricky, because the rulebook glossary makes a distinction between "possession" and "control of puck," and does not define "loose puck" at all. "Possession," believe it or not, is granted to the last player to touch the puck, regardless of control or any other circumstance. This means that Makar has possession, and retains possession throughout the play...which is probably why the league could not say he was attempting to gain possession. Even if the rule were interpreted the other way, Bunting's play is not a good example because he appears to intentionally lift his stick (i.e. he is not attempting to gain possession or control or whatever). If I were in charge, I would make the following changes: - Clarify all wording in 83.3 - Clarify "possession" and "control of puck" in a way that makes sense by normal language (they are currently insane, and actually contradict each other) - Add a definition of "loose puck" if needed to clarify new definitions of above - Explain when the whistle should be blown in every section of rule 83

[@joelface]

huh... that explanation of "possession" makes sense, but is also bizarre to suggest that you remain in "possession of the puck" after you dump the puck in until someone else touches it.

[@pyRoy6]

@@joelface It is bizarre. But that's the definition in the rulebook glossary. And it should be changed to match some sort of plain language, honestly. I also noticed that the definition is contradictory to the definition of "control of puck." It's pretty sloppy.

[@Alex-zo6mz]

im realy glad u showed 3 other examples of goals that shouldnt have counted and then showed a 4th that also shouldnt have counted. really productive addition to this conversation, u r the best

[@Alex-zo6mz]

also it was definitely a kick u r deluded lmfao

[@cujo505]

As an Oilers fan whose still in therapy trying to understand last years playoffs still...I will remain in therapy because of that offside. My brain is blown 💨🧠

[@Xeteh]

Crazy to me that there are a bunch of examples that the NHL has called that the same way for years at this point and people refuse to accept it. He pushed the puck in and didn't touch it until Nichushkin tagged up.

[@brackendouglas3433]

Did you watch the full review and rules reading at the end of the video?

[@cujo505]

So you guys are telling me that you have heard of possession and or control of the puck rules of coming over the blue line? Cmon

[@brackendouglas3433]

@@cujo505 it’s called tagging up it happens all the time with a delayed offside.

[@Xeteh]

​@@cujo505 He doesn't touch the puck until Nuke touches up. Do you really want refs blowing plays dead because a guy is close to a loose puck on entries? Get over it, man.

[@gregbaraks3183]

I honestly think it was a kick and the major reason I think that is that it was his left (outside) foot coming across to knock the puck in. I also don't think it matters whether to not the puck was already going in or not, and I think he definitely meant to kick the puck with his skate. I also think while he was driven into the net, his foot extended which was not forced by the defender. Saying this, I may be slightly biased as I am not an Oilers fan but I did prefer them over Calgary for their series.

[@robrick9361]

This doesn't matter. It's the complete inconsistency that's the problem. Makes the sport unwatchable at times.

[@sethers]

Steve, part of the way this Rangers’ team breaks out this season has been Shesty stopping the puck and starting the breakout around the boards. It’s a risky tactic, sure, but Shesty is by far the best active stickhandling goalie. He picked the wrong time to do it there (sounds like there was a miscommunication with Lindgren going to the bench) but through the dozens of other times during this game (and every other game) that he does this, it helps the Rangers game a lot. Put it like this - Shesty’s made this play hundreds of times over the 2021-22 season, and he’s ended up on Dangits for it only one time before, maybe twice if I’m remembering correctly. He’s not like, say, Lundqvist who never ever ever should leave his net during action. Heck, you had Shesty stopping the puck and sending it as a hat pick earlier in the playoffs (Game 6 at Pitt) bc that’s one of his skills, a skill that’s brought the Rangers to where they are today, with a 1-0 lead in the ECF. This is a Dangit bc he completely messed it up, but if you’ve watched him play and the Rangers this season you’d see that him making the play is crucial to how the team plays.

[@JaredChenkin]

Can't up vote this enough. Dude has 3 assists in the playoffs!!

[@ari1234a]

About the Makaar`s goal and subsequent ruling of it, it`s technicality as they say, lots of attorneys/snakes gets a good moolah outta finding them. Thing is though its a rule and rules can be changed but them changes has to be made before the game starts, now this rule benefited the Avs today next time it might benefit some other team.

[@TomAllnatt]

I love the explanation at the end. Very clear explanation of the rule and view of the non-touch.

[@WhiteSekii]

Hockey, the Only sports where you need a PHD to become a fan

[@bruxi78230]

You obviously don't watch NFL football. Even long time fans don't understand the catch rule, it's totally screwed up beyond belief. All sports have these anomalies, I actually feel that hockey does the best job of reviewing with the situation room in Toronto.

[@thewaterwarrior9817]

Still a kick l, technically not offsides but in reality its offsides 😂😂

[@Capt_Chaos_91]

In those cases they really need to go by possession. And by possession I mean significantly influencing the puck with your stick (pushed it forward on his backhand) without any contesting players battling for possession. NOT “oH bUt He WaSnT tOuChInG iT!!”

[@TMJ32]

@@Capt_Chaos_91 why. There's nothing wrong with the rule the way it is.

[@jkliao6486]

@@Capt_Chaos_91 The you don't understand the rule. The rule clearly says "touches the puck". If you disagree, simply tells me how possession of the puck is a less ambiguous criterion than touching the puck? How do you quantify the possession? How long does the player have to touch the puck for it to be deemed a possession? Unless you can answer all these questions, your improvement to the rule is trash and is only adding more ambiguity to an otherwise clear-cut rule.

[@Capt_Chaos_91]

@@jkliao6486 it wasn’t an interpretation of the rule. It was a proposed revision. Ive already heard analysts use the term possession over touch. I already explained what a reasonable quantification of “possession” should mean (in my opinion). A significant influence of the puck with the stick without any contest from an opposing player. As far as the time of possession, as long as it would take for a referee to blow the play dead on a delayed penalty. I’m not looking to argue over this since it’s in the past but Steve raised a VERY good point. The rule is too complex and has too many branches and subsequent circumstances that can contradict itself in different ways. If fans and the league have to dig into it this much, it’s probably too complicated. 19:54

[@jkliao6486]

@@Capt_Chaos_91 So? What is the criterion for a significant influence of the puck? How much angle do you have to change the puck trajectory and how much speed does the puck have to carry to be deemed significant influence? You are not addressing any of these questions, yet thinking your criterion of "significant influence" is better than the current criterion of "touching the puck"? I can ask 100 non-blind people on the street to watch the play and ask them if Makar touches the puck, 100 people would tell me no, he didn't touch the puck. What about you? Do you have the confidence that you ask 100 people on the street, even without hockey knowledge, 100 people will tell you Makar has significant influence during the delayed offside period? "Yeah, but he is just gliding with the puck, he didn't change the trajectory of the puck". That's called ambiguity. And if you can't understand the rule? Get better because this is not a subjective rule where it depends on the refs. It's an objective rule that as long as all the criteria are met, the outcome would be the same every single time.

[@davidlocke3477]

The Avalanche and offside reviews in the playoffs. Name a more iconic duo.

[@eager9997]

Matt duchene anyone??

[@charliebarber7797]

@@eager9997 Hey that was regular season! lol I don't remember any more AVS offside close plays in the playoffs

[@eager9997]

@@charliebarber7797 me either, was just hoping it was yoffs lol

[@dirk903]

That "offside" rule has now been exposed... prepare yourselves for teams adding this into their playlists

[@DoradoFever]

This isn't the first time this has been seen or done. Perhaps known in the playoffs, but there still is other examples of this. Clearly Makar knew and his hockey IQ allowed the setup to lead to a goal.

[@meadRL]

@@DoradoFever you think that was intentional?

[@BadPandaWoodworks]

You're WAY behind... It's been like this for years...

[@soulknife20]

It's been a rule for like 17 years. It was change or added in 2005

[@peterpike]

They showed an example of Arizona LITERALLY DOING THAT AS A PLAY from last year. Incidentally, most teams aren't going to be "adding" this to their playlist because a play that has "wait 0.1 seconds for a player to exit the zone" isn't going to be as useful as, say, breaking through a press, or setting up a shot off a faceoff, which are worth practicing since you'll see those a million times more often.

[@michaeljuliano8839]

I was one of those fans in the 9-minute review in the Panthers @ Lightning. A friend of mine was watching on TV and insisted the crowd was out of line. What he didn’t realize is that we score a goal, celebrate, hear there’s a challenge, stand there for 9 minutes with no replay or explanation of any kind, and then the ref calls the goal back, and the crowd boos so loudly, if he offered an explanation, none of us can hear it. Then it happens again, and we basically all just want to murder the refs. It’s a very different experience than watching on TV.

[@t3tsubo]

I think the way the NHL is interpreting the rule for kicking is that you can't kick a puck that is stationary/near stationary, or one that has rebounded off the Goalie, into the net. If the puck is coming off a shot or is moving fast, then its a redirection and not a kick.

[@craigtothec]

They should rewrite the rule to say that the puck can't have the majority of its momentum imparted to it by the foot/hand/whatever, and remove the part about a distinct kicking motion, since that's the way they are interpreting it anyways. "Kicking motion" is clearly too vague and should probably have never been in the rules in the first place.

[@-Twenty-Nine-]

I think they interpret the rule as you can't have your skate provide forward momentum to the puck

[@m0RRisC2319]

I believe a goal should only count after it hits a players skate if the players skate is not moving. If you are standing still (or reasonably stationary) and the puck bounces off of you, then the goal should count. I never liked the "distinct kicking motion" rule because to me, it is too vague but ironically also too specific at the same time. Determining "distinct" vs "kicking motion" is the same thing when you breakdown the definitions of those two terms. For example, does a "non-distinct" kicking motion exist? How about a distinct "non-kicking motion"? That doesn't make any sense. If I was King, "a moving skate cannot cause a goal" would be the rule I would implement. That seems to be the most realistic solution.

[@joelface]

@@m0RRisC2319 But what if you're skating (like what happens in many off-the-rush plays) and the puck happens to glance off of your skate unintentionally?

[@shiron1158]

I had an instance playing high school hockey where I took a slap shot right in the cup. Dropped me like a sack of bricks, but my team never touched the puck, they were all just standing there staring at me so play continued. Before I recovered enough to get up the other team had scored.

[@Cancelx2k]

only reason i thought i had the jump on the offside call is cause i was thinking like as in basketball on a inbound the timer doesn’t start until the player touches the basketball or in soccer where you have have to be behind the last defender BEFORE the player passing him touches the ball. idk in my opinion it didn’t seem that hard of a concept to grasp in the moment but everyone’s sports knowledge is different

[@yeeeyeee13]

I feel like this happens all the time, but because it’s the playoffs… they digitized the play. 82 game season, games 1-70 don’t count

[@ziggle5000]

"they digitized the play" lol are you a character on letterkenny or something?

[@SammyNineFingers]

I think part of the problem with the rules in the NHL is that some officials go with the literal wording of the rule and some go with the spirit of the rule. In the literal writing of the offsides rule the Makar goal is good because he doesn't touch the puck until everyone has tagged up. In the spirit of the rule the play is offside because Makar is playing the puck forward into the zone while a player hasn't tagged up yet. It really came down to how the officials make their infraction calls based on how they interpret the rules. The Avalanche just got away with murder because they ended up having the officials that focus on the wording of the rule over the spirit of the rule.

[@christyouredumb956]

There’s been multiple calls of the exact same type this year alone. It’s not just this one call which I think everyone is missing. This has been consistent in the way this is ruled.

[@peterpike]

I disagree. The spirit of the rule is, you don't want a player camped next to the goalie so they can get a long-range pass and score. Nichushkin was trying to exit the zone and had no impact on the play. Both the spirit and letter of the rule were followed.

[@Spyderram57]

@@peterpike I guess they have completely changed the rule since my days watching hockey. It used to be that, if a player was still in the zone, As The Puck Reentered the zone, it was offside. Going by the old rule, This was clearly offside.

[@MRMNYC]

Congrats, Steve -- you're officially my spirit animal. 😂😂😂 People have said that to me and I never really understood why, but thanks to you, I now understand. 🥳🤣

[@hunterlahti6342]

One thing that makes me question that Makar offside call is if Makar had been checked when he "wasn't in control" I'm almost positive it wouldn't have been called an interference penalty even though he "wasn't in control"

[@CoryCat65]

good point

[@Michael_Billig]

Every example you show that was called a goal had the skate NOT PROPELLING the puck into the net. The Coleman goal was a kicking motion WITH the puck being propelled into the net. Just gotta examine the rule book very carefully

[@zacharyjeffares8158]

The only way for it to be declared offside is if Makar was skating BACKWARDS WITH THE PUCK. This is because on zone entry in this instance, the puck is BEHIND the blue line; and since Makar has control and possession that would mean he is onside. But because his teammate is inside the offensive zone while Makar has possession and control of the puck, that would be offside.

[@NicholasIstre]

I looked it up in the NHL rules and it looks to be the same as when I was officiating recreational games under USA Hockey rules: the puck carrier with full control of the puck can never be offside. That scenario you described would be ruled onsides. It was a specific situation brought up during the officiating training. UPDATE: looked it up. Section 10 of the 2021-2022 NHL rulebook, part of Rule 83.1: A player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the leading edge of the blue line.

[@danielegaiotti2431]

I think about the times playing hockey that I've waited for a teammate to cross the line before I touch a puck that is over the line and the offside call makes perfect sense to me. Idk how that kick wasn't a goal and I've given up on thinking I know which way a goaltender interference call will go years ago.

[@mrswb]

I like listening to the radio call, and on the Avalanche offsides thing even the radio guys thought it was coming back.

[@Sad7Statue]

I still think about that bad kick call every night while I'm going to sleep. Edit: every Oilers fan that says that was a kick is lying to themselves

[@cha0s883]

He literally crossed his left leg over his right to push the puck in. That's such an unnatural motion. This is coming from someone who hates the oilers

[@thomasgruber3387]

@@cha0s883 and you see that his right legt was blocked by the goalie so he wanted to use his left leg to not fall down or something?

[@tarpsoff57]

I swear to god I’ve learned so much about some of the NHL rules from watching these videos. Also, THAT WASN’T A KICK!!!!!!!!!!

[@troymelnyk7253]

It's a kick for sure. He even said he purposely hit it in with his skate

[@tarpsoff57]

@@troymelnyk7253 Not a kick. As far as I’m concerned the Flames won that game

[@SprXSynergy]

@@tarpsoff57 no sir some of the flames players were seen trying out for the Toronto FC team

[@tarpsoff57]

@@SprXSynergy your point being?

[@therocket2591]

Facts. Even if you watch the goal in normal speed he wasn’t intending to kick it. His leg almost hit the goal post and could have possibly to injure his left leg from hitting the goal post,cause of smiths pad and a oilers players stick getting in the way and tripping him.

[@SlovakLegend]

I learned this offside rule I think 2 or 3 years ago with NJD, where Blake Coleman entered the zone backwards, being first in the zone and the puck followed him after, but it was said he had full possession of the puck and therefore it was allowed for him to do it.

[@TheZombiemofo]

I had a feeling that the kicking rule would be a big issue by the end of the season when we seemed to have so many controversial incidents with pucks going off the skate in the first few weeks of the season. At the moment both that and goalie interference seem to be the most contentious rules as they're far too open to interpretation. So they often end up being called based on how the officials "feel" at the time, rather than a hard "this is okay, but this isn't okay" rule that they need.

[@RyBredSamich]

Your telling me I can literally keep the puck right in front of me stick handling it even if my guy is 10yds in but I’d have to physically touch the puck, even though it’s only 1cm away from my stick, I can just glide to the net then and shoot it.

[@pyRoy6]

By the wording of those rules, yes, but you would have to keep yourself onside until your teammate tags up. But don't use Tim's explanation. Read 83.1, 83.3, and the glossary (for the definition of "possession."

[@jaca8712]

@@pyRoy6 This is all the glossary says about possession: "The last player to physically touch the puck with his stick or body shall be considered in possession of the puck. (NOTE 1) A player can have possession of the puck without control, but he cannot have control of the puck without possession." That's it. Control of the puck, also in the glossary, is: "The act of propelling the puck with the stick, hand or feet." Anyone who's ever played hockey knows that Makar was in possession and control of the puck. To state differently in the name of an offside undermines some fundamental tenets of the game. If Makar wasn't in control, I don't know what this game is about anymore.

[@pyRoy6]

@@jaca8712 I think you're misunderstanding what I mean. That's a couple things happening. 1) There's no way to know when to whistle the play down without looking at 83.3. 2) 83.3 provides two ways in which this play could be whistled down. One of them is touching the puck while the play is offside. The other is "attempting to gain control" of the puck while the play is offside. So I think the bonkers definition of "possession" means that Makar already had possession and therefore could not be trying to gain possession.

[@jaca8712]

@@pyRoy6 Fair enough, but 81.1 says this: "A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with the blue line, or on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses the leading edge of the blue line." So, by the contrary, Nichuskin would be offside, wouldn't he? 83.3 also says this: "If, during the course of the delayed off-side, any member of the attacking team touches the puck, attempts to gain possession of a loose puck....the Linesman shall stop play for the off-side violation" This seems to apply to Makar--if he didn't have control, then he definitely was attempting to gain possession of the puck. So it appears that in either case, the call should be offside. I don't have a dog in this fight (I'm a cursed Leaf fan) but when we get down into the nitty gritty of it, I think it's a hard call to stomach.

[@pyRoy6]

@@jaca8712 I think you have it right. 81.1 explains when someone is offside, but it doesn't say when it gets whistled down. I initially thought 83.3 does say what you think, BUT the definition of "possession" seems to mean that Makar was in possession the entire time, and therefore could not have been "attempting to gain possession." It's bonkers, but I think the call was correct by the bonkers wording of the rules.

[@jimmyjoejoeshabadoojr]

Can we just agree that Coleman kicked it, but it should've still been a goal?

[@Neiliss1]

I agree it was a kick and im a flames fan. They need to reevaluate the rules on this for future games

[@pyRoy6]

@@Neiliss1 They need exceptions for pucks that are already going in and/or situations in which case the kick has zero risk of hurting anyone.

[@Neiliss1]

@@pyRoy6 Yep i absolutely agree

[@berges104]

As an AVS fan and one that was 9 rows up and inline of that shot for 3-2 in the 1st period, I am not going to complain about the win ;-)

[@avsrock1561]

Your right totally.... like I said on your live broadcast video.... I was at the game and was shell shocked when it was called on sides... after I got home and watch the replays though I was thrilled the league got this one right.... personally I feel a player going the opposite direction not involved in the play should just have to touch up and be considered on sides.... maybe some day on that one lol.... but it would be nice if the league had more answers for the public on reviews and also the refs should be responsible for answering questions from the press after games.... because personally I'm wanting answers sometimes....

[@mozar5175]

This was definitely an offside play. The fact that the referee says the player didn’t have control of the puck is pure BS!

[@thehoneycamper2634]

It is still offsides and a Delayed Offsides play unlike the guy at the end of the video states because under rule 83.3 it defines a delayed offsides as "A situation where an attacking player (or players) has preceded the puck across the attacking blue line, but the defending team is in a position to bring the puck back out of its defending zone without any delay or contact with an attacking player, or, the attacking players are in the process of clearing the attacking zone." The key to knowing why it is still delayed offsides here and this is offsides is because of the last line there. "attacking players are in the process of clearing the attacking zone." which he even says Nichuskin is doing. The NHL has no "Tag Up" rule except for under 83.3. Thus, it is a B.S. explanation to justify an incorrect call and 83.3's rule is still in effect here.

[@pyRoy6]

You are correct. Tim was talking out his ass and mocking other people at the same time. Embarrassing. But I think the call was correct, due to the insane definition of "possession." The last player to merely touch the puck has "possession" regardless of control or anything else.

[@jkliao6486]

It is not offside because rule says "touches the puck". Makar didn't touch the puck, and the team wasn't in an offside situation when he touches the puck. So it's a good call. The rule doesn't say anything about what if a player has possession of the puck.

[@Inferno6969]

"If you're carolina, you're thinking if I can get one in the next 5-" "CHYTIL ALL ALONE, HE SCORES!"

[@barrybrownell3200]

Your argument over the kick with the other samples only made it more obvious that the Coleman goal was the only one propelled into the net by the skate. Every other shot was deflected by a skate moved into position under the pucks momentum.

[@JohnnySyn]

I think Makar had control of the puck before he crossed the blue line. He already touched the puck and had control of it. Should have been offside!

[@caro12347]

right? he pushed it over the line and since the puck isn't clued to the stick he later touched it again.

[@pyRoy6]

@@caro12347 Does it say anywhere in the rulebook that "controlling" the puck over the blueline means it should be whistled down? I could not find anything that says that, even though maybe it should for simplicity's sake.

[@caro12347]

@@pyRoy6 with the rulebook you can justify both offside- and onside call tbh. Just stating my opinion in how it makes sense. To me rules can ,similar to laws, be layed out by the wording, the meaning or the history behind it. In my opinion the meaning is important here. So for me it makes no sense why someone having possession of a puck can get away with it being offside by retouching the puck after your teammate leaves the zone. Plus it wasn’t an intentional retouch after the teammate leaves the zone. So to me the intention of this rule was not this situation.

[@pyRoy6]

@@caro12347 I agree that maybe the rule should say it's whistled down if someone carries the puck with control across the blueline while someone is offside. I'm just pointing out that that's not what the rule says.

[@caro12347]

@@pyRoy6 true tho

[@RyBredSamich]

That’s a kick too, he used the inside of his opposite leg to awkwardly contort his body and kick it in, if it was the outside of the skate it would be fine, but it was the inside.

[@schindlj]

The issue i have with that offsides rule is does that mean someone can be in conplete control of the puck, stick handling it down the ice. Then once the puck get on the blue line, lift the stick foe a half a socond until the his teammate gets back onside, then touch it again, and it is then onside? If that is the case, stick handling it into the zone, you would need a downward camera on both blue lines, because stick handling, the puck isnt always on the stick of the player.

[@therealstinkypinky]

So my question here with the Makar goal. If he was to get absolutely steam rolled at the blue line, would that be interference since he didn't have control of the puck? Genuinely curious on this.

[@Capt_Chaos_91]

I don’t care who you root for, Thursday truly IS the best day of the week!

[@kylesmith7086]

It was his left foot which was trailing him before entering the crease. He brought his foot forward into the crease across his right leg. Kicked.

[@mcj88]

1:09 looks like me trying to play as a goalie with NHL 22's sloppy, slidey goalie controls: going too far one way then too far the other in correction because it's impossible to control at all.

[@thebeebyboys1751]

There are two reasons why the Makar play is so misunderstood. First that replay that you showed from the goalies POV shows the moment or so that Makar does not have the puck. We did not see that live in the US. Not sure what you saw in Canada. Second ALL of US understand the youth hockey version of offside better than we do the NHL, Im guessing its 50/50 in Canada, so some still confused. The nuances of delayed offside and the speed of NHL players make it so that no rule book could make this easier. The only thing the NHL can do is fall back on precedent . Having witnessed Toes and Chicago do this to the Avs about 5 years ago, yeah we did know that this was the correct call. Great job with the Professor Tim segment at the end :)

[@somethingsomething8511]

Offsides isn't about possession it's about physical contact with the puck. If it goes offside you don't have to wait for the other team to touch it, i.e. give up possession, like a high stick. You just have to not touch the puck until your team is onsides. Anyone who's played hockey with delayed offsides should understand this.

[@random_fem]

In rule 83.3 delayed off-sides of the NHL rulebook, it specifically states that if any member of the attacking team, "attempts to gain possession of a loose puck," then the linesman needs to stop the play for the off-side violation. Off-side is about possession.

[@somethingsomething8511]

@@random_fem so we're going to go with a subjective rule over an objective one? Just rewrite the rule to touch and boom we have a clear cut rule for once.

[@random_fem]

@@somethingsomething8511 "Just rewrite the rule to touch and boom we have a clear cut rule for once." I think the rule does need to be rewritten to touch, but the fact is, the way the rule is currently written, it needs to be blown dead when the attacking player attempts to gain position of the puck.

[@somethingsomething8511]

@@random_fem not really as it's entirely up to the discretion of the ref as to what constitutes gaining possession. Most refs read that rule and interpret it as someone chasing down the puck, not someone skating into the zone while not touching it.

[@SleepyScylla]

Even with that little segment with Tim & Friends explaining 83.3 part2, it still holds an immense margin for interpretation. Tim & Friends seem to think he didn't attempt to posses the puck/did not posses the puck. What I see is Makar going towards the puck which == attempted possession of said puck. Then he states the rule is written for players already offside moving towards the puck, THE RULE SAYS ANY ATTACKING PLAYER, which again.. maybe it was written for just the player who is already offside heading back to the blue line, BUT THAT's LITERALLY NOT WHAT THE RULE SAYS. I've been a fan of Hockey for the majority of my lifetime, played the sport, played the games, watched it etc. And it bothers me that this is so damn complex with so much room for interpretation. This has to change. Its fine to have all these intricate cases, but at least have a rule that clearly states what is happening and make it obvious please. This is getting out of hand with what a kicking motion "should" be and what "attempting possession" should be and what "actual possession" is.. And for anyone stating he does not have possession, you are opening up an entirely new conversation about what deking is, because if I go from forehand to backhand or vice versa, there can easily be a moment there where I do not have possession of the puck, and that is wrong as hell.

[@pyRoy6]

You are correct to point out that Tim is wrong...and spectacularly wrong because he mocks people for thinking he's wrong. Granted, I think the call was correct, but Tim is wrong about what the rulebook says. Tim is absolutely wrong that 83.3 is written only for situations in which the defending team has the puck. It is also for any situation in which attacking players are trying to clear the zone (like this situation). The key to the call, from what I can tell, is that the glossary defines "possession" as being the last player to touch the puck (regardless of anything else), therefore Makar cannot be "attempting to gain possession." It's also worth noting that 83.3 is the only section that can explain when an offside is whistled down.

[@peterpike]

The rule also say, "during the DURATION OF THE DELAYED ONSIDE", which was all of 0.1 seconds. Are you saying the Makar literally made his attempt to gain the puck in that 0.1 seconds, and not before that 0.1 seconds (when it was legal because the puck wasn't offside yet) or immediately after that 0.1 seconds, when it was legal because Nichushkin had tagged up? Because when you look at it frame for frame for that 0.1 seconds, Makar doesn't change trajectory or move his stick at all during that literal blink of an eye.

[@jkliao6486]

Because Makar has the possession of the puck. Imo, if Makar has the possession of the puck, he can't attempt to gain possession of the puck, as he can't attempt to gain sth he already had.

[@SleepyScylla]

@@jkliao6486 exactly my point, he either has possession or is attempting to gain possession there. Either way, shits offside, and if its really not, the rules are broken to a point where they have WAY too much room for interpretation. Absolutely wild.

[@unjourdef2]

@@SleepyScylla just imagine he Makar had immediately dumped it in the corner instead. The play would have been onside then, right ? So where's the difference... it's when he ends up touching the puck inside the zone. And when he finally did (even if he still had possession the whole time, contrary to a dump in), his teammate was out of the zone and back onside. It's a good onside call, but a very obscure situation nonetheless.

[@nolanfn4958]

I knew it when they showed it in the intermission because it’s pretty simple, possession never mattered. The whistle goes when the puck is touched in the zone when the play is offside. In this case it never was, however Oilers should not be penalized when they have 10 seconds to challenge a play that took the referees 3 minutes.

[@LHOH197]

I've been watching hockey for almost my whole life and played for a couple years I thought for sure that I knew what offsides was and I thought I knew what a distinct kicking motion was well apparently I had no clue what offsides or a kicking motion is now

[@FoCoDRock]

I thought that goal was coming back, watching makars face he looked like he thought it was coming back as well, but I was happy it was called a good goal

[@carletonrutherford1799]

13:04 I had not seen the play before. I have no dog in that fight, but THAT WAS OFFSIDE. I do not understand how anyone, and I mean anyone, who watches hockey, could think that was onside. That was an absolute LUDICROUS call!! And then the following powerplay led to another goal by Colorado. A 2 goal spread on 1 play. That was absolutely terrible.

[@bradleynugent4991]

except numerous former officials, former players, current video coaches, the commentators on the broadcast, the TNT crew on the intermission including Gretzky all said it was onside, you're just some guy in a youtube comment section i think ill believe the experts on this one, it is a little rare, but this is called onside consistently here is an example: kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4HSp2Rqgd1-jLs&ab_channel=SPORTSNET

[@nursetj191]

Steve, as always, ya nailed it. thanks for reppin the common fan!

[@timkearns9576]

100 % agree with your take on the business problem with the blown calls. When you are paying for tickets and have calls like the Coleman goal get reversed it is very difficult to spend hard earned $s on a ticket. I hope the NHL listens to you.

[@m0RRisC2319]

The "distinct kicking motion" rule has always been absurdly vague but also somehow way too specific. Just make the rule that the puck cant go in after it hits your skate unless your skate is not moving. You must be standing still and if it happens to bounce off of you then it is a goal but you cant be moving while that happens. That seems to be the only realistic rule change that can prevent these ridiculous controversies where the rules seem to change every other day.

[@CoryCat65]

yeah but that's too logical for the NHL lol

[@jonathondunn3602]

I’m more ok with the onside call than the kick call. But agree that the rule book needs to be cleaned up

[@Milehighsnake98]

And the best part about the Cale Makar goal being called....was listening to the announcers stanning for Edmonton the ENTIRE series.

[@deeformed2475]

Ever single kicked in goal you showed should not count. If I am correct, a kicking goal is when you move your foot forward to receive the puck and then having the puck deflect in. Whether it was on purpose or not, you corrected where your foot was to have a physical impact on the direction of the puck’s movement, leading it to go into the net

[@bluelion1995]

All 4 goals were kicks. The NHL got 25% correct. Seems to be their batting average.

[@visguard]

He lined up and extended his foot into the puck, kick IMO.

[@bowbear1048]

Agreed. I rarely disagree with Steve, but here I do.

[@genewebber9759]

Steve I’m with u, I am getting turned off every time I watch a game now, I have been watching and playing hockey sense the 70”s. When comparing hockey (especially the playoffs)then and now i can’t help but think that there is an agenda to who wins and who doesn’t. When we have to find someone to explain what seems obvious 99% of the time that’s a problem and a HUGE DANGIT.

[@mylesgoodwin2017]

Please tell me how you achieve a distinct kicking motion while trying to stop on your outside edge.

[@jamiesucie2685]

Weird part is I’ve read the official NHL rule and no where does it say that the stick must be contacting the puck as it goes over the line for possession to be considered. They only talk about control. Still a garbage call

[@solomonster.]

it does

[@Scema12]

@@solomonster. So if someone hit makar it was interference? That logic has so much stupidity behind it.

[@jonmendelson1104]

@@Scema12 The biggest flaw in what they said is they used the word possession. Very few people disagree that Makar had possession of the puck. The explanation that actually makes sense is: if at any point before the puck enters the zone a player is in the zone, all offensive players must be outside the zone for at least an instant before an offensive player can touch the puck, or it's whistled down as offside. Nobody (other than people who are just getting into the sport) questions why play isn't blown dead when a player just dumps the puck into the corner while a player is still in the zone and everyone skates back for a line change. The interference counterargument goes away. That being said, I disagree with the call due to lack of consistency. To the letter of the rule it might be correct, but 99.9% of the time that gets blown down as offside.

[@TheInfii]

He literally crossed the foot on the OPPOSITE side of his body to kick that in. I really don't understand anyones point that it wasn't a kick. Looks like a clear as day kick to me. 🤷‍♂️

[@Jabokrazy]

People are dumb and don't objectively view things.

[@ivrynite]

Especially the side angle from slightly behind really reveals the extra extension that Coleman executed. His eyes on the puck the whole time, knows he can't get the stick on the puck, he extends the leg to push the puck with his skate. I.E. he kicked it in.

[@Rvezz28]

I think it's really just the comparison and inconsistency to the other 3 that DID count. If those counted... surely this one should, no? I didn't think it was as egregious as the others for it to be definitively overturned

[@Jabokrazy]

@@Rvezz28 The thing that should be pointed out, is that the NHL doesn't know what a kick is. All 4 examples are kicks and should be overturned. Using precedent to make calls is dangerous, because you could refer to a play 60 years ago and call it precedent.

[@Rvezz28]

@@Jabokrazy that's fair but isn't that how rules are made? By previous situations causing the rule? There has to be some consistency and I don't think the league, as a whole, does a good job with it. How can you consistently play a game when you're unsure how the rule will be enforced? You only have previous situations to go by

[@halt1931]

I do see the kicking motion on the Coleman goal. The others shown shouldn't have counted either - just because they got those ones wrong doesn't mean they should ignore Coleman's.

[@girhen]

I can see a few rule rewrites to help alleviate the kicking calls. 1. Your skate can only deflect the puck. Any amount of pushing the puck/moving your skate in the puck's direction isn't legal. 2. Your skate can deflect or push the puck, but the position, angle, and direction of momentum cannot change while in contact with the puck. Even stopping would not be legal - don't make contact. At least it's a clear(er) line. 3. Your skate can push the puck, as long as it's in the ice the entire time it does so and without windup/follow through of a kicking motion that takes your skate off the ice entirely or puts your blade more than 30 degrees pitch forward or backward (allows a kick, but keeps that knife on the ground - and touching isn't enough if it's your heel and the rest of the skate is pointing in a dangerous direction.)

[@Zegalles]

The NHL IMO needs to allow kicking it in, just change it so the skate has to stay down. If the blade stays down your good.

[@independentmind7782]

I disagree. It’s hockey not soccer.

[@-Twenty-Nine-]

@Zegallas How many severe cuts or deaths to goalies will it take before they decide to revert back to the no kicking rule? Know something about the game before you post such an ill-informed comment

[@Capt_Chaos_91]

@@independentmind7782 I was going to say, it probably has to deal with the fact that hockey was meant to be played with sticks. Now I think they need to really look into and refine the “kicking motion” aspect. The ones Steve showed were 100% kicks. I think Coleman should’ve had that goal but I can also understand why they turned it over.

[@nomimalone7520]

Exactly. That's the best way to clear things up. Skate stays down = goal

[@Zegalles]

@@-Twenty-Nine- Seriously? I said keep the blades down and allow people to move their foot forward to redirect the puck. Never said that people should charge at people skate first. Heck If a player fell down and his blades were facing the goalie and a puck went off him and in they'd prolly count that even tho that's inherently more dangerous.

[@BrettGarnettFilms]

It’s a kick Steve just calm down. He moved his leg in an effort to put the puck in. If his skate was moving forward but through normal circumstances, that’s a deflection. But if you change the motion of your foot to “kick” the puck in the net, it’s a kick plain and simple.

[@demonicfork]

" But if you change the motion of your foot to “kick” the puck in the net, it’s a kick plain and simple." So literally all the other goals he showed shouldnt have counted then?

[@jordannewman177]

That’s a kick and a no goal because I hate the flames. This was very satisfying to watch live.

[@everythingallthetime8644]

As an avs fan, as a life long hockey player and fan and as someone that watched that game, I was very surprised when I heard the referees decision. Once Elliott explained it in the intermission then it made sense but yeah the whole bar was shocked when that was called a good goal.