i respect ur opnion and u guys have a really good arugment that it should b a goal, but, the fact that the orginal ruling was a goal and the took the goal back means that there was indisputable evidence that there was a kicking motion. if the orginal ruling was no goal, do u think that there was indisputable evidence the Morrow didnt intentlionally kicked the puck in?
According to the NHL, intent to kick is not a factor. They can't read minds. What they say is that the goal is ruled to be good if the skate only changes the direction of the puck. However, if the motion of the skate causes the puck to increase speed and enter the net faster than it would have by merely bouncing off the skate then no goal is allowed. Most people aren't aware of the NHL interpretation, and therefore rely on their own interpretation of the 'distinct kicking motion' rule.
Not likely to get a whole lot of favorable comments here since this video is only linked from the Dallas Stars board. Anyhow, there are some real good comments on the Stars boards from Stars fans who detail the league's interpretation of the kicking rule. Based on the interpretation standards alone (not the literal text alone) this clearly isn't a goal. Whether or not the interpretation standards are good or bad is a different story. At least the standards don't call for mind reading.
I do agree they screwed up this call. However I have no sympathy for Stars fans because of the early whistle that disallowed the Shark goal in Game 3. I think those two even each other out.
I agree and disagree somewhat to that. It's true that the ref in game 3 was blind to consider the puck dead. It was primarily due to Modano closing his stick-blade on the puck and so he blew the whistle, but the puck should've been considered in play. Reg. Morrow's call, there is a kicking motion, but it's obvious he didn't see the puck to cause a DELIBERATE kicking action.
Unfortunately, the nature of both these calls are very controversial in NHL officiating and need to be assessed again.
You capitalize DELIBERATE to add emphasis, and at the same time overlook the point. Intent is NOT (capitalized for emphasis) a criteria in determining a kick. An accidental kick is just as much a no-goal as a DELIBERATE one.
1st was a goal 2cd was not. but really it does not matter.i believe the make up goal was him just ticked off. so you can't say they would have had a 3 goal lead. I can't believe my stars let that game get away!!!!
Turco has to be better than that with the game on the line. he has let in alot of soft goals in the play-offs so far. i don't care how many people say he's been great. when they get a two goal or more lead its like he relaxes a little and gives up stupid goals.
The 1st disallowed goal was called for 2 reasons; 1. Morrow drag this foot to the net and caused the puck to go in. 2. He clearly interfered with Nabby.
The 2nd disallowed goal was called because he used his hand to redirect the puck into the net. Besides even Morrow knew that the goal wouldn't count so I don't know why u guys r bitching about and u still had a 2 goal lead and u still blew it. SO STOP BITCHING.
You're an idiot. What do you mean he knew it wouldn't have counted? He was clearly ticked off by that. There was no "kicking motion". Period. There's no such thing as a "dragging motion" unless they made that rule up at the last second. You see that play all the time with what Morrow did and it counts as a goal. There was no intent by his part to interfere with the goalie. What about your player interfering with your goaltender as well? You stop whining you idiot Sharks fans.
Scratch that on the part about what I wrote on Morrow knowing that the goal wouldn't have counted on the first goal disallowed. That part is wrong. Morrow knew the second disallowed goal wouldn't have counted which he's right, but a penalty should have been called for cross checking.
Great move Stars fans. Instead of blaming your team for blowing 2 goal lead in the 3rd period and not even showing up in OT, no, u use the classic BITCH move and blame ur loss on the refs. Very good sportsmanship. I hope u lose the series. Just to c how u'll gonna blame the system.
Morrow was crashing the net to create traffic in front, this is a set play the Stars have ran all year, 99% of the time Ribiero is looking to feed a defenseman there. In this situation, he decided to center the puck, and Morrow obviously didn't even know it was coming. He never even looked down.
It was a legit goal and all true fans know it. Terrible call, and shame it happens to one of the class acts of the game. Props to Morrow on the mock surrender.
Hey, he may not have meant to kick it in, but that doesn't mean that he didn't kick it in. It wouldn't have gone off his skate into the goal unless his skate was moving toward the net the way it was.
The thing is figslee, the rules state there must be a "distinct kicking motion."
Just because a puck deflects off a skate doesn't discount a goal, an accidental deflection off the skate is a legit (well, should be) goal.
Also, who else noticed the SJ fan in the stands with the "Teams that have come down from 3-0" sign, with the New Jersey Devils logo on it for 1972... rofl, they sure know their hockey in cali...
the real factor should be the fact that hes completely inside the crease not whether he kicked it or not
spartan934 1 year ago
I don't know, is there any way that it was waved off because he was in the crease?
hockeytipster 2 years ago
no kick
leetbarker 3 years ago
i respect ur opnion and u guys have a really good arugment that it should b a goal, but, the fact that the orginal ruling was a goal and the took the goal back means that there was indisputable evidence that there was a kicking motion. if the orginal ruling was no goal, do u think that there was indisputable evidence the Morrow didnt intentlionally kicked the puck in?
bariberhane 3 years ago
According to the NHL, intent to kick is not a factor. They can't read minds. What they say is that the goal is ruled to be good if the skate only changes the direction of the puck. However, if the motion of the skate causes the puck to increase speed and enter the net faster than it would have by merely bouncing off the skate then no goal is allowed. Most people aren't aware of the NHL interpretation, and therefore rely on their own interpretation of the 'distinct kicking motion' rule.
richcolbert 3 years ago
Not likely to get a whole lot of favorable comments here since this video is only linked from the Dallas Stars board. Anyhow, there are some real good comments on the Stars boards from Stars fans who detail the league's interpretation of the kicking rule. Based on the interpretation standards alone (not the literal text alone) this clearly isn't a goal. Whether or not the interpretation standards are good or bad is a different story. At least the standards don't call for mind reading.
richcolbert 3 years ago
From a Sharks fan
I do agree they screwed up this call. However I have no sympathy for Stars fans because of the early whistle that disallowed the Shark goal in Game 3. I think those two even each other out.
KnightsHuSayNee 3 years ago
well....yes that was a bad call on morrow...but it's still too bad these things affect the outcome of games i think..
irishblonde7 3 years ago
go eagles!!
theeagle60 3 years ago
shut up
irishblonde7 3 years ago
go philly?
theeagle60 3 years ago
hahaha...you put a ?
irishblonde7 3 years ago
GO EAGLES E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!!!!!
theeagle60 3 years ago
L-O-S-E-R-S EAGLES!
tbehmer7 3 years ago
I agree and disagree somewhat to that. It's true that the ref in game 3 was blind to consider the puck dead. It was primarily due to Modano closing his stick-blade on the puck and so he blew the whistle, but the puck should've been considered in play. Reg. Morrow's call, there is a kicking motion, but it's obvious he didn't see the puck to cause a DELIBERATE kicking action.
Unfortunately, the nature of both these calls are very controversial in NHL officiating and need to be assessed again.
Anand2006 3 years ago
You capitalize DELIBERATE to add emphasis, and at the same time overlook the point. Intent is NOT (capitalized for emphasis) a criteria in determining a kick. An accidental kick is just as much a no-goal as a DELIBERATE one.
richcolbert 3 years ago
1st was a goal 2cd was not. but really it does not matter.i believe the make up goal was him just ticked off. so you can't say they would have had a 3 goal lead. I can't believe my stars let that game get away!!!!
Turco has to be better than that with the game on the line. he has let in alot of soft goals in the play-offs so far. i don't care how many people say he's been great. when they get a two goal or more lead its like he relaxes a little and gives up stupid goals.
bradley7576 3 years ago
The 1st disallowed goal was called for 2 reasons; 1. Morrow drag this foot to the net and caused the puck to go in. 2. He clearly interfered with Nabby.
The 2nd disallowed goal was called because he used his hand to redirect the puck into the net. Besides even Morrow knew that the goal wouldn't count so I don't know why u guys r bitching about and u still had a 2 goal lead and u still blew it. SO STOP BITCHING.
bariberhane 3 years ago
You're an idiot. What do you mean he knew it wouldn't have counted? He was clearly ticked off by that. There was no "kicking motion". Period. There's no such thing as a "dragging motion" unless they made that rule up at the last second. You see that play all the time with what Morrow did and it counts as a goal. There was no intent by his part to interfere with the goalie. What about your player interfering with your goaltender as well? You stop whining you idiot Sharks fans.
Mark271792 3 years ago
Scratch that on the part about what I wrote on Morrow knowing that the goal wouldn't have counted on the first goal disallowed. That part is wrong. Morrow knew the second disallowed goal wouldn't have counted which he's right, but a penalty should have been called for cross checking.
Mark271792 3 years ago
no no no i'm talking about the second goal that was disallowed. i no he was pissed off on that first.
bariberhane 3 years ago
I know. I corrected himself. See my reply to my original post.
Mark271792 3 years ago
Great move Stars fans. Instead of blaming your team for blowing 2 goal lead in the 3rd period and not even showing up in OT, no, u use the classic BITCH move and blame ur loss on the refs. Very good sportsmanship. I hope u lose the series. Just to c how u'll gonna blame the system.
bariberhane 3 years ago
Morrow was crashing the net to create traffic in front, this is a set play the Stars have ran all year, 99% of the time Ribiero is looking to feed a defenseman there. In this situation, he decided to center the puck, and Morrow obviously didn't even know it was coming. He never even looked down.
It was a legit goal and all true fans know it. Terrible call, and shame it happens to one of the class acts of the game. Props to Morrow on the mock surrender.
This coming from a Red Wings fan.
MaekTrollPoast 3 years ago
Maybe Morrow needs to learn how to use his stick, this is NOT soccer or ultimate frisbee.
thekingmanrules 3 years ago
Hey, he may not have meant to kick it in, but that doesn't mean that he didn't kick it in. It wouldn't have gone off his skate into the goal unless his skate was moving toward the net the way it was.
figslee 3 years ago
The thing is figslee, the rules state there must be a "distinct kicking motion."
Just because a puck deflects off a skate doesn't discount a goal, an accidental deflection off the skate is a legit (well, should be) goal.
Also, who else noticed the SJ fan in the stands with the "Teams that have come down from 3-0" sign, with the New Jersey Devils logo on it for 1972... rofl, they sure know their hockey in cali...
MaekTrollPoast 3 years ago
Good call.
Vodka2389 3 years ago
That was a terrible call, it was clearly a goal and you have to be fucking retarded to think it wasn't.
BloodyHarvest 3 years ago
bullshit.
BAD CALL
BigDubya72 3 years ago
horseshit call but the stars still blew a 2-0 lead...
leetbarker 3 years ago