Here's where they need to take a page out of the NFL's book. If after a certain period of time no conclusive reversal can be made go with the call on the ice. This took way too long.
It's funny how everyone thinks that it has to be a kicking motion. It doesn't, all that has to happen is the player redirects the puck with his skate, which he does. He turns his skate to change the direction of the puck that is why the goal was waved off. It doesn't matter that he was trying to stop. It is still a no goal.
@TheEnchantedTikiRoom awww are you a bruins fan? you liked that canucks win yesterday didnt ya now. everyone hates the bruins they have to fight over every little thing learn to take a hit. no one likes you. the only fans you guys have are the ones that popped up after they one the stanley cup
@hbkkbh6h8 thats funny because Im NOT a Bruins fan. And funny a Canucks fan talking about bang waggoning as that is they construct almost all of the Canucks fan base. So you and your whore mother can suck a dick. BTW, blackhawks fan. Try and beak them, they're better then the Canucks in every way. Dont believe me? How many Cups do the nucks have? Thats what I thought. Fuck yourself.
@TheEnchantedTikiRoom did i say i was a canucks fan? I just fucking hate the bruins im a rangers fan and head to head, the canucks are way better than the shitcago blackhawks. so you can go fuck yourself rangers are going all the way youll be lucky if the blackhawks make the playoffs bitch
BEST part of this was how Mike Murphy actually felt the need to go LIVE on CBC with Ron McLean to explain himself....if its so damm cut'n'dry then why do you need to go on TV to defend yourself and further "explain" the ruling? THAT is unprecedented, and HIGHLY unprofessional...but, then again, this is the NHL.
Fact of the matter is, the NHL rules are purposely made so complex and convoluted, that the rules can be interpreted however needed to justify any call the league wants. MAKE CLEAR RULES
the NHL is ridiculous. Really we need different administration there. I'm not a huge fan of either teams but it's time and time again that bullshit goals are allowed and obvious goals aren't...not to mention the slanted referees, which really pisses me off. They need to at least hire referees from other countries (besides the US and Canada) because it is rarely a fair match because of them. I hate the NHL but love hockey.
You Are aloud to Direct the Puck in with your Skate. As Long as it's not a Distinct Kicking Motion. Even if you know what your doing. Even if he saw the Puck and new what he was doing. YOUR FUCKING ALOUD WITHIN THE FUCKING RULES TO DIRECT THE PUCK IN WITH YOUR SKATE PERIOD. Mike Clearly Overstepping his Bounds. He Put into question the leagues Integrity.
Quit bitching just cause the refs didn't call it. Is everyone a fucking pussy nowadays to where if they don't get one thing they want they just fucking complain all the time..... jesus christ...
It "looks" like i am now, doesn't it? "Looks" like you just came on this video to complain about people who complain doesn't it? fuckin' hypocritee haha go "look" that word up and see if i spelled it wrong. dumb ass XD
@Zenn3k So what you're trying to say is he redirected the puck. Which is legal and a goal. Thankyoubye.
A kick is a kick. A redirect is a redirect. Stop trying to create gray areas and read minds. Maybe we should have a go at Colin Cambell's assessment of the goal since no one can make heads or tails of that.
All of you shut up! This was a good Goal and bullshit in Toronto. Bettman needs a pair of balls and shoulda stopped watchin the NBA playoffs and pay attention to this goal and it was a good call, BETTMANN HATES CANADIANS, Mailnly the Western Canadian teams. Canucks deserved to win this game. Anyways Canucks 4 Life and thats final..
Watch 2:49 where the players are, that is why it should be allowed. Daniel is getting checked by O'donnell and is trying not to slam into Burrows and Quick. Don't just watch the goal watch everything that is happening on the ice. I agree with the Refs not Mike Murphy. GinXYZ PS: Just because they run the company doesn't mean they know better. Look at GMC. Thinking they know best is ridiculous, you would be dead if you lived in Germany during the war.
@eaglehockey7730 What the h.... you have supermans eyes? You sound like the other guy on here saying his eyes are on the puck. You are assuming. Now i hope you are a specialist in stopping and have a degree in physics if you are going to argue that his skate lifted off the ice a bit. Give me a break.
who ever thinks this is a distinct kicking motion, you are officially mentally retarted,unless you are still in 1st grade learning what a kick is.
i want someone who says this is a no goal to show a video of yourself kicking a ball with the back side of your foot. AND, to find me a video of someone kicking like that..exactly
@jtbc11 First off a distinct kicking motion can be achieved with any part of the foot unless you're a gimp. Secondly, you can see the back end of his skate lift off the ice. You do not lift your skate when you're stopping which means that his purpose was to put the puck in. Since he drastically changed direction of the puck while preforming a kicking motion with the back of this foot this is a legit call.
@eaglehockey7730 Its not a kicking motion!! he was stopping and the puck hit his skate and went in, thats a legal play. there was no kick involved, you cant kick while stopping. the final verdict came from a former LA King player and head coach, he even said he would like to see the kings go far into the playoffs. the officials didnt wave off the goal cuz it was a legit goal but mike murphy made the final.
@eaglehockey7730 I am sorry, but that isn't a kicking motion. The "kicking motion rule" was put into effect so players don't get skates in their faces. Which means lifting their skate off the ice and swinging it. This is clearly a stop. You can tell me that you can see his skate comes off the ice a tiny bit?
@McJim15 I'm pretty sure you just helped his case. If you purposely redirect the puck with your skate into the net, it is considered a kick. Try understanding the rules first before you go calling someone an idiot.
Why do you think they had that huge media broadcast with Bettman, who yet again says nothing. Because that call was wrong, and a lot of other ones in that game and other teams games have been bad.
PS: the rule book isn't set in stone bright one, it has been changed quite a few times, ie: goalie pads, hits. The tape was probably to update but unlike the hitting rule they didn't give information when this change was going to be done. With the call not being called what it should have been, then it should have counted. Either way it should have.
I think you guys need to watch the video where Mike talks about the tape, then write about my "tin foil hat idea". They said they were changing the rules. Even sportsnet wasn't impressed that the media wasn't given the tape for the changes. I honestly don't think it is against the Canucks i think you were right in the first place, there are too many goals going in off the skate.
this was a totally subjective call. no off ice official in Toronto can get into daniel's head and know what his intentions were. you can reasonably argue that daniel was simply trying to stop so that he did not run the goalie. what was he suppose to do, crash the net and take another penalty?
it would seem to me that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other and the call on the ice should stand.
@GinXYZ To an extent i understand, but a high stick, slashing, most calls are based on a level of physical evidence. Their stick breaking, the height of the stick when it contacts the other player. I mean there are guidelines for those kind of plays. Obviously they aren't perfect but there are ways to decide if it should be a penalty. Trying to prove that a player intentionally deflected the puck, is basing a decision on what the ref thinks of the player,in the situaton. You can't prove it.
@dzwaantje Not it is not based on what someone thinks of the player...it's based on a reasonable interpretation of the players intent. We see a player get tripped, but the ref says he took a dive or vice versa...so who is right? As you said earlier, who are you going to believe, the guy watching the play or the guy involved in the play? It's the job of league officials to make reasonable interpretations of a players intent, like it or not.
@GinXYZ Yes I agree tripping Vs. diving is a tough call. The reason that call is there is so players don't get injured. I mean if you didn't have that call, guys would be placing their sticks everywhere. The deflecting of skate call doesn't need to be there. It is a call that can sway games, make it easy and just take it out.
@GinXYZ Like I said a lot of calls are going to be from what they see, but still tripping is a physical evidence, replays can show if the stick connects, not saying they intended to trip them, but you can see it. You can't see an intent to deflect a puck based on a stop infront of the net.
@GinXYZ Of course you can not eliminate subjective calls. However, in this case we are trying to determine if the puck was directed or deflected. This is the key. As I understand, the standard that the NHL uses is that if the replay does not show conclusive evidence to the contrary the call on the ice stands. The replay does not provide conclusive evidence Daniel directing the puck. Therefore the goal should have stood.
@louismcleod You just refuted your own statement. Obviously, from the subjective point of view from the War Room in Toronto, there was indeed conclusive evidence. As I said before: virtually all calls end up being subjective at some point. The real error is in the fact that the incorrect rule was referenced when the decision was made.
@GinXYZ the officiating in the NHL, both on and off the ice has been poor and inconsistent and all year. How is it possible from that replay to determine deflected or directed? The replay clearly does not provide conclusive evidence to overturn the on ice decision.
@louismcleod From your subjective position, it doesn't. From someone else's it does. I'll take the War Room's view over yours because those men have all spent the majority of the lives either playing or coaching this game and are able to read plays and intentions far better than you or I ever will. Even the analysts and players who think the goal should have stood believe Sedin knew exactly what he was doing, namely directing the puck in using his skate.
Keep making excuses Canucks Fan's...how about you show some discipline and start winning the one on one battles and stay out of the Box...Vancouver has done nothing to be condsidered the favourite in this series.
The fact is, there are other reason for disallowing a goal then "distinct kicking motion" the #1 reason bing "the main force of the puck is from the skate."
For example, if a slapshot is made, and it skips off a pad, or a skate, it's a goal, because the MAIN FORCE was the shot. But with this goal, the puck was going in one direction, and the skate turned it around completely. In other words, the MAIN FORCE of the pck was fromthe skate, not a stick.
@ dzwaantje ....you think they may have put the rule in after the game? Are you serious? You don't think any copies of the rulebook existed anywhere else before the game? If the rule didn't exist, and then magically appeared after the game, you don't think the Vancouver Canucks (or any of the thousands of other people who have the hockey rulebook) "uhhhhhh, those rules you told us about......they're not in this book that was printed a few months ago.....that's weird"
@dzwaantje then you weren't looking very well because if you read any of the earlier comments, you would have seen someone else went to the NHL website, looked up the rule and saw everything I saw.
Seriously if there was a kicking motion it was after the puck had actually hit the back of the net...He wasn't even looking the direction of the puck...It should have been allowed...And Zombie Elf Bettman needs to give his head a shake...just listened on 1040 to his press conference before the game...the guy is a moron!
If the rule is you cant direct the puck in with anything but your stick, then why does it conflict with the rule that it can go in off your skate as long as theres no kicking motion? And why has the kicking motion rule overidden this new phantom-rule untill now?
@Qyburnator That's the problem: a constant rule change. First, goals off skates weren't allowed at all...then they were allowed as long as the offensive player was simply unaware...then they were allowed as long as it wasn't a kick or a redirection. The NHL kept changing the rule to open up scoring, but it's obvious now that league officials are realizing they've gone a little too far. Remember, Brendan Morrow did the same thing to the Canucks earlier this season. The goal was disallowed.
@dzwaantje um no...read the rule again. Go to the NHL website. See rule 78.5, the part that states: "(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick." Sedin clearly and intentionally directed the puck into the net with his skate. No goal.
@GinXYZ This is the problem, that is what people are fighting over. The other goals this year with that similar situation have been allowed. That being said you are assuming he intentionally directed it. That is what is completely crazy about this rule. Where did you want him to stop? You think he is that good of a soccer player? Come on now
@GinXYZ ." Sedin clearly and intentionally directed the puck into the net with his skate. No goal" It wasn't clearly it was inconclusive, therefore it should have been a goal.
@GinXYZ I have nothing against American teams, infact I like the Black Hawks. I don't have this Canadian syndrome of thinking Americans are against us, because it isn't the fans fault those calls are made it is the NHL league.
@GinXYZ Now to think that everything is pure and clean would be ridiculous. Who knows if a ref isn't making calls for whatever reason. I just think NHL is having the Baseball problems, they are out of control and haven't taken it back. It wasn't a fair call, not for how it was being called all year.
@dzwaantje I never said all was "pure and clean". As I stated previously, it's obvious that League officials have realized they made an error in how they rule goals which involve going off skates. Brendan Morrow had a nearly identical goal disallowed this year against the Canucks. If it's okay to direct the puck into the goal with your skate, it should be okay to use any part of your body. How stupid would that be?
@GinXYZ Now as for the call, you just made it clear it was wrong to me. Because and only because they said it was determined a goal because of the kicking motion. Therefore they made the wrong call. I have no idea if that was in the rule book or not before this and even if it was, it wasn't intentionally redirected, you can't even prove it.
@GinXYZ Considering you don't have proof to knowing if that rule was in there before this call, i am assuming it wasn't. After 6 mins of debating they would have made sure that the "call" they made would be under the proper category, especially since it is a new rule. Mike said that it was a kicking motion, therefore I am guessing they were smart and installed it right away to deal with any confusion.
@dzwaantje Oh yeah...that sounds totally plausible. Right after the game, league officials ran to the NHL website, rewrote Rule 78.5 to specifically address this issue just in case anybody wanted to look it up and have some ammunition. Sure. Totally reasonable. Conspiracy theory much? I can't prove the rule wasn't there before the call was made, so OBVIOUSLY it means it was put there after? Logic is not your strong point. Burden of proof is on you, not me.
@GinXYZ You have to base it off information you know, You know it was called a kicking motion, and it he didn't kick the puck. Therefore it should have been a goal. Based off of intentionally directing the puck, i still don't think he did, but to be honest i don't think anyone can honestly say he did or didn't just by looking at it. That rule is silly, it pretty much leaves the call to emotions. I think they should just take it out all together if that is the case.
@dzwaantje The reason they went with kicking because Mike Murphy earnestly felt that a kicking motion was involved and, obviously, after discussion the rest of the War Room in Toronto agreed. I don't agree with it being kicked in, but I do agree that it was directed in using something other than his stick. Like I said, disallowing the goal was right, but the rule they invoked was wrong.
@GinXYZ None of us have degrees in physics and we aren't Daniel. To assume based on this information is silly. You can't win a court case by assuming, and that is all this call is. Because he is good at soccer, because he is a Sedin, because he stopped there. It is intentional. You think most sports writers know anything about being superstar, let alone being in that situation.
@dzwaantje When are you going to stop with the fallacies and deal with the facts instead of sounding like another conspiracy theorist? The rationally objective data here more than reasonably supports the conclusion that this was an intentional act on Sedin's part.
@GinXYZ People disagree with you because that isn't how it was called. They had said kicking motion, nothing there. That is why there are so many people on here talking about it.
If they had made the intentional rule call it shouldn't stand anyways based on other rules. Like if it isn't conclusive, which you can't say you KNOW he did it on purpose, the original call would be used. Which is goal. To say he is skilled so he is able to do it, isn't enough evidence against him.
@dzwaantje And, as I have said MULTIPLE times now, yes, they referenced the wrong rule in disallowing the goal...but disallowing the goal was the right thing. Mike Murphy has his reasons and he has played and coached more hockey than you or I ever will.
@GinXYZ@GinXYZ Your proof, isn't evidence. His skate was in a perfect place, luck maybe? Maybe he was trying to stop? Maybe he was getting set up. Maybe he was trying to play hockey. Skilled player, yes. His eyes on the puck, i know you can't see them, I sure as hell can't from this video and i have 20/20 vision so obviously you are assuming, again no proof. You can't blame someone or give them a penalty based on your facts.
@dzwaantje yeah, I know...I mean the replay proves nothing...and just forget logical thought or rational thinking...yup...this was all just one big conspiracy against Sedin and the Canucks. But the Canucks don't have to worry 'cause their tin foil hats are gonna stop the evil NHL from messing with them!
@GinXYZ I don't think they are against the Canucks, I told you what i thought, you are just not reading. They created a new rule sent out tapes about how it is going to work. We don't know when they put it in or planned to put it in, or if it was in.
@dzwaantje Obviously rule 78 was there, but they have been making adjustments to it this year. Why wouldn't that be surprisingly if they added things when they said they would. They changed the hitting rule. I hate to break it to you though, just because someone coaches a team doesn't mean he knows everything. Obviously there are a lot of pissed off people or this wouldn't have been so popular online.
@GinXYZ I think they might have put it in after this game due to the big upset and why wouldn't you? I know that the head office of Toronto wouldn't call it kicking motion, if they could call it an intentional direction goal. Nor do I think that rule was put in place TO GET THE SEDINS.
@dzwaantje Your logic, as ever, is flawed. Why bother doing that when it obviously doesn't matter since, not only is the game over, but another rule was invoked in disallowing the goal? You are obviously grasping at conspiratorial straws here.
@dzwaantje If you can believe that the NHL conspired to add a rule to the rulebook after this game, then I can certainly believe Sedin is not going to admit he did it on pupose.
@GinXYZ I don't think they wrote it in to get Sedin. I think he obviously sent out a tape, like he had stated, but it doesn't mean it was written in quite yet.
@dzwaantje What the hell are you talking about? You are really sit there and tell me that rule 78.5 did not exist as it does right now at the time of this incident and was only changed after this incident to make the NHL look good? And then you are going to tell me that there's just no way that Sedin did what he did intentionally? You ARE just another NHL conspiracy theorist. You have not been logical from the start.
@GinXYZ, is this the portion of 78.5 you are referencing: "When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick." what other rule could be use to negate the goal?
because you can just as easily call this a deflection as in this paragraph of 78.4
"If an attacking player has the puck deflect into the net, off his skate or body, in any manner, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal."
@louismcleod Yes, that is the rule that should have been referenced in the decision. I interpret the difference between 78.4 and 78.5 as one of intent. 78.4 addresses the issue of an unintentional deflection while 78.5 addresses the issue of intentionally directing the puck. Notice that 78.4 references deflection while 78.5 does not.
@GinXYZ They think it was intentional because hes a great hockey player. Come on man. That is a crappy rule in itself. It is just giving a break to those who aren't superstars yet.
@dzwaantje I have a mountain of evidence that shows it's reasonable to state he did it on purpose and all you counter with is "they only say that because he is a Sedin". Sorry, buddy, but if that's the best you can counter with, YOU lose.
@GinXYZ To say his toe moved, you can't prove it. The speed he was going at, the player beside him, him having to stop to not get goalie interference, you have no proof. The whole situation, you have nothing to stand on to say he did it. That right there would make the goal stand.
@dzwaantje I have nothing to go on? Hmm...let's see...his eyes were on the puck the whole time...he's an exceptionally skilled player...the positioning of his skate was perfect...coaches who DO know what they are talking about agree he knew what he was doing....gosh, gee...I guess I do have nothing.
@GinXYZ I am sure he knew excatly where Quick's Five hole was going to land too. I am sure he is a physics teacher just like he is a soccer player and knew by turning his skate that much it would go in. You think he was looking at the puck... you can't prove it. His head is in the goalies direction which most players usually have it.
@GinXYZ To say he is one of the best or to say he plays soccer is stupid. With him getting hooked, having quick right in front of him and getting body slammed into burrows right after the goal. It wasn't on purpose. Look at their reactions to it. He didn't even know. I honestly think if it goes off the skate, it shouldn't be a goal end of story. No one debates then.
@dzwaantje BS. Even the coaches, sportswriters and analysts who believe the goal should have stood agree that Sedin knew exactly what he was doing. Hell, look at the replay again. That was barely a hook. You call that a 'body slam'? Look at the play again from the angles. He can see the puck. Look how he dragged his leg and foot into position. It was perfect. You think someone as talented as Sedin couldn't do this on purpose? I'm sure he was thinking what he did was totally legit.
@GinXYZ See you are thinking this because it is a Sedin, THAT my friend is unfair. I don't think Daniel isn't capable of redirecting, but considering the situation and that it happened in less then a second I don't think he KNEW he was going to get it in. You sound like some of those sportswriters, like its uncommon to stop infront of a net. You don't think he was trying to screen the goalie, like every other play. Try to grab the rebound. You are assuming based on his name.
@dzwaantje Um....no. Nice try though. I'm not saying he's that good because he's a Sedin...I'm saying it because he happens to be an exceptionally skilled player. It doesn't matter what his name is...what matters is how skillfully he plays and he happens to be one hell of a good player. Skill is skill. If his name was Bertram Wentworth it wouldn't change the fact that he's a damn fine player. Nice attempt at the fallacy, though.
@GinXYZ Well really unless you are throwing the puck or kicking it, it is called a goal. That the crazy thing about this game. I understand where you are coming from, but that isn't what they used when stating their arguement. They used the kicking rule, just out of curiousity, did you read that rule before or after this call?
@dzwaantje So barring kicking or throwing, players should be able to direct, redirect, or bat the puck into the goal using any part of their body? So it's totally okay to bat the puck out if the air with your arm or hand into the net, right? Don't be ridiculous. In answer to your question, I looked up the rule after the call. I didn't watch the game, I only saw the highlights. Originally, I was on the fence whether it should be a goal or not. Rule 78.5 made it clear: no goal.
@GinXYZ You just said what I had said. If a player throws the puck in the net or kicks it, it isn't a goal. I meant that in using your hands to physically hit, throw, toss or whatever else you can do. If it goes off a players knee into the goal, it probably will be called a goal.
Vice President of Hockey Operations was part of the decision in the Toronto review room.. Guess what: He's Mike Murphy, former LA Kings player and coach. With a call that has generated this much controversy, I have to think that this causes quite a conflict of interest.
@zjhauri Hmm..you know, Kay Whitmore is part of the Toronto War room and he used to play for the Canucks...hmm...could be a conflict of interest...and Kris King, who is Senior VP of Operations, used to play for the Blackhawaks, Wings and Coyotes, who are all in the playoffs...better get him out too before there is a conflict of interest. Spare me. Stop looking for conspiracies where none exist.
For those of you who don't think the call was legit, go to the NHL website and check out rule 78.5...I'm convinced that the goal was waived off due to the first definition of that rule, although league officials certainly erred in announcing that the goal was disallowed due to being kicked in.
@GinXYZ 78.5 Disallowed Goals Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:
(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick.
@GinXYZ I am sure the reason most Canadians are feeling that way is because ever since 93'-94' when wonderful bettman joined our life A Canadian team has never won the cup. I don't know if you were alive then, but that game was full of more BS. then a stinky cow. This call just made them feel like they were getting shot in the foot again, especially when Canadians are the reason hockey is still standing on it's two feet. Be fair, that is all I ask. That was a goal, who cares who would have won.
@dzwaantje I was alive during the period Bettman took over...I was in my early twenties. So no Canadian team has won the Cup since '94. So what? When Canadian teams practically owned the Cup between 1926 and 1994, did America get all bitter and claim the NHL was rigged against Americans? Did it ever occur to you American teams got stronger because Canadian players gravitated towards American teams, the big reason being that there were better financial opps for them on an American team?
Bettman's RIGGED hockey league. I've been watching NHL hockey all my life (I'm 43 years old) and I'm fucking done with wasting my time watching something that is so obviously FIXED. This was simply the final straw. FUCK YOU BETTMAN AND YOUR HIRED OFFICIALS. The NHL has sunk to NBA standards.
AT least bettman couldn't interfere with our GOLD MEDAL, yeah bettman gold, now go fucking choke on your countries TIN medal.
That must be a fake. how can't u call that a goal. there was some movement after it hit the skate and on top of that it hit the front 1/3 of the skate on the outside of the skate.
I don't know about you but i don't think anyone even ovechkin could had kicked that in. as well look at 0:47 seconds look at where #69( O'Donnel)'s stick is it is impeding sedin from making the play. I'm not going to say the refs are blind but that definetly to me was a botched call.
This is a completely legitimate call. While it is perhaps not a "distinct kicking motion", it is plainly obvious that Sedin dragged his right foot into the path of the puck with the intent of deflecting it into the net. That's the reason the call was made..this an intentional-and an against the rules-deflection. The rules clearly state that a player cannot intentionally deflect the puck into the net off any part of the body or equipment other than the blade of the stick. It's a good call.
@GinXYZ actually, a player may use his skate to deflect the puck into the net, it's just he cannot use a distinct pendulum kicking motion. Intentionally turning the skate to deflect the puck in is allowed.
@STFUg00f2011 If everything is so rigged, how do you explain Ottawa and Vancouver doing so well during the regular season? Maybe you're just a little sad that the Canucks suck ass on their PK. Maybe it's just the fact that you can't handle it when a U.S. team manhandles a Canadian team. I guess Luongo getting chased out was "rigged" as well, huh? I guess you're just another paranoid idiot who thinks if a call goes against a Canadian team it must somehow be revenge for the Winter Olympics.
@GinXYZ It doesn't matter whose team this happened too. It should have been a goal. The rules were not changed after sending out that video and that is enough proof right there that it should have been a goal. Half the refs can't tell what is a goal, what is a hit now because of all the changes being made. The only thing that matters at the moment is what is written in the rule book. There wasn't a kicking motion, who cares if he did it on purpose it should still stand as a fair goal.
@dzwaantje Right, teams don't matter, so everyone who is screaming 'conspiracy against the Canucks' or 'rigged game' needs to drop it. I agree there is a problem with rule consistency, but if we go by what is written in the rule book at this moment, it is NOT a goal. Refer to rule 78.5. Sedin purposely directed the puck into the net with his skate which is AGAINST the current rules.
The only way to get your point across is that we Canadians will not tolerate being treated like second class teams and to quit watching the games if there are no Canadian teams in the playoffs.....
Bettman wants these weak teams like LA's and the Phoenix's to succeed so he can sell the game to the big American markets. He doesn't give a crap about us Canadian fans as he knows we will keep watching hockey no matter who is playing for the Stanley Cup. Like Pittsburgh, the strong teams financial teams like Vancouver subsidize these weak teams, they get all the good draft picks and then screw us in the end.
@nvhockeyplayer8 lol, yeh right dude. hockey at staples center has been an absolute joke the past 7-8 years, now suddenly that the kings are winning and in the playoffs, all the bandwagon fan jump back on.
Here's where they need to take a page out of the NFL's book. If after a certain period of time no conclusive reversal can be made go with the call on the ice. This took way too long.
2222jetsfan 1 week ago
this call doesnt bother me because the canucks won the series. If the canucks had lost the series....
2AgreeIsTheKey 1 week ago
i still consider this to be one of the biggest brain-farts that the Toronto war room has ever had.
Tbagurdrumset94 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's funny how everyone thinks that it has to be a kicking motion. It doesn't, all that has to happen is the player redirects the puck with his skate, which he does. He turns his skate to change the direction of the puck that is why the goal was waved off. It doesn't matter that he was trying to stop. It is still a no goal.
Refman33 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Refman33 2 weeks ago
typical calls against the canucks, i dont understand why the league hates us..
hockeymick3 3 weeks ago
refs should ref soccer if they can't tell the difference in between kicking motion and being tied up by the stick and trying to stop.
TheSteven91stamkos 3 weeks ago
what the fuck this is just a break motion this no fucking way intentional
TheA7xpower 1 month ago
GOAL they should get there eyes checked
alex1999rocks 1 month ago
No kicking motion
dragonRaGe101820 1 month ago
Canucks fans complaining? Go bitch somewhere else. This is the exact reason why everyone hates your shitty team.
TheEnchantedTikiRoom 1 month ago
@TheEnchantedTikiRoom awww are you a bruins fan? you liked that canucks win yesterday didnt ya now. everyone hates the bruins they have to fight over every little thing learn to take a hit. no one likes you. the only fans you guys have are the ones that popped up after they one the stanley cup
hbkkbh6h8 1 month ago 3
@hbkkbh6h8 thats funny because Im NOT a Bruins fan. And funny a Canucks fan talking about bang waggoning as that is they construct almost all of the Canucks fan base. So you and your whore mother can suck a dick. BTW, blackhawks fan. Try and beak them, they're better then the Canucks in every way. Dont believe me? How many Cups do the nucks have? Thats what I thought. Fuck yourself.
TheEnchantedTikiRoom 1 month ago
@TheEnchantedTikiRoom did i say i was a canucks fan? I just fucking hate the bruins im a rangers fan and head to head, the canucks are way better than the shitcago blackhawks. so you can go fuck yourself rangers are going all the way youll be lucky if the blackhawks make the playoffs bitch
hbkkbh6h8 1 month ago
@hbkkbh6h8 Suuuuuure they are. Marian Fagorik will get injured like always and they'll get swept up again like they did last season.
TheEnchantedTikiRoom 1 month ago
im the 10,300 viewer
jtf0331999 1 month ago
im thw 10,000 viwer!!! coooooool
videokingfry 1 month ago
sedins a pussy no goal
mynameismoola 2 months ago
@mynameismoola
You're retarded
epicfail86 1 month ago
@epicfail86 fuck you asswipe i live in mas. canucks suck ass
mynameismoola 1 month ago
I think the announcers should be the refs
WeAreReligious 2 months ago 12
sedin was pushed so he didn't intentionally kick it
JacobVloggs 7 months ago
that did hit his skate but it wasnt kicked in
guitargod91000 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Sedin twins starring in two girls, no cup. This summer on Fox."
NickVids1313 8 months ago
Just allowed one like this for Boston. Bunch of bullcrap.
Ch4Rb4m4 8 months ago
that is a goal. To kick in the puck there must be a forward motion of the leg. deflections do count because there is not motion.
hockeyfreak971 8 months ago
@hockeyfreak971 hahah shut up faggot ur obviously not smarter than an NHL ref, so stfu
jakemilton100 3 months ago
@jakemilton100 you mad bro, just calm down
hockeyfreak971 3 months ago
BEST part of this was how Mike Murphy actually felt the need to go LIVE on CBC with Ron McLean to explain himself....if its so damm cut'n'dry then why do you need to go on TV to defend yourself and further "explain" the ruling? THAT is unprecedented, and HIGHLY unprofessional...but, then again, this is the NHL.
Fact of the matter is, the NHL rules are purposely made so complex and convoluted, that the rules can be interpreted however needed to justify any call the league wants. MAKE CLEAR RULES
jogador921 10 months ago
the NHL is ridiculous. Really we need different administration there. I'm not a huge fan of either teams but it's time and time again that bullshit goals are allowed and obvious goals aren't...not to mention the slanted referees, which really pisses me off. They need to at least hire referees from other countries (besides the US and Canada) because it is rarely a fair match because of them. I hate the NHL but love hockey.
moobieNews 10 months ago
You see this is why i fucking HATE Toronto, that was NOT a disinct kicking motion at ALL!
KidSwishBasketball 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You Are aloud to Direct the Puck in with your Skate. As Long as it's not a Distinct Kicking Motion. Even if you know what your doing. Even if he saw the Puck and new what he was doing. YOUR FUCKING ALOUD WITHIN THE FUCKING RULES TO DIRECT THE PUCK IN WITH YOUR SKATE PERIOD. Mike Clearly Overstepping his Bounds. He Put into question the leagues Integrity.
Queegzzz 11 months ago
Canucks got robbed there, at least the Kings lost the series anyway
sens1fan 1 year ago 2
"Oh boy that's gonna be a hard one", why don't you just bend over in front of Gary Bettman and let him have at it...
Hkhan23 1 year ago
wasnt kicked in and im a la fan.. psh We still lost the series. God we suck..
MrSlowSkyline 1 year ago
Quit bitching just cause the refs didn't call it. Is everyone a fucking pussy nowadays to where if they don't get one thing they want they just fucking complain all the time..... jesus christ...
MegaJoe63 1 year ago
@MegaJoe63 look like your complaining buddy
sens1fan 1 year ago
@sens1fan
It "looks" like i am now, doesn't it? "Looks" like you just came on this video to complain about people who complain doesn't it? fuckin' hypocritee haha go "look" that word up and see if i spelled it wrong. dumb ass XD
MegaJoe63 1 year ago
Still fucking pisses me off.
WHAT DISTINCT KICKING MOTION?
OH YEAH. THERE WASN'T ONE.
LMFAOeveryday 1 year ago
toronto is always vs vancouver fuckin cunts..bettman wanted LA to win cuz he was from LA fuckin douche!!!
TiN0350 1 year ago
He changed the angle of his stop to purposely redirect the puck, thats basically a kick.
Zenn3k 1 year ago
@Zenn3k So what you're trying to say is he redirected the puck. Which is legal and a goal. Thankyoubye.
A kick is a kick. A redirect is a redirect. Stop trying to create gray areas and read minds. Maybe we should have a go at Colin Cambell's assessment of the goal since no one can make heads or tails of that.
disassembled 1 year ago
@disassembled
Cry more
Zenn3k 1 year ago
All of you shut up! This was a good Goal and bullshit in Toronto. Bettman needs a pair of balls and shoulda stopped watchin the NBA playoffs and pay attention to this goal and it was a good call, BETTMANN HATES CANADIANS, Mailnly the Western Canadian teams. Canucks deserved to win this game. Anyways Canucks 4 Life and thats final..
nasluongo 1 year ago
IT WAS KICKED IN, GET OVER IT. Also, lol Canucks!
ReccaK 1 year ago
@ReccaK
your just saying that to piss people off. get a life.
Tbagurdrumset94 1 year ago 5
WAS NOT KICKED IN. Figures that some fat cats at Toronto would disallow it.
1337gam3r07 1 year ago
Watch 2:49 where the players are, that is why it should be allowed. Daniel is getting checked by O'donnell and is trying not to slam into Burrows and Quick. Don't just watch the goal watch everything that is happening on the ice. I agree with the Refs not Mike Murphy. GinXYZ PS: Just because they run the company doesn't mean they know better. Look at GMC. Thinking they know best is ridiculous, you would be dead if you lived in Germany during the war.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
Comment removed
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@eaglehockey7730 What the h.... you have supermans eyes? You sound like the other guy on here saying his eyes are on the puck. You are assuming. Now i hope you are a specialist in stopping and have a degree in physics if you are going to argue that his skate lifted off the ice a bit. Give me a break.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
who ever thinks this is a distinct kicking motion, you are officially mentally retarted,unless you are still in 1st grade learning what a kick is.
i want someone who says this is a no goal to show a video of yourself kicking a ball with the back side of your foot. AND, to find me a video of someone kicking like that..exactly
jtbc11 1 year ago
@jtbc11 First off a distinct kicking motion can be achieved with any part of the foot unless you're a gimp. Secondly, you can see the back end of his skate lift off the ice. You do not lift your skate when you're stopping which means that his purpose was to put the puck in. Since he drastically changed direction of the puck while preforming a kicking motion with the back of this foot this is a legit call.
eaglehockey7730 1 year ago
@eaglehockey7730 Its not a kicking motion!! he was stopping and the puck hit his skate and went in, thats a legal play. there was no kick involved, you cant kick while stopping. the final verdict came from a former LA King player and head coach, he even said he would like to see the kings go far into the playoffs. the officials didnt wave off the goal cuz it was a legit goal but mike murphy made the final.
jtbc11 1 year ago
@eaglehockey7730 I am sorry, but that isn't a kicking motion. The "kicking motion rule" was put into effect so players don't get skates in their faces. Which means lifting their skate off the ice and swinging it. This is clearly a stop. You can tell me that you can see his skate comes off the ice a tiny bit?
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@eaglehockey7730 Yo, your in idiot buddy!... Obviously he meant the puck to go off his skate!... But NO HE DIDNT KICK!
McJim15 1 year ago
@McJim15 I'm pretty sure you just helped his case. If you purposely redirect the puck with your skate into the net, it is considered a kick. Try understanding the rules first before you go calling someone an idiot.
Refman33 2 weeks ago
@Refman33
find me written proof of that rule, to my understanding its the refs discretion, but this should have been a goal
hayo456 1 week ago
Why do you think they had that huge media broadcast with Bettman, who yet again says nothing. Because that call was wrong, and a lot of other ones in that game and other teams games have been bad.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
PS: the rule book isn't set in stone bright one, it has been changed quite a few times, ie: goalie pads, hits. The tape was probably to update but unlike the hitting rule they didn't give information when this change was going to be done. With the call not being called what it should have been, then it should have counted. Either way it should have.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
I think you guys need to watch the video where Mike talks about the tape, then write about my "tin foil hat idea". They said they were changing the rules. Even sportsnet wasn't impressed that the media wasn't given the tape for the changes. I honestly don't think it is against the Canucks i think you were right in the first place, there are too many goals going in off the skate.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
it is a goal...no doubt
Jaycool83 1 year ago
this was a totally subjective call. no off ice official in Toronto can get into daniel's head and know what his intentions were. you can reasonably argue that daniel was simply trying to stop so that he did not run the goalie. what was he suppose to do, crash the net and take another penalty?
it would seem to me that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other and the call on the ice should stand.
louismcleod 1 year ago
@louismcleod So does that mean that if a call comes down to being subjective, we should just forget about it?
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ They shouldn't have rules that cause it to have to be a subjective call.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje Virtually every rule can end up being a subjective call. Whining about it isn't going to help.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ To an extent i understand, but a high stick, slashing, most calls are based on a level of physical evidence. Their stick breaking, the height of the stick when it contacts the other player. I mean there are guidelines for those kind of plays. Obviously they aren't perfect but there are ways to decide if it should be a penalty. Trying to prove that a player intentionally deflected the puck, is basing a decision on what the ref thinks of the player,in the situaton. You can't prove it.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje Not it is not based on what someone thinks of the player...it's based on a reasonable interpretation of the players intent. We see a player get tripped, but the ref says he took a dive or vice versa...so who is right? As you said earlier, who are you going to believe, the guy watching the play or the guy involved in the play? It's the job of league officials to make reasonable interpretations of a players intent, like it or not.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ Yes I agree tripping Vs. diving is a tough call. The reason that call is there is so players don't get injured. I mean if you didn't have that call, guys would be placing their sticks everywhere. The deflecting of skate call doesn't need to be there. It is a call that can sway games, make it easy and just take it out.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@GinXYZ Like I said a lot of calls are going to be from what they see, but still tripping is a physical evidence, replays can show if the stick connects, not saying they intended to trip them, but you can see it. You can't see an intent to deflect a puck based on a stop infront of the net.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje Yes, you can.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ No you can't prove it, it is assuming the situation. Like i said they should just take it out.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@GinXYZ Emotions are already high during the playoffs the less calls made by being subjective the better.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@GinXYZ I just don't think emotions should play a part in what a call should be. That rule should be changed back to how it was.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje Emotions??? What emotions were involved? Stop trying to bring things into this that don't figure into the equation.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
Comment removed
louismcleod 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GinXYZ Of course you can not eliminate subjective calls. However, in this case we are trying to determine if the puck was directed or deflected. This is the key. As I understand, the standard that the NHL uses is that if the replay does not show conclusive evidence to the contrary the call on the ice stands. The replay does not provide conclusive evidence Daniel directing the puck. Therefore the goal should have stood.
louismcleod 1 year ago
@louismcleod You just refuted your own statement. Obviously, from the subjective point of view from the War Room in Toronto, there was indeed conclusive evidence. As I said before: virtually all calls end up being subjective at some point. The real error is in the fact that the incorrect rule was referenced when the decision was made.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ the officiating in the NHL, both on and off the ice has been poor and inconsistent and all year. How is it possible from that replay to determine deflected or directed? The replay clearly does not provide conclusive evidence to overturn the on ice decision.
louismcleod 1 year ago
@louismcleod From your subjective position, it doesn't. From someone else's it does. I'll take the War Room's view over yours because those men have all spent the majority of the lives either playing or coaching this game and are able to read plays and intentions far better than you or I ever will. Even the analysts and players who think the goal should have stood believe Sedin knew exactly what he was doing, namely directing the puck in using his skate.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
Dear NHL, please define a "distinct kicking motion"
I'm pretty sure we can demonstrate such a motion on the war-room staff
TakTakular 1 year ago
Keep making excuses Canucks Fan's...how about you show some discipline and start winning the one on one battles and stay out of the Box...Vancouver has done nothing to be condsidered the favourite in this series.
isabphil 1 year ago
@isabphil They won last night. you happy?
dzwaantje 1 year ago
The fact is, there are other reason for disallowing a goal then "distinct kicking motion" the #1 reason bing "the main force of the puck is from the skate."
For example, if a slapshot is made, and it skips off a pad, or a skate, it's a goal, because the MAIN FORCE was the shot. But with this goal, the puck was going in one direction, and the skate turned it around completely. In other words, the MAIN FORCE of the pck was fromthe skate, not a stick.
No goal.
robbbie23 1 year ago
@robbbie23, i see nothing in in 78.5 or 78.4 referring to the "the main force of the puck."
louismcleod 1 year ago
@ dzwaantje ....you think they may have put the rule in after the game? Are you serious? You don't think any copies of the rulebook existed anywhere else before the game? If the rule didn't exist, and then magically appeared after the game, you don't think the Vancouver Canucks (or any of the thousands of other people who have the hockey rulebook) "uhhhhhh, those rules you told us about......they're not in this book that was printed a few months ago.....that's weird"
robbbie23 1 year ago
Comment removed
dzwaantje 1 year ago
Comment removed
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje then you weren't looking very well because if you read any of the earlier comments, you would have seen someone else went to the NHL website, looked up the rule and saw everything I saw.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
Seriously if there was a kicking motion it was after the puck had actually hit the back of the net...He wasn't even looking the direction of the puck...It should have been allowed...And Zombie Elf Bettman needs to give his head a shake...just listened on 1040 to his press conference before the game...the guy is a moron!
YunieChan 1 year ago
They couldn't prove that he intentionally did it, so the original call would still stand, saying it was a goal.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
6:24 smoking hot Vancouver fan.
DwMGlitch 1 year ago
If the rule is you cant direct the puck in with anything but your stick, then why does it conflict with the rule that it can go in off your skate as long as theres no kicking motion? And why has the kicking motion rule overidden this new phantom-rule untill now?
Qyburnator 1 year ago
@Qyburnator That's the problem: a constant rule change. First, goals off skates weren't allowed at all...then they were allowed as long as the offensive player was simply unaware...then they were allowed as long as it wasn't a kick or a redirection. The NHL kept changing the rule to open up scoring, but it's obvious now that league officials are realizing they've gone a little too far. Remember, Brendan Morrow did the same thing to the Canucks earlier this season. The goal was disallowed.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ You mean... Rule 78.5 states when a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net with the puck after making a save the goal will not be allowed.
When was he Pushed, and when did he make that save?
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje um no...read the rule again. Go to the NHL website. See rule 78.5, the part that states: "(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick." Sedin clearly and intentionally directed the puck into the net with his skate. No goal.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ This is the problem, that is what people are fighting over. The other goals this year with that similar situation have been allowed. That being said you are assuming he intentionally directed it. That is what is completely crazy about this rule. Where did you want him to stop? You think he is that good of a soccer player? Come on now
dzwaantje 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GinXYZ ." Sedin clearly and intentionally directed the puck into the net with his skate. No goal" It wasn't clearly it was inconclusive, therefore it should have been a goal.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@GinXYZ I have nothing against American teams, infact I like the Black Hawks. I don't have this Canadian syndrome of thinking Americans are against us, because it isn't the fans fault those calls are made it is the NHL league.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@GinXYZ Now to think that everything is pure and clean would be ridiculous. Who knows if a ref isn't making calls for whatever reason. I just think NHL is having the Baseball problems, they are out of control and haven't taken it back. It wasn't a fair call, not for how it was being called all year.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje I never said all was "pure and clean". As I stated previously, it's obvious that League officials have realized they made an error in how they rule goals which involve going off skates. Brendan Morrow had a nearly identical goal disallowed this year against the Canucks. If it's okay to direct the puck into the goal with your skate, it should be okay to use any part of your body. How stupid would that be?
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ Now as for the call, you just made it clear it was wrong to me. Because and only because they said it was determined a goal because of the kicking motion. Therefore they made the wrong call. I have no idea if that was in the rule book or not before this and even if it was, it wasn't intentionally redirected, you can't even prove it.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje No, it was right to disallow the goal; however, they screwed up with referencing the wrong rule.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ Considering you don't have proof to knowing if that rule was in there before this call, i am assuming it wasn't. After 6 mins of debating they would have made sure that the "call" they made would be under the proper category, especially since it is a new rule. Mike said that it was a kicking motion, therefore I am guessing they were smart and installed it right away to deal with any confusion.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje Oh yeah...that sounds totally plausible. Right after the game, league officials ran to the NHL website, rewrote Rule 78.5 to specifically address this issue just in case anybody wanted to look it up and have some ammunition. Sure. Totally reasonable. Conspiracy theory much? I can't prove the rule wasn't there before the call was made, so OBVIOUSLY it means it was put there after? Logic is not your strong point. Burden of proof is on you, not me.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ You have to base it off information you know, You know it was called a kicking motion, and it he didn't kick the puck. Therefore it should have been a goal. Based off of intentionally directing the puck, i still don't think he did, but to be honest i don't think anyone can honestly say he did or didn't just by looking at it. That rule is silly, it pretty much leaves the call to emotions. I think they should just take it out all together if that is the case.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje The reason they went with kicking because Mike Murphy earnestly felt that a kicking motion was involved and, obviously, after discussion the rest of the War Room in Toronto agreed. I don't agree with it being kicked in, but I do agree that it was directed in using something other than his stick. Like I said, disallowing the goal was right, but the rule they invoked was wrong.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ None of us have degrees in physics and we aren't Daniel. To assume based on this information is silly. You can't win a court case by assuming, and that is all this call is. Because he is good at soccer, because he is a Sedin, because he stopped there. It is intentional. You think most sports writers know anything about being superstar, let alone being in that situation.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje When are you going to stop with the fallacies and deal with the facts instead of sounding like another conspiracy theorist? The rationally objective data here more than reasonably supports the conclusion that this was an intentional act on Sedin's part.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ People disagree with you because that isn't how it was called. They had said kicking motion, nothing there. That is why there are so many people on here talking about it.
If they had made the intentional rule call it shouldn't stand anyways based on other rules. Like if it isn't conclusive, which you can't say you KNOW he did it on purpose, the original call would be used. Which is goal. To say he is skilled so he is able to do it, isn't enough evidence against him.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje And, as I have said MULTIPLE times now, yes, they referenced the wrong rule in disallowing the goal...but disallowing the goal was the right thing. Mike Murphy has his reasons and he has played and coached more hockey than you or I ever will.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ @GinXYZ Your proof, isn't evidence. His skate was in a perfect place, luck maybe? Maybe he was trying to stop? Maybe he was getting set up. Maybe he was trying to play hockey. Skilled player, yes. His eyes on the puck, i know you can't see them, I sure as hell can't from this video and i have 20/20 vision so obviously you are assuming, again no proof. You can't blame someone or give them a penalty based on your facts.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje yeah, I know...I mean the replay proves nothing...and just forget logical thought or rational thinking...yup...this was all just one big conspiracy against Sedin and the Canucks. But the Canucks don't have to worry 'cause their tin foil hats are gonna stop the evil NHL from messing with them!
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ I don't think they are against the Canucks, I told you what i thought, you are just not reading. They created a new rule sent out tapes about how it is going to work. We don't know when they put it in or planned to put it in, or if it was in.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje Obviously rule 78 was there, but they have been making adjustments to it this year. Why wouldn't that be surprisingly if they added things when they said they would. They changed the hitting rule. I hate to break it to you though, just because someone coaches a team doesn't mean he knows everything. Obviously there are a lot of pissed off people or this wouldn't have been so popular online.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@GinXYZ I think they might have put it in after this game due to the big upset and why wouldn't you? I know that the head office of Toronto wouldn't call it kicking motion, if they could call it an intentional direction goal. Nor do I think that rule was put in place TO GET THE SEDINS.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje Your logic, as ever, is flawed. Why bother doing that when it obviously doesn't matter since, not only is the game over, but another rule was invoked in disallowing the goal? You are obviously grasping at conspiratorial straws here.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ, what rule should have been referenced?
louismcleod 1 year ago
@GinXYZ He said he didn't do it on purpose, so who do you believe, the people writing about sports, or the guy playing it?
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje If you can believe that the NHL conspired to add a rule to the rulebook after this game, then I can certainly believe Sedin is not going to admit he did it on pupose.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ I don't think they wrote it in to get Sedin. I think he obviously sent out a tape, like he had stated, but it doesn't mean it was written in quite yet.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@GinXYZ They knew they were changing the rules, but if they hadn't written it in the rule book, it shouldn't stand against him.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje What the hell are you talking about? You are really sit there and tell me that rule 78.5 did not exist as it does right now at the time of this incident and was only changed after this incident to make the NHL look good? And then you are going to tell me that there's just no way that Sedin did what he did intentionally? You ARE just another NHL conspiracy theorist. You have not been logical from the start.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ, is this the portion of 78.5 you are referencing: "When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick." what other rule could be use to negate the goal?
because you can just as easily call this a deflection as in this paragraph of 78.4
"If an attacking player has the puck deflect into the net, off his skate or body, in any manner, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal."
louismcleod 1 year ago
@louismcleod Yes, that is the rule that should have been referenced in the decision. I interpret the difference between 78.4 and 78.5 as one of intent. 78.4 addresses the issue of an unintentional deflection while 78.5 addresses the issue of intentionally directing the puck. Notice that 78.4 references deflection while 78.5 does not.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ They think it was intentional because hes a great hockey player. Come on man. That is a crappy rule in itself. It is just giving a break to those who aren't superstars yet.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje Alright then. Prove he didn't do it intentionally. Go ahead.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ I don't need to, because you are innocent until proven gulity. Sorry. you lose.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje I have a mountain of evidence that shows it's reasonable to state he did it on purpose and all you counter with is "they only say that because he is a Sedin". Sorry, buddy, but if that's the best you can counter with, YOU lose.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ To say his toe moved, you can't prove it. The speed he was going at, the player beside him, him having to stop to not get goalie interference, you have no proof. The whole situation, you have nothing to stand on to say he did it. That right there would make the goal stand.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje I have nothing to go on? Hmm...let's see...his eyes were on the puck the whole time...he's an exceptionally skilled player...the positioning of his skate was perfect...coaches who DO know what they are talking about agree he knew what he was doing....gosh, gee...I guess I do have nothing.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ I am sure he knew excatly where Quick's Five hole was going to land too. I am sure he is a physics teacher just like he is a soccer player and knew by turning his skate that much it would go in. You think he was looking at the puck... you can't prove it. His head is in the goalies direction which most players usually have it.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@GinXYZ To say he is one of the best or to say he plays soccer is stupid. With him getting hooked, having quick right in front of him and getting body slammed into burrows right after the goal. It wasn't on purpose. Look at their reactions to it. He didn't even know. I honestly think if it goes off the skate, it shouldn't be a goal end of story. No one debates then.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje BS. Even the coaches, sportswriters and analysts who believe the goal should have stood agree that Sedin knew exactly what he was doing. Hell, look at the replay again. That was barely a hook. You call that a 'body slam'? Look at the play again from the angles. He can see the puck. Look how he dragged his leg and foot into position. It was perfect. You think someone as talented as Sedin couldn't do this on purpose? I'm sure he was thinking what he did was totally legit.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ See you are thinking this because it is a Sedin, THAT my friend is unfair. I don't think Daniel isn't capable of redirecting, but considering the situation and that it happened in less then a second I don't think he KNEW he was going to get it in. You sound like some of those sportswriters, like its uncommon to stop infront of a net. You don't think he was trying to screen the goalie, like every other play. Try to grab the rebound. You are assuming based on his name.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje Um....no. Nice try though. I'm not saying he's that good because he's a Sedin...I'm saying it because he happens to be an exceptionally skilled player. It doesn't matter what his name is...what matters is how skillfully he plays and he happens to be one hell of a good player. Skill is skill. If his name was Bertram Wentworth it wouldn't change the fact that he's a damn fine player. Nice attempt at the fallacy, though.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ Well really unless you are throwing the puck or kicking it, it is called a goal. That the crazy thing about this game. I understand where you are coming from, but that isn't what they used when stating their arguement. They used the kicking rule, just out of curiousity, did you read that rule before or after this call?
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje So barring kicking or throwing, players should be able to direct, redirect, or bat the puck into the goal using any part of their body? So it's totally okay to bat the puck out if the air with your arm or hand into the net, right? Don't be ridiculous. In answer to your question, I looked up the rule after the call. I didn't watch the game, I only saw the highlights. Originally, I was on the fence whether it should be a goal or not. Rule 78.5 made it clear: no goal.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ You just said what I had said. If a player throws the puck in the net or kicks it, it isn't a goal. I meant that in using your hands to physically hit, throw, toss or whatever else you can do. If it goes off a players knee into the goal, it probably will be called a goal.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
Vice President of Hockey Operations was part of the decision in the Toronto review room.. Guess what: He's Mike Murphy, former LA Kings player and coach. With a call that has generated this much controversy, I have to think that this causes quite a conflict of interest.
zjhauri 1 year ago
@zjhauri Hmm..you know, Kay Whitmore is part of the Toronto War room and he used to play for the Canucks...hmm...could be a conflict of interest...and Kris King, who is Senior VP of Operations, used to play for the Blackhawaks, Wings and Coyotes, who are all in the playoffs...better get him out too before there is a conflict of interest. Spare me. Stop looking for conspiracies where none exist.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
For those of you who don't think the call was legit, go to the NHL website and check out rule 78.5...I'm convinced that the goal was waived off due to the first definition of that rule, although league officials certainly erred in announcing that the goal was disallowed due to being kicked in.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ 78.5 Disallowed Goals Apparent goals shall be disallowed by the Referee and the appropriate announcement made by the Public Address Announcer for the following reasons:
(i) When the puck has been directed, batted or thrown into the net by an attacking player other than with a stick.
your right
sizunny187 1 year ago
@GinXYZ I am sure the reason most Canadians are feeling that way is because ever since 93'-94' when wonderful bettman joined our life A Canadian team has never won the cup. I don't know if you were alive then, but that game was full of more BS. then a stinky cow. This call just made them feel like they were getting shot in the foot again, especially when Canadians are the reason hockey is still standing on it's two feet. Be fair, that is all I ask. That was a goal, who cares who would have won.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje I was alive during the period Bettman took over...I was in my early twenties. So no Canadian team has won the Cup since '94. So what? When Canadian teams practically owned the Cup between 1926 and 1994, did America get all bitter and claim the NHL was rigged against Americans? Did it ever occur to you American teams got stronger because Canadian players gravitated towards American teams, the big reason being that there were better financial opps for them on an American team?
GinXYZ 1 year ago
way to go, nhl. i'm so done with this excuse for a hockey league. this crap on top of the canadiens & caps game 2. sickening.
themindofjamzee 1 year ago
Bettman's RIGGED hockey league. I've been watching NHL hockey all my life (I'm 43 years old) and I'm fucking done with wasting my time watching something that is so obviously FIXED. This was simply the final straw. FUCK YOU BETTMAN AND YOUR HIRED OFFICIALS. The NHL has sunk to NBA standards.
AT least bettman couldn't interfere with our GOLD MEDAL, yeah bettman gold, now go fucking choke on your countries TIN medal.
STFUg00f2011 1 year ago
thats the national hockey league for ya
cheegroslaya 1 year ago
Its too bad that the Canucks got into the playoffs when they obviously didn't come to play.
Their spot could be filled by a more worthy team, like the brandon wheat kings.
nurple12 1 year ago
@nurple12
Bettmans spot could be filled by a more worthy steaming pile of your feces. fucking faggot
STFUg00f2011 1 year ago
That must be a fake. how can't u call that a goal. there was some movement after it hit the skate and on top of that it hit the front 1/3 of the skate on the outside of the skate.
I don't know about you but i don't think anyone even ovechkin could had kicked that in. as well look at 0:47 seconds look at where #69( O'Donnel)'s stick is it is impeding sedin from making the play. I'm not going to say the refs are blind but that definetly to me was a botched call.
SuperGamerGeek002 1 year ago 2
@SuperGamerGeek002 dam (#6) and have not (had kicked that)
SuperGamerGeek002 1 year ago
This is a completely legitimate call. While it is perhaps not a "distinct kicking motion", it is plainly obvious that Sedin dragged his right foot into the path of the puck with the intent of deflecting it into the net. That's the reason the call was made..this an intentional-and an against the rules-deflection. The rules clearly state that a player cannot intentionally deflect the puck into the net off any part of the body or equipment other than the blade of the stick. It's a good call.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
Comment removed
nvhockeyplayer8 1 year ago
@GinXYZ actually, a player may use his skate to deflect the puck into the net, it's just he cannot use a distinct pendulum kicking motion. Intentionally turning the skate to deflect the puck in is allowed.
dutchland4ever 1 year ago
@dutchland4ever I wasn't aware that rule had been modified. I still think it was a good goal to waive off, though.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ
Fuck you, those goals have counted all year until a Canadian team scores it against a sunbelt usa team. It's such an OBVIOUSLY RIGGED LEAGUE.
STFUg00f2011 1 year ago
@STFUg00f2011 If everything is so rigged, how do you explain Ottawa and Vancouver doing so well during the regular season? Maybe you're just a little sad that the Canucks suck ass on their PK. Maybe it's just the fact that you can't handle it when a U.S. team manhandles a Canadian team. I guess Luongo getting chased out was "rigged" as well, huh? I guess you're just another paranoid idiot who thinks if a call goes against a Canadian team it must somehow be revenge for the Winter Olympics.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
@GinXYZ It doesn't matter whose team this happened too. It should have been a goal. The rules were not changed after sending out that video and that is enough proof right there that it should have been a goal. Half the refs can't tell what is a goal, what is a hit now because of all the changes being made. The only thing that matters at the moment is what is written in the rule book. There wasn't a kicking motion, who cares if he did it on purpose it should still stand as a fair goal.
dzwaantje 1 year ago
@dzwaantje Right, teams don't matter, so everyone who is screaming 'conspiracy against the Canucks' or 'rigged game' needs to drop it. I agree there is a problem with rule consistency, but if we go by what is written in the rule book at this moment, it is NOT a goal. Refer to rule 78.5. Sedin purposely directed the puck into the net with his skate which is AGAINST the current rules.
GinXYZ 1 year ago
He totally moved his foot forward! Toronto actually got something right for once.
nvhockeyplayer8 1 year ago
wow this call was just as bad as our PK that game
etsen3 1 year ago
you know you made a fucking terrible call when even the announcers who are paid to be neutral, disagree like that
PinkPanther094 1 year ago
The only way to get your point across is that we Canadians will not tolerate being treated like second class teams and to quit watching the games if there are no Canadian teams in the playoffs.....
garebela 1 year ago
Bettman wants these weak teams like LA's and the Phoenix's to succeed so he can sell the game to the big American markets. He doesn't give a crap about us Canadian fans as he knows we will keep watching hockey no matter who is playing for the Stanley Cup. Like Pittsburgh, the strong teams financial teams like Vancouver subsidize these weak teams, they get all the good draft picks and then screw us in the end.
garebela 1 year ago 2
@garebela The Kings fans are way more loyal than Canucks fans. There are a ton more bandwagon Vancouver fans than LA fans. The Kings are not weak!
nvhockeyplayer8 1 year ago
@nvhockeyplayer8 lol, yeh right dude. hockey at staples center has been an absolute joke the past 7-8 years, now suddenly that the kings are winning and in the playoffs, all the bandwagon fan jump back on.
bruceleedisciple 1 year ago