Jews areall over New York. Also Gary Bettman is a zionist jew. The jews own almost every sports monopolies in North America. It's clear Bettman ordered the refs to allow the goal.
it shouldnt have counted, and idk about the nhl rules but ur not allowed to redirect it in usa hockey, i thoguht it was the same in the nhl, if u turn ur skate to direct it in its no goal, if ur standing there and it deflects off your skate with no intent to redirect it its good, i would have waved this because he watched the puck and directed, they probably let it stand because it hit his skate before the kicking motion
Guys the rules state that for it to be a good goal it would have been redirected with a hockey stick. The only kicking motion is allowed if it goes in if the goalie kicks it in
@PodRacer900 you're an idiot "A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal." Rule 49 - Kicking. do research before you post kthx
@qwerty112311 Hey, we all say the same thing, redirects the puck, and then continues the motion towards the net, but without pushing the puck that's already gone... That's the rule dude, just accept it. Good goal.
Even the commentators see how bad Toronto is at making calls. They even say he redirected and didn't kick it in but think Toronto will rule it no goal. Shows how inconsistent and bad the head office is at ruling these goals. Even commentators have no confidence for the people in TO to make the correct call.
Actually 24Tyson is right. He redirected the puck first with his skate front end and when he felt the puck, he instinctively tried to kick it, without succeeding. That's the real rule, you can deflect but you can't kick. Good goal, but still hate the rangers.
@4emsteph Actually, we should have the right to use any body part but the hands, but they disallow kicking motion to prevent injuries risks, and that's really negociable, a kick can be really dangerous in this Hockey game.
@spidermath005 Bullshit. Nobody is going to go around kicking as though they are trying to hit a soccer ball from one end of the field to the other in order to redirect the puck, and that is the only kick that is all that dangerous. It is more dangerous to allow hits, because when people get upended their skates come up and it has led to a few people being slashed in their neck and above area.
@qwerty112311 A clear and legal hit is not supposed to throw any skate up... And it's not you who's going to decide that... Few NHL and minor league refs already told me that, and it's logic. Almost any kicking motion includes a blade going up, and potentially unbalancing the player and that where it's dangerous. Even a skate front end hit can injure.
LOL this just means that the NHL reviewers and refs are god dam blind! LMFAO D. Sedins stopping slide counted as a kick in not allowed when he didnt even move his dam leg.
Yeah, I agree with the call too. I'm a chicago fan, I have no bias towards any of those teams. He redirected it, then for some odd reason he had a kicking motion afterwards. What a weird guy.
this was a redirect. the kicking motion was made after the puck made contact. good goal. the problem with the officials in most cases is they see a kicking motion before contact. a player will kick their foot into position to reidrect, and refs call it no goal. a no goal is supposed to be only for when a kicking motion is DURING physical contact with the puck.
all in all they should just allow kicks anyway. fucking stupid rule
He didn't kick it in, it was deflected in. Although it looks like he made a kicking motion it seemed more like he was trying to stop the puck with his skate.
the only thing I wish for is CONSISTENCY!!! Yes, you can re-direct the puck with your skate, but can't kick. In this instance, yes it is a goal. He kicks AFTER the puck hits his skate. He re-directed it in. Howver, I have seen many goals be disallowed with MUCH more vidence there was NO kicking motion. 90% of the time, if the player intentionally hits the puck with his skate, they disallow it. Whether it was directed or kicked, but in this case all of a sudden it counts?
he didn't try to kick the puck, he tried to stop it. the kicking motion comes a little bit late, the puck has already gone from dubinskys skate when the kicking motion comes. I'm not sure if that counts as a goal.
He turned his skate, and then kicked AFTER the puck was away from his skate, the kick I guess was him trying to kick the puck, but it was already far away from him and looked like it went in as a deflection
Lots of legitimate skate deflection goals have been waived off simply because the player made a "kicking motion" after the fact. The NHL needs to be consistent with these calls.
no douchebag *she* deflected it and then there was a kicking motion but it didnt affect the movement of the puck... learn the fucking rules of hockey before you comment on videos dick
thats definately a good goal. The new rules says "distinct kicking motion" and the overhead replay shows that the puck was redirected and the kick came after and missed the puck all together
@foxnotch I disagree with you! Because his skate does the kicking motion AFTER, it shows intent to put the puck in with his skate. Also, because he moves his skate initially to touch the puck, further shows intent. Therefore, it wasn't an accidental redirect, but an act of kicking. I'm a canuck fan, so maybe I just have to define EVERY deflection as a kick because of the Sedin vs. Kings saga.
I don't really understand your logic here. Even if he HAD intent to kick the puck in (hence the kicking motion after the fact), the video clearly shows that the puck's path was altered only by the redirection of his skate, and in no way was propelled by a kicking motion. All that matters is what directly affects the puck's movement, and the kicking motion definitely did not.
@foxnotch Well here's a comparison. Henrik Sedin's disallowed goal against LA was because the war room decided that he knew where the puck was, and he knew he was going to direct it in with his skate. Clearly in the Sedin example, there was no kicking motion, just intent. Therefore, since the league loves showing comparisons, this would be no goal as well.
In my personal opinion, I think when the league allowed skate deflections, this wasn't what they had in my mind.
@Freiheitadler Sorry, but that's not an accurate comparison. Sedin, although not distinctly kicking, DID propel the puck into the net. I'm not saying that Sedin's wasn't a good goal, but that's really not a good comparison, seeing as this was a cut and dry, 100% redirection. Dubinsky never added momentum to the travel of the puck; he only altered its course. Like I said in my first post, I absolutely hate the Rangers, but this is without a doubt a great redirect and a good goal.
@24Tyson He redirected with his foot, which is a lot worse then what Sedin did and Sedin's goal was not allowed. It's too bad that calls like these are left to a ref's interpretation. Obvious redirects using body parts, such as this one, should be considered "kick motion" type moves. I don't think the refs were biased in this video, it's a close call on a rule being stretched
The rangers get every fucking goal review call just like against vancouver and buffalo in the playoffs naslund against the devils and on and on and on
Lol the Rangers get no calls in their favor. Look up Rangers @ Blackhawks 1/16/09. The most biased game against the Rangers possibly ever. But the Rangers get lousy calls on them all the time. The kicking motion was way after.
Do you have delayed sight or something? The kicking motion was after. There is no way in hell it would have ever affected that puck except for the wind gust it may have given it.
The kicking motion must lead to the goal for the goal to be disallowed... The puck clearly hit his skate and went in. As the puck was going in, he moved his skate in a kicking motion. Therefore he did not kick the puck to make the goal.
he turned his skate it doesnt look like he kicked it tho i mean the puck is right by the goal line nd then the motion goes he turns it hits then he moves his foot way after i didnt seem like a blaten kick
Jews areall over New York. Also Gary Bettman is a zionist jew. The jews own almost every sports monopolies in North America. It's clear Bettman ordered the refs to allow the goal.
ThiefLeet 1 month ago
@ThiefLeet dude your stupid, what the fuck does jews living in new york have to due with reffing, the nhl assigns refs
demon07nd 1 month ago
good call, redirection before kicking motion.
23Detts23 2 months ago 3
@23Detts23 I agree, that was a good call!
NickGodinTv 3 weeks ago
he kicked it after it already came off
kewlnsimpguy 2 months ago
it shouldnt have counted, and idk about the nhl rules but ur not allowed to redirect it in usa hockey, i thoguht it was the same in the nhl, if u turn ur skate to direct it in its no goal, if ur standing there and it deflects off your skate with no intent to redirect it its good, i would have waved this because he watched the puck and directed, they probably let it stand because it hit his skate before the kicking motion
JTWoof 3 months ago
@JTWoof in the NHL you are allowed to redirect, but not kick.
Edawg649 2 months ago
how fast was it? if it wasn't moving that fast that is proboly why
BLA2K102 4 months ago
GOOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLLLL~!!!
Mineav 6 months ago
This allowed but not Henriks vs the kings? BS
AtooZ17 7 months ago
Devils fan here, It was a redirection, there was a kicking motion, but it was long after the puck deflected off his skate, so its a goal
Jawz4devils 8 months ago
Guys the rules state that for it to be a good goal it would have been redirected with a hockey stick. The only kicking motion is allowed if it goes in if the goalie kicks it in
PodRacer900 9 months ago
@PodRacer900 you're an idiot "A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal." Rule 49 - Kicking. do research before you post kthx
Jawz4devils 8 months ago
That's a redirection---not a kick. Look at 0:24
AEMoreira81 9 months ago 2
Remember watching the game at 0:40 you can see he kicked late it is clearly a goal
CPalmer022 11 months ago
this compared to the Sedin disallowed goal in the playoffs last season just shows how rigged this game is.
astroxin 11 months ago
@astroxin It's not really the game. It's more the NHL than anything else.
talesofsymphonia295 11 months ago
Puck off of skate don't count I though!? Or is that only when a player is in the crease?!
JacobVloggs 1 year ago
How the fuck is that a good goal? What a total load of horseshit and I am not fan either team.
qwerty112311 1 year ago
@qwerty112311 Hey, we all say the same thing, redirects the puck, and then continues the motion towards the net, but without pushing the puck that's already gone... That's the rule dude, just accept it. Good goal.
spidermath005 1 year ago
Now it was the right call he redirected it off his skate and by the time the puck is in the net he does the kicking motion
TinyWes 1 year ago
good goal, LETS GO RANGERS!
DBZman34 1 year ago
Even the commentators see how bad Toronto is at making calls. They even say he redirected and didn't kick it in but think Toronto will rule it no goal. Shows how inconsistent and bad the head office is at ruling these goals. Even commentators have no confidence for the people in TO to make the correct call.
Hatchwork 1 year ago
A re-direct and after he tried to kick
Ruinedbad 1 year ago
Actually 24Tyson is right. He redirected the puck first with his skate front end and when he felt the puck, he instinctively tried to kick it, without succeeding. That's the real rule, you can deflect but you can't kick. Good goal, but still hate the rangers.
spidermath005 1 year ago
good goal
mlahk7 1 year ago
yea you can redirect it with your foot
johnmchugh11596 1 year ago
a clear redeirection. GOAL!
anizzardo 1 year ago
Redirect Hit GOAL.
KingOfTheIce71 1 year ago
Yeah, show D. Sedin this highlight lol
codaquinn12 1 year ago
Why not just make the rule simple. If it hits a skate and goes in, whether directly or indirectly, it should not count.
4emsteph 1 year ago
@4emsteph Actually, we should have the right to use any body part but the hands, but they disallow kicking motion to prevent injuries risks, and that's really negociable, a kick can be really dangerous in this Hockey game.
spidermath005 1 year ago
@spidermath005 Bullshit. Nobody is going to go around kicking as though they are trying to hit a soccer ball from one end of the field to the other in order to redirect the puck, and that is the only kick that is all that dangerous. It is more dangerous to allow hits, because when people get upended their skates come up and it has led to a few people being slashed in their neck and above area.
qwerty112311 1 year ago
@qwerty112311 A clear and legal hit is not supposed to throw any skate up... And it's not you who's going to decide that... Few NHL and minor league refs already told me that, and it's logic. Almost any kicking motion includes a blade going up, and potentially unbalancing the player and that where it's dangerous. Even a skate front end hit can injure.
spidermath005 1 year ago
LOL this just means that the NHL reviewers and refs are god dam blind! LMFAO D. Sedins stopping slide counted as a kick in not allowed when he didnt even move his dam leg.
Rey123Duncan 1 year ago
its a kicking motion weather its before the puck hit his skate or after so it shouldnt of counted
beaups10 1 year ago
that's a clear goal that should count nothing wrong with that
magician2242 1 year ago
It wasn't a kick. He was turning sideways to try to get a shot.
razorslice17 1 year ago
Yeah, I agree with the call too. I'm a chicago fan, I have no bias towards any of those teams. He redirected it, then for some odd reason he had a kicking motion afterwards. What a weird guy.
vean1220 1 year ago
it was redirected before the kicking motion
staldex 1 year ago
this was a redirect. the kicking motion was made after the puck made contact. good goal. the problem with the officials in most cases is they see a kicking motion before contact. a player will kick their foot into position to reidrect, and refs call it no goal. a no goal is supposed to be only for when a kicking motion is DURING physical contact with the puck.
all in all they should just allow kicks anyway. fucking stupid rule
echeesekid 1 year ago
A re-direct! So it counts!
limsniff 1 year ago
kicking motion after the puck hits his skate = goal
MESSier1188 1 year ago
it was the fact that it was a diflection his foot moved after
hellouto 1 year ago
its shouldnt have been because he lifted his foot and your not allowd to but the god damn war is fucked in the head
hellouto 1 year ago
Good goal. Deflected it first, then the leg came out. Good goal.
ThisMomentIsHeated 1 year ago
@whatsyourchannel thats funny cuz i ws thinking that throughout the whole video before i looked at the comments
2wowthatsabigturtle2 1 year ago
He didn't kick it in, it was deflected in. Although it looks like he made a kicking motion it seemed more like he was trying to stop the puck with his skate.
Dane42o 1 year ago
distinct kicking motion
neildymusic 1 year ago
No kick, although a smart player would have his stick on the ice rather then standing there clueless
whatsyourchannel 2 years ago
kicking motion came after the puck came off his food
rtfloor 2 years ago
his food? lol
Twirlyman 2 years ago
correct.
martylocal87 2 years ago
shit goal.
But according to the rules, good goal.
dwinnell 2 years ago
Kicking motion came after the puck was already going into the net. Good goal.
DeltaCanuckianGaming 2 years ago
@DeltaCanuckianGaming
Doesn't matter, he redirected it.
CrazyCanuck90 2 years ago
@CrazyCanuck90 he can redirect it all he wants with his skate. you're just not allowed to kick the puck in.
CanucksfanKyle 1 year ago
he had a kicking motion NO GOAL
coolbeans701 2 years ago
no goal kicking motion before puck was in net ---
breakoutrulz 2 years ago
ehhhhh yeah i dont think it was a kicking motion. More like trying to stop the puck
CaptainJackRyan 2 years ago
good goal
bigguyrobbie 2 years ago
the only thing I wish for is CONSISTENCY!!! Yes, you can re-direct the puck with your skate, but can't kick. In this instance, yes it is a goal. He kicks AFTER the puck hits his skate. He re-directed it in. Howver, I have seen many goals be disallowed with MUCH more vidence there was NO kicking motion. 90% of the time, if the player intentionally hits the puck with his skate, they disallow it. Whether it was directed or kicked, but in this case all of a sudden it counts?
Assassin4628 2 years ago
he didn't try to kick the puck, he tried to stop it. the kicking motion comes a little bit late, the puck has already gone from dubinskys skate when the kicking motion comes. I'm not sure if that counts as a goal.
easyweezy24 2 years ago
He turned his skate, and then kicked AFTER the puck was away from his skate, the kick I guess was him trying to kick the puck, but it was already far away from him and looked like it went in as a deflection
judopuns 2 years ago
It looks like it deflected off his right foot and Dubinsky kicked after the puck went to the net
ETrane 2 years ago
Lots of legitimate skate deflection goals have been waived off simply because the player made a "kicking motion" after the fact. The NHL needs to be consistent with these calls.
CaptainMazda 2 years ago
exaclty
Assassin4628 2 years ago
i have no clue if it was a kicking mostion or he tried to stop the puck
matteo1824 2 years ago
good goal he tried to stop it but,scored
mrjag1222 2 years ago
Its a natural reaction after puck hits a skate. He did turn but no kicking motion.
GOAL ALLOWED.
mapleleafsforever 2 years ago
kicking motion no goal
sublmieneverdies96 2 years ago
no douchebag *she* deflected it and then there was a kicking motion but it didnt affect the movement of the puck... learn the fucking rules of hockey before you comment on videos dick
BigJake055 2 years ago
Deflection! He deflects it first then there is a kick motion, which does not affect the deflection.
xHamachi 2 years ago
That was clearly a deflection rofl. Not a Rangers fan. Just call it how I see it!
pethcir 2 years ago
the nhl is effing stupid for this
kewlnsimpguy 2 years ago
what the hell that was kicked but im a ranger fan good choice ref loll but still it was kicked.
dadeeman1oo 2 years ago
no goal. clearly kicked it
adefranco17 2 years ago
good call jst folow through
spongedom96 2 years ago
thats definately a good goal. The new rules says "distinct kicking motion" and the overhead replay shows that the puck was redirected and the kick came after and missed the puck all together
cerialthriller 2 years ago 2
I disagree, that was clearly a redirect. And I HATE the rangers.
foxnotch 2 years ago 30
@foxnotch I disagree with you! Because his skate does the kicking motion AFTER, it shows intent to put the puck in with his skate. Also, because he moves his skate initially to touch the puck, further shows intent. Therefore, it wasn't an accidental redirect, but an act of kicking. I'm a canuck fan, so maybe I just have to define EVERY deflection as a kick because of the Sedin vs. Kings saga.
Freiheitadler 7 months ago
@Freiheitadler
I don't really understand your logic here. Even if he HAD intent to kick the puck in (hence the kicking motion after the fact), the video clearly shows that the puck's path was altered only by the redirection of his skate, and in no way was propelled by a kicking motion. All that matters is what directly affects the puck's movement, and the kicking motion definitely did not.
foxnotch 7 months ago
@foxnotch Well here's a comparison. Henrik Sedin's disallowed goal against LA was because the war room decided that he knew where the puck was, and he knew he was going to direct it in with his skate. Clearly in the Sedin example, there was no kicking motion, just intent. Therefore, since the league loves showing comparisons, this would be no goal as well.
In my personal opinion, I think when the league allowed skate deflections, this wasn't what they had in my mind.
Freiheitadler 7 months ago
@Freiheitadler Sorry, but that's not an accurate comparison. Sedin, although not distinctly kicking, DID propel the puck into the net. I'm not saying that Sedin's wasn't a good goal, but that's really not a good comparison, seeing as this was a cut and dry, 100% redirection. Dubinsky never added momentum to the travel of the puck; he only altered its course. Like I said in my first post, I absolutely hate the Rangers, but this is without a doubt a great redirect and a good goal.
foxnotch 7 months ago
count it..
XI0r4y240IX 2 years ago
wow.. thats fuckin pathetic that that could be ruled a goal
MRK00LAID 2 years ago
It counts.
It deflected, it just that the foot did a kicking motion AFTER it made contact.
24Tyson 2 years ago 26
@24Tyson He redirected with his foot, which is a lot worse then what Sedin did and Sedin's goal was not allowed. It's too bad that calls like these are left to a ref's interpretation. Obvious redirects using body parts, such as this one, should be considered "kick motion" type moves. I don't think the refs were biased in this video, it's a close call on a rule being stretched
ripelcannon 1 year ago
he definatly kicked it the stick wasnt even on the ice and this is coming from a rangers fan
hockeyjoey1495 2 years ago
i am a canucks fan and i hate the rangers but that goal counts
GoodManSam16 3 years ago
no goal
ottawasucks99 3 years ago
Count it
CARFOOP 3 years ago
no goal
omgouch9 3 years ago 2
I like to eat apple sauce.
DarkKitten878 3 years ago
he redirected the puck but kicked out his skate AFTER the puck bounced off his skate. that was the right call.
NHLkicksNBAass1 3 years ago 3
he redirected the puck with his skate and then turned it so it counted he had a kicking motion after he deflected it
shivraj67 3 years ago 3
Aren't these the NYR announcers? They didn't think even think it was gonna count. That was NO GOAL, NHL officiating is a joke.
OvechkinDomin8s 3 years ago
Uh, that's a good goal. He makes the kicking motion AFTER it hits his skate. Why wouldn't that be allowed?
askurat 3 years ago
The rangers get every fucking goal review call just like against vancouver and buffalo in the playoffs naslund against the devils and on and on and on
0zachNJDparise9 3 years ago
You're a moron and you give people from Jersey a bad name.
askurat 3 years ago
Lol the Rangers get no calls in their favor. Look up Rangers @ Blackhawks 1/16/09. The most biased game against the Rangers possibly ever. But the Rangers get lousy calls on them all the time. The kicking motion was way after.
goblin512 3 years ago
Comment removed
hipeopleofdaworld 2 years ago
NO GOAL!
clogger3030 3 years ago
Do you have delayed sight or something? The kicking motion was after. There is no way in hell it would have ever affected that puck except for the wind gust it may have given it.
goblin512 3 years ago
The kicking motion must lead to the goal for the goal to be disallowed... The puck clearly hit his skate and went in. As the puck was going in, he moved his skate in a kicking motion. Therefore he did not kick the puck to make the goal.
I think they made the right call.
arunmnair 3 years ago
The kicking motion is only distinct after the puck is already in the middle of the crease... That's why it was allowed.
bigwern69 3 years ago
really? so if you kick it and it wasn't in the crease its allowed?
shivraj67 3 years ago
he turned his skate it doesnt look like he kicked it tho i mean the puck is right by the goal line nd then the motion goes he turns it hits then he moves his foot way after i didnt seem like a blaten kick
kevster422 3 years ago