Emnet: Vancouver Canucks for the Cup

nucks lose in OT, YES!!!!

Amen.

habs lose in ot nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

Go Avs. Quote from Marleau "I don't know if its must-win, but it would feel a lot better going tied up to their building than down two," said Marleau,
whata bum id be getting rid of that guy

are you kidding me
that PP is hacking the NHL system

That was a poor call made by the NHL head office on the no-goal. What pissed me off though was that the guy who made the final call, Mike Murphy, used to be a player and coach for....the L.A. Kings. Now how is that fair?

It wasn't a poor call.
It's just that the morons on TV don't know the rule.
It is no longer a distinct kicking motion that is important, it is the force applied to the puck.

It is a goal if the puck is put into the net with it's own force or speed. Deflections are allowed, even intentional ones, as long as it is the speed of the puck that propels it into the net, not the force of the skate 'kicking' it into the net.

TheChad is correct.

Also, the Toronto Maple Leafs, Edmonton Oilers, and Calgary Flames will be waiting for the rest of the Canadian teams in the playoffs on the back 9. They trust the will catch up really quickly.

And in the interim, Brian Burke will trade Garnett Exelby's rights and Jeff Finger's carcass to Calgary for Iginla and 3 first round picks.

The rule (49.2) states "A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net. " and "A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident."

It has EVERYTHING to do with Kicking Motion.

Regardless of that, they overruled, which amazed me, I thought looking at it they would not overturn the on ice call either way. But then I thought of Bertuzzi's goal against Columbus. It was ruled no goal (which I agreed with), it was an obvious kicking donkey kick attempt, they reviewed that and said it WAS A GOAL, so they wouldn't overturn Sedin's goal for sure... alas I was wrong again.

The only consistency I see is their inconsistency.

BTW if you didn't see the Bertuzzi farce of a goal www.youtube.com/watch?v=0...

And Nytemare, you do realize that your entire statement depends upon a definition of a distinct kicking motion.

They are interpreting it is as change in motion of the puck, the input of force.

How in the world can Bertuzzi's be reversed to a goal and Sedin's be reversed to no goal with consistency in "distinct kicking motion"
Bertuzzi kicked his foot backwards to redirect the puck, that took thought and energy to reverse the driection of his foot.
Sedin was actually slowing his entire body and foot speed in a stopping motion which causes juttering, iffy call at best it is a kicking motion, but way less of a distinct kicking motion than Bertuzzi

The rule says Distinct kicking motion to propel and distinct kicking motion to to direct.
- distinct kicking motion means distinct kicking motion
- propel means propel (input of force)
- direct means direct.

Distinct kicking motion does not mean propel (input of force) , you can't use distinct kicking motion TO propel, and it does not mean direct, you can't use distinct kicking motion TO direct.

Direct Kicking Motion does not mean propel, that is why they put both propel and direct with the term distinct kicking motion in the rules. Your skate can propel and direct a puck without a distinct kicking motion.

Understanding that, I don't see how Sedin was an irrefutably direct kicking motion in the middle of stopping and Bertuzzi who kicked back with his skate was not.

What day was this Bertuzzi goal vs Columbus? I will see it.

Oh, there is a link.
It is because Bertuzzi's goal (as much as I hate him) used the natural force of the puck to score. It was a deflection. Sedin had to apply force in order to get the puck to reverse direction.

I'm telling you how the NHL rules it, how they interpret the rulebook. If you're daft enough to not believe me or argue with me how the people who WRITE the rulebook interprete it, then be it.

The key part is the "to propel the puck into the net"
Argue until you're blue, but you're wrong.