Not only did the Canadiens got jobbed on the goal by
Mika Zibinijad in Game 4 versus the Ottawa Senators last night, but I also believe the tying goal by
Corey Conacher was just as suspect.
I understand entirely that any reviewed goal is subject to the call made on the ice, and the interpretation by the video review judges in the war room in Toronto, and completely respect the complexity of each individual situation. I do not, however, understand how a professional sports league can function knowing full well that their rules are subject to constant scrutiny.
The Senators' rookie (for those of you who haven't seen it a million times), scored a questionable goal off his skate in the third period last night to get Ottawa within a goal of the Canadiens. The pass, made by Sens' perennial pest
Chris Neal, came off the shaft of
Jarred Tinordi's stick and then made contact with Zibinijad's skate.
Many think the fact that the puck deflected off Tinordi was the principle reason the goal was allowed are dead wrong.
NHL Rule 49.2 - Goals
Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot.
With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed.
A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net.
If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL.
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. 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.
(i) A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team (including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal.
(ii) A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.
(iii) A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.
The argument is the actual definition of a distinct kicking motion. A pendulum motion requires a player pull their foot back, then thrust forward. On that premise, the Zibinijad goal is allowable. Since when does someone have to pull their foot back to kick forwards?
But this isn't soccer, right? Why are players allowed to score off their skate to begin with. From inception, hockey was designed to be played with a stick. As long as a rule allows for players to score off their feet, the debate will continue to rage on.
A simple adjustment to the rule would clear the air and eliminate the gray. In my own wording, it would read:
A puck that deflects of the hands/feet of a opposing player immediately prior crossing the goal shall be ruled NO GOAL.
If you eliminate goals that can be scored off a player's extremities, the debate is done...PERIOD!!!
On the Conacher goal, both on-ice official missed Kyle Turris applying a chicken wing on Carey Price's goal stick just prior to the goal being scored.
Rule 69.3 - Contact Inside the Goal Crease
If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.
If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.
For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.
Not only does Turris impede Price's ability to make the necessary save, but, in my humble opinion as a former goaltender, he is the principle reason why the Canadiens' netminder got hurt on the play. Price's over-extension and inability to push off while having his stick held was obvious.
We've seen Brandon Prust get called for lesser infraction against Senators' goalie, Craig Anderson, in this series alone. Because Price was more preoccupied with stopping the puck than embellishing the contact, does that make it less of a goalie interference penalty?
NHL on-ice officials wore gray shirts back in the day. Maybe they should swap their stripes for those jerseys again, so at least the players and coaches can be reminded about where they stand.
Match Up
