Confusing Intent with "Distinct Kicking Motion"

it was a distinct falling motion. He may very well have stepped on the puck, and leaning backward, had no option but for his skate to move the way it did.

I personally feel that all kicked pucks should be allowed. If the NHL wants more scoring, then there you go. If a player can kick it in, more power to him.

As for Parise’s play and the current law, I was stuck in a car during the game while twitter was blowing up. Sherry Ross was adamant that the play should be a goal, then she saw one angle and then the overhead and changed her mind. She was still angry, but . . .

When I looked at the replay, it appeared Parise “strategically” fell. Anyone who has played knows exactly what I mean. Sometimes, if you’re falling, you go in a certain direction or fall a certain way for instance if you want to draw a penalty.

When I saw Zach get right up to cheer, he looked right at the ref, meaning he knew what he just did.

Just my two cents, also reffed USA Hockey for 15 years and had to make a couple of these close calls.

Good article. I was really hoping it was a goal, but like acasser said, I too assumed it would be waved out.

That was a tough loss but the Devils have played a lot recently with very little time off. This will be a good break. Maybe a a hard skate tomorrow then a possible optional skate. This team will be flying on Wednesday

Here are two examples of allowed goals on questionable calls.

This looks like it was a distinct kicking motion, but Toronto ruled it was a natural skate motion, one that wasn’t intended to redirect the puck in the goal. It just happened that way.

This was by far the worst interpretation of the rule, though it was before replay. Game 7 of the 1st round playoffs in OT. The Flames would go onto win their only Stanley Cup. Otto’s stick was in the air, he’s looking at his skate and knew what he was doing. It’s another reason I just say let these goals stand. It would make us all less crazy.

A distinct kicking motion means “distinct kicking motion.” It does not address either player’s intent, nor could it, as a player’s intent could be various: kick the puck to himself to shoot in, kick it in and hope nobody notices, kick the glove to dislodge the puck… or simply to establish himself at the top of the crease.

In this instance, however, there was no distinct kicking motion. There was skate movement, but skate movement does not equate with distinct kicking motion.

When wearing shoes, one does not kick by swiveling the foot from the ankle. When wearing skates, kicking is a bit different. However, the rules account for the different way the skaters move, and limits the concern not to mere skate movement but to kicking.

38.4 Situations Subject to Video Review – The following situations are subject to review by the Video Goal Judge:

(iv) 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.

Not only do the words “distinct kicking motion appear” twice in the rule, but they appear IN ALL CAPS, followed by a definition from the realm of physics and kinesiology (the study of movement). There is nothing in the rule which indicates that the definition of “distinct kicking motion” provided is simply one example of what kicking would be. Rather, it says that a distinct kicking motion is a pendulum motion. To be moving like a pendulum, a kick would originate from the hip or knee, not a mere sideways or forward skate-movement.

I believe the rule was written that way to account for the way in which hockey players balance on skates and to allow for redirections by moving skates. Thus, it’s my opinion that the rule is narrowly circumscribed to eliminate goals which result from pendulous kicking motions, not to overrule, in slow-motion, good goals called on the ice which occur on the basis of plausibly non-kicking hockey skating moves.

Zach Parise made no “distinct kicking motion” “with a pendulum motion” to propel the puck into the goal.

My problem is not with the call, it is with the inconsistency with the call. That exact same play could happen 5 more times this season and I would bet a good amount of money that it would be 3 called good goals and 3 disallowed (Including this one, of course). I have always been under the impression that a distinct kicking motion with a hinged action on the knee was required to call back a goal, and I have seen a lot more obvious get called good goals in the past.

Just a thought:

I believe the NFL replay rule (as popularly stated) is that there has to be incontrovertible video evidence to overturn a ruling on the field. That might be just for challenges to a call.

In legal terms, that “incontrovertible video evidence” requirement is something like a standard of review (the degree to which a higher court must defer to rulings of a lesser court or authority) or a burden or proof or burden of persuasion (the mountain which must be climbed to demonstrate that a fact or series of facts are true).

A high court may defer to some judgments of a lower court, just as the video replay booth might defer to the referrees on the field. The higher court’s authority may be limited to review only certain things. Also, in court, the person bringing the case has to prove their case “beyond a reasonable doubt” (criminal trials) or “by a preponderance of the evidence” (civil trials).

While the NFL’s rule is well known, it’s not clear (to me) how the NHL makes its rulings. For instance, it’s not clear whether the video goal judges in the arena or in the War Room in Toronto have to defer to the on-ice officials or if they need “incontrovertible video evidence” to overrule the on-ice officials. There may be a guideline they use, but it’s just as likely that it’s a case-by-case basis with every official looking at it differently. And, therefore, that it produces different results even in comparing roughly-similar goals. (Like Shanahan’s system for reviewing head-shots, would be case-by-case basis for decisionmaking… though Shanahan is reviewing tape for supplemental discipline.)

The NFL doesn’t exactly have a case-by-case basis for decisions, though. They defer to the on-field call unless it’s challenged or mandatorily booth-reviewed (official review, within 2 minutes, OT, etc) and there exists incontrovertible video evidence to overrule the on-field call. If there’s no challenge and the teams keep playing, the on-field ruling is accepted.

The NHL, on the other hand, doesn’t use video review for “incomplete pass,” “down by forward progress,” or other intricacies like that which necessitate such a clear standard by which coaches can choose to burn a time out challenging a play. The NHL mostly review goals/ assists and maybe delay of game penalties. Maybe they don’t need “incontrovertible video evidence” to overrule the on-ice officials. Rather, they can simply make their ruling without any consideration of the call on the ice. (This is a de novo standard of review, or plenary authority).

Like I said: TLDR.