To Kick Or Not to Kick

It's a debate that's been going on in hockey since time immemorial, which is technically, I believe, before Chris Chelios became an NHL player.

Kicked in or not kicked in? That is the question, and it has been for a long, long time. Those who suggest this rule tweak or that one will "solve" the problem are just wrong. Every supposed clarification of this rule just makes it more complicated, and that's because the basic issue - not allowing players to kick the puck into the net - is such a subjective concept.

Today, its the Vancouver Canucks and their fans who are up in arms over a disallowed goal that was certainly part of the reason, along with the fact Roberto Luongo doesn't play goal very well in the playoffs, that the Canucks lost Game 3 of their series to the Los Angeles Kings.

Was the puck kicked in? Looked like it to me. Big Brother in Toronto - in this case Mike Murphy - agreed. But a kicking motion to some is simply a player slamming on the brakes to others, and the two sides are going to disagree until Barry Melrose gets another NHL coaching job, or longer.

Vancouver, of course, is the most wronged hockey nation on the planet. We heard it last spring when Chicago found all those holes in Luongo in the deciding game but some interpreted the result as the league watching the Hawks to advance, and we heard it again this season when Alexandre Burrows blew the whistle (supposedly) on referee Stephane Auger.

Now, brace yourself to hear it again. Some league conspiracy is out to fry the Canucks and deny them their rightful seat in the Stanley Cup final. This is a franchise that has a shorter history of being unable to win the Cup than the Leafs only because it wasn't around in '67, but every year there's an excuse or a reason that isn't we're-just-not-good-enough.

But back to the kicking the puck issue. My esteemed collegue at TSN, Bob McKenzie, believes the issue could be fixed by allowing the puck to be kicked as long as the skate blade didn't leave the ice, and certainly Bob has tons of experience in the sport to support that opinion.

Me? I think the McKenzie Rule would just spawn more debate, not less. Was the blade all the way of the ice, or just while the puck was physically in contact with the blade? Would teams be inclined to hire players specifically as designated kickers?

I'd be tempted to go the other way. Any puck that isn't shot into the net with a stick shouldn't count as a goal. Even that would cause problems on deflected shots.

Here's what matters. The issue isn't going to be fixed. It's going to continue being debated in hockey games for the next 50 years. Or until Chelios retires, whichever comes first.

And no, the NHL isn't out to get the Canucks, and no, Murphy doesn't favour the Kings because he once played for them. Don't forget, he once coached in the Canucks system, too.

And will any of this stop the whining from the west coast? Not a chance.

Comments

[Scott McKenzie]

I don't know what the hell you are talking about. Everyone in Vancouver knows Luongo blew it and that the Canucks weren't good enough against Chicago. There were no conspiracies at all.

There is no way you saw a kicking motion tonight. Not unless you were actually watching a soccer game instead of the Kings game. He stopped, and while stopping (remember players in the NHL are actually pretty fast) his skates pushed the puck into the net. It's pretty simple.

What you should really be writing about is the difference between a "kicking motion" and a "distinct kicking motion." Is Murphy serious? And is that really enough evidence to over turn the call on the ice?

[Trevor Presiloski]

Give me a break. There's no conspiracy theory here with the Canucks, but there have been some rather blatant missed calls against them (Henrik Sedin getting a stick caught in his visor, being a great example) which has come as a result of poor officiating.

Are fans not allowed to be frustrated over a wrong (perceived or real?)

17 years and Leafs Nation still hasn't shut up about Kerry Fraser's blown call ( http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/article/786529--blown-leafs-call-dogs-kerry-fraser-as-nhl-ref-retires ), yet Canucks fans can't vent the same night their team loses an important playoff game?

[Evan Tomboulian]

"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." (NHL Rules 49.2) "No distinct kicking motion" (Mike Murphy on CBC) = good goal. Maybe we on the west coast have a slight inferiority complex, that being said, by the NHL's own rules that should have been a goal. The rule is not up for debate, only the interpretation of it.

[MD]

The Kings have been given golden opportunities to win the last two games (not to mention the non-call on Henrik Sedin). Conspiracy or not, this undeniable.

[Evan Tomboulian]

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." (NHL Rules 49.2) "No distinct kicking motion" (Mike Murphy, on CBC postgame) Do the math. Perhaps we on the west cost have a slight inferiority complex. That was a goal. No question

[Frustrated]

I don't believe in a conspiracy theory. hidden bias, maybe, but no one is actively acting against the Canucks. however, 2 games in a row partially decided by bulls*** calls (remember, a call can only be overturned if the video review finds a 'distinct kicking motion.' that is, if it's borderline, the call on the ice stands. someone forgot that rule) does constitute terrible reffing. The canucks failed on the powerplay, and they brought troubles on themselves that way, but players are understandably frustrated when missed calls, botched calls, and sticks to the face are called more often to the benefit of one team instead of another.

[Darryl Hogan Web]

I guess stopping is the new kicking. if a soccer player slid on the field, and the ball rebounded off of his foot, would that be a kicking motion too? I guess if sedin had slid on his back on the ice, and the puck hit his helmet and went in, that would be a kicking motion too, but with the head of course. Let's not get carried away though. Obviously the two incidents about the Hawks and Burrows is enough evidence to speculate Vancouver is the "most wronged team" in the NHL. What aboout Toronto? I guess you can blame their lack of success on the fact that Burke never smiles, or on the fact that Toronto kills any goalie's career that plays for the club.

[Bryan Freeman]

Obviously there is no conspiracy. But,since Toronto has finally blessed the west coast with it's opinion on the matter, thanks for staying up past your bedtime to chime in on the issue.

There is no conspiracy. There was an incredibly inane call, which watching other series (we do that here) falls in line with inconsistent and occasionally inexplicable calls.

My complaint isn't about one call in one series. It is about sitting down to watch any given series and not being able to understand the manner in which it will be called. The league has gone out of its way to categorize what is fair and what is foul. Perfect.

Why is it teams have no idea what infraction will be deemed a penalty when they hit the ice? Even more, what will not be a penalty at the beginning of the game, magically become a violation. If a player can't figure it out, there is no way a fan will be able to.

Damien has done such a compeling job on his pseudo-insights, I am tempted to help him caddy the annual April Leaf Golf Tourney. Sorry you have nothing to talk about in Toronto right now, but Vancouver doesn't make the calls in Toronto. I do look forward to the Leaf's return to playoff hockey. I think it is good for Canada. Your bias and bitterness, however, are not.

[Jlo]

Go further than Bob McKenzie suggests. Allow players to kick the puck in, in anyway, shape or form. You can't throw it, but you can kick it. Pretty sure there is enough distance between the arms and the legs to stem any controversy. I don't see what that would be a problem. And it would avoid having to review "controversial" plays like last night. Although, for the record, LA scorched the Canucks and it probably wouldn't have changed anything yesterday.

[Rick]

Head, hands, high-sticks, skates ... if the NHL is serious about increased scoring, why not let everything count?

[Neil]

1. Hank's visor carrying an LA stick for 2 minutes with no whistle.
2. Bieksa being hit by a puck while leaving the ice & being called for too many men, in direct conflict of NHL rule 74.1 “If in the course of a substitution either the player(s) entering the play or the player(s) retiring is struck by the puck accidentally, the play will not be stopped and no penalty will be called.”
3. A 90-degree carom is called a "distinct kicking motion", against the opinion of *both* referees on the ice.

Every year we see poor referee decisions on the ice like these, and every year the NHL sings a song about lollipops and unicorns, instead of saying "we got this one wrong".

Personally, I don't think that there is a conspiracy afoot; I think it's just the Canucks running into a series of bad calls. The reason they are down 2-1 is not the refs, however; it's that they can't stop the LA power play.

[other mark]

Really Damien. Some guy is willing to go to the dirty area in front of the net, takes a point shot off his shin, knee, elbow, head...whatever, and you aren't going to reward him for his efforts? What next? Goals scored as a result of forechecking not allowed? Goals scored as a result of out working/out hitting your opponent not allowed? Give it rest. The game doesn't need less goals; it needs more. And, quite frankly, grit and determination still belong in this game.

[Ryan]

Amen Coxy,

The Canucks fans are getting Silly. My buddy is a Die Hard Canucks fan, and thinks he is wronged every year. I had to bring stats into the picture and remind him that the Canucks have lost more games than the Leafs since 1970, and that the Canucks franchise has a history of being LOSERS. He then brings up the Leafs current situation and I remind him they are rebuilding. Long story short, the Canucks are just not good enough. Never have, and won't be for a while. They need a stronger defense. They rely far too much on Luongo, and when Bobby Lou isn't on his game, the Canucks suffer. Plain and simple, Canucks won't win this year either.

[keitht]

I'm a leafs fan and I don't see any way that can be interpreted as a kicking motion. Sometimes teams do get hosed. I remember a sens playoff goal a few years back that was much more "kicky" and stood.

If you need to be sending clarification DVDs, you didn't write the rule very well.

[keitht]

Also - sure - conspiracy theories are ridiculous but if I was a canucks fan and I heard Murphy admit on HNIC that it was not a "distinct kicking motion" I'd be mad. Who is he to rewrite the rulebook midstream? it says "distinct kicking motion" a few times:

"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."

[Stephen]

"Bieksa being hit by a puck while leaving the ice & being called for too many men, in direct conflict of NHL rule 74.1 “If in the course of a substitution either the player(s) entering the play or the player(s) retiring is struck by the puck accidentally, the play will not be stopped and no penalty will be called.”

That accounts for Bieksa. Canucks fans have conveniently forgotten that they had *six other skaters on the ice anyway.* Bieksa touching the puck merely triggered the count, and the player who hopped over the boards just before he touched the puck made it too many men even if you didn't count him, as the rule states that the second both skates hit the ice, you're on the ice - there's no five-foot rule for incoming players.

Even if the goal had counted tonight (and to be fair, I assumed it would), it wouldn't have made a difference. Until Vancouver figures out how to stop the Kings' PP, they don't have a chance.

[Mark]

I'm just irritated that I stayed up so late to watch the NHL execs show just how bushleague they can be, when they make a ruling that is blatantly against their own rule book. Things like this, and the head shots debate makes me less surprised that the NHL is considered a fringe league down south.

[Dan Kelly]

You don't need to have Burkie's legalese-fluent mind to parse this rule - "distinct" means "distinct". The refs on ice called it a good goal, to me it looked like a fair deflection off the blade, and Damien thinks it was a Lionel Messi move. Nothing so "distinct" would be subject to this much debate.

It was an important call that got botched; not the first time, won't be the last. On the heels of an equally important non-call that significantly affected the outcome of a game (Henrik's faceful of stick), insulting the Vancouver organization and its fans for crying foul is unnecessarily craven. (And for the record, I'm a Leafs fan, but the Canucks are a great team to watch.)

Also, Damien, it's long past the time for you to begin responding to comments. Presenting an incendiary opinion and then disappearing isn't what the participatory nature of this medium is about; especially not with a comments-enabled blog, and especially when that blog is a salaried position. A day is coming, soon, when the tidy hiding place of print will be gone, and those who merit a platform like this are either going to have to engage with readers or hope McGuire can make some room between the benches...

[Bill Mogulsby]

According to the rulebook that goal was not kicked in - period, end of story. Murphy and his cohorts must have spent the 10 minutes chatting about the relative merits of Rickards Red and Rickards White. Cox, I think you deliberately pick your sides of the argument to stir up debate. On the other hand, being a wordsmith, perhaps you're questioning what the words "kick" and "motion" and "puck" really mean in a larger context. Following that theme - we could probably conclude that the words "goal" and "victory" are without real meaning as well. Then again this is not an exploration of existentialism. Call me when you want to write a sports column.

[DamienCox]

Damien here. . .just read comment by Dan Kelly. . .I'm a little flabbergasted by accusation I won't respond to reader comments. . .first of all, I made my point in the blog, and then the readers get their chance to make their points known. Should I re-state my original point? Or are you looking for some admission of faulty logic? Also between this blog, the hundreds of emails I receive and respond to every week and my Twitter account on which I converse with hundreds of readers and tweeters, I think I'm pretty available for readers. It's hardly "presenting an incendiary opinion and then disappearing." I'm here pretty much every day. If I don't respond, well, maybe the comment posted wasn't really worth responding to.

[keitht]

Canucks fans are whiny - yes
Canucks didn't deserve to win the game - yes
Luongo played badly - yes

These are not relevant to the fact that it was a terrible call, and an NHL VP admitted live on air that he's disregarding the rulebook as written. Damien, for someone who loves to dump on the league you are missing a good chance.

[Conn Smythe]

I really don't think 'Nucks fans whine anymore than any other team - not sure why you continue to harp on the issue.

[Kyle]

Dan Kelly, you actually expect him to sit hitting the refresh button over and over and respond every irate, often time off-their-rocker commenter? In the middle of a work day?
I'm a Print J grad and from my limited experience in the real world you have a ton of work to do during the day. I would assume even more so when in his position. You/we are lucky he ever posts back. Plenty of writers don't respond to any blog commenters.
Damien, whether i agree with your posts or not (about a 50/50 split which makes the reading great) I appreciate the time you give us readers, especially with all the hate that floods in with every opinion expressed.

[Spanky]

This is ridonculous, Canucklehead fans are always getting hosed...what a bunch of suckholes, the fact is that he turned his blade to direct the puck in the net and if it had counted I would have felt that the Kings had been cheated. I agree with Coxy, score goals with your stick as was the intention of the instrument in the first place. Skates are for skating not kicking pucks into the net even if it is only a very slight blade turning distinct kicking motion. Bad goal that didn't count and the world is better for it period dot. To many men call on Bieksa, I will give you that one but bad calls go both ways and usually will equal themselves out. The stick in Sedins mask probably should have been called but wasn't get over it. Bottomline be and play better than the other team and all these excuses will not need to be mentioned.

[KD]

Bryan, you expressed a concern that "what will not be a penalty at the beginning of the game, magically become a violation". My experience, especially in the playoffs, is the opposite: what is a penalty at the beginning of the game, magically becomes OK as the game wears on. At times, it seems like you have to draw blood to deserve a penalty in the last 10 minutes of a close playoff game, while standing within five feet of someone who trips over his own feet early in the same game merits a tripping penalty.