While none of us enjoyed when the referee reaffirmed Alex Galchenyuk's goal which was redirected into the net off his skate and essentially iced the game for the Canadiens last night. The Rangers Twitter account took their disgust to a whole new level...
...we feel you guys. We feel you.
The tweet was deleted shortly after it was sent out. H/T to readers Matty K. Tim C. and Mike D. for the screen shots.
To the goal itself, if you read my game recap you know I felt the refs got the call correct...
"did Galchenyuk purposely redirect the puck into the net? Yes. Was it a distinct kicking motion? No. Did Miller purposely redirect the puck into the net in Philly? Not likely. Was it a distinct kicking motion? Yes. You see the difference? Sorry, you guys may not like that explanation, but it's true. Both calls were correct."
...yes, I just quoted myself in my own blog post. Blogception.
And if you don't believe me ask former ref Kerry Frasier...
Serious now! There was no distinct kicking motion. Skate was turned to direct the puck through a stopping motion. Correct call was made.— Kerry Fraser (@kfraserthecall) October 29, 2013
...Fraser has no horse in the game, so why would he purposely be going against the Rangers? Plus, I'm pretty sure he knows the rule better than anyone.
...also the decision was made in Toronto where they have numerous televisions and angles. And please don't say it's an NHL conspiracy against the Rangers. Why the hell would the NHL not want the team in the biggest media market to do well?
Here's the videos of the two goals with explanation from the NHL's Situation Blog...
At 17:09 of the third period in the Canadiens/Rangers game, video review supported the referee's call on the ice that the puck deflected off Alex Galchenyuk's right skate and into the net in a legal fashion. According to Rule 49.2 "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." Good goal Montreal.
At 5:36 of the third period in the Rangers/Flyers game, video review determined that J.T. Miller propelled the puck into the net with a distinct kicking motion. According to Rule 49.2 "A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net.". No goal New York Rangers.
Here's Lundqvist's thoughts on the goal (via New York Post)...
“If that’s not a kick, I don’t know what a kick is,” Lundqvist said. “Seriously, there needs to be some sort of consistency in the call. I think that’s a kick. That’s my opinion.
“It’s just a frustrating goal there that kind of kills the whole game. It is what it is. It would be very interesting to hear their explanation for it just to know, moving forward, what the rule really is.”
...whenever a rule is up for interpretation, there's going to be controversy surrounding it eventually. Look at the runner interference call to end Game 3 of the World Series. Not really sure how they can change the wording unless they just allow for players to start kicking in the puck.
U r forgetting, of course, that Kerry Fraser was one of the worst , one of the most narcissistic refs ever in the history of shitty refs. Thank goodness they wear helmets now and aren't personalities unto themselves.
What's not distinct when a player turns his skate and kicks in a puck
Seriously it was a bad call
If it was a tough call rangers are at home 1-0 home
Opener little time left the tie should go to the runner ie the rangers
The Rangers were beat by one goal not two.The officiating was pro Montreal and had an affect on the game. However, the Rangers did not take it to Montreal in the third especially in the last half of the third.They didn't raise their play.They have to be able to do that -like turning on a switch.They have to be able to bring it.They didn't and they lost. No valid excuse.That goalie wasn't unusual in the NHL.They must be able to turn on the afterburners and battle mode or they'll be in big trouble.
On the bright side- I think they can when Hags and then Cally are back- they bring that type of energy exactly.
kd whats wrong with this rule " the puck can not be put in the net by anything other then the stick with intention" " if any puck goes in the net by any other object then the stick , and was intended to do so , no goal"
why is kicking motion even mentioned? its ridiculous. why should you be aloowed to redirect with your skate? same as baseball like you mentioned. if the fielder blocks the runner, its a free base. why do they add all he extra wording like its the damn constitution . idiots. replay doesnt fix anything except more commercial time, it was the biggest BS to hit proffesional sports
there are about 80 referees and linesman in the NHL, 13 of them are american. the rest canadian. dont be shocked when you see canadians , leafs , sens etc. getting a little extra
Its not like the Rangers would ever have tied it up anyway.
Why would any team be pumped up to play their home opener after being on the road for a month, to open up their newly refurbished arena?....come on guys!
its not a conspiracy against the rangers its the fraternity club that is NHL referees, i believe they are 99% canadian.the conspiracy lies with the canadian teams getting favored, its not about the NYR its about canada teams being special little bitches.
that being said THEY WERE BOTH THE RIGHT CALLS, thats why NYR need to wake up and dont put it in the hands of the canuck refs
And the Kreider penalty? How do you feel about that one? While we're at it, do they give penalties now for being bigger than the other guy (Boyle penalty)? Forget about the "goal" lets talk about the penalties!
That is too funny (Tweet) - it was a subtle kicking motion but not distinct enough I guess so the rule needs to be changed to include intentional redirections.
Yeah, saw Fraser's thoughts on Kreider. Obviously, I disagree on that. As I mention above and gravey does below, they need to somehow get the interpretation element out of the rule. You CAN kick it in or if it hits your skate and goes in it doesn't count.
Appreciated Fraser's opinion on the Galchenyuk goal. But check out his answer to the Kreider interference call. He claims it'll get called every time especially on the PP. I've never seen that call before in over a decade of watching hockey.
Fraser might not have a horse in the game but he is a ref and refs always defend each other. They're a paranoid and insecure group who refuse to acknowledge mistakes and are swaddled by the NHL, an organization that will take half a coach's salary for daring to question a call. At least that's how I view refs. The goal was legitimized in Toronto, but Fraser also defended the Kreider penalty, which was all the ref's decision.
Does this really even matter? The game was still 1- 0 which is really 5-0 to the Rangers. This is a moot point since they were shutout anyway. The Rangers could put a pot of coffee to sleep. Start considering trades for the upcoming deadline (Girardi, Henrik, Hagelin, Nash, etc) blow this up again and do the right thing and finally fire Sather.
The runner interference rule is completely cut and dry. "The act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner." The "judgement" part comes into play when awarding the base. It's up to the ump to determine if the runner would have made the base if not obstructed. Cut and dry.
Problem with the NHL rule is the "distinct" part. It is totally clear in the video that Galchenyuk kicked the puck. He CLEARLY turned his skate and pushed it forward with the heel of his skate. You can even see his knee bend do do so. It was kicked....period. So where then is the line between a subtle kicking motion and a distinct kicking motion? It's just ridiculous for a professional sport to have such wide open rules that can NEVER be enforced consistently.
@DubiLeetch I'd be fine with that as long as it's cut and dry.
@supermaz its because theres only about 5 that the jersey means something to them , the rest dont know the bulding , the coach , the fans , nothing. i heard brassad and pouliot talk french to eachother ??? wtf is that? how does hank or the other forward get in on that? they are so backwards, looking like the early 2000's collections of crap, we need captain back asap to pull these chumps cards
@Wallace1 I agree refs defend each other but since retiring Fraser has been vocal if a call has been blown so while I may not agree with him, I'll go with what he says in regards to questionable calls.
@gravey94 I disagree with your interpretation. But it's absolutely fair and proves the problem with the rule itself..