It was not a kicking motion. It was not a kicking motion.
It was not a kicking motion. It was not a kicking motion.
It was not a kicking motion. It was not a kicking motion.
It was not a kicking motion. It was not a kicking motion.
It was not a kicking motion. It was not a kicking motion.
It was not akicking mosion. It wasnot a kiking motien
Irt was not a kickinG moTion. it was not a kIckIng motio n
Note for context: this was PITB's reaction to this disallowed Daniel Sedin goal in the 2010 NHL playoffs.
NHL VP of Hockey Operations Mike Murphy said, and I quote, "It wasn't a distinct kicking motion, but a kicking motion."
ReplyDeleteThe rule says:
"49.2 Goals - Kicking the puck shall be permitted in all zones. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official.
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."
If it's not a distinct kicking motion, then how the hell is it against the rules?!
http://twitter.com/FriedmanHNIC/status/12498543516
What really gets me here is I've heard a few pundits say that there's no way a player of Daniel Sedin's skill and intelligence did that by accident. First of all, that's not the issue. And second of all, that's profiling. Are you telling me that if it had been Tanner Glass, they would have called it a goal on the grounds that Glass is incapable of such a smart skate turn? But Daniel Sedin is.
ReplyDeleteMy god, man. That's profiling! Trust me: as a black man, I know profiling when I see it.
Of course it wasn't by accident, but that's not the rule! It's infuriating.
ReplyDelete