Blake Coleman distinct kicking motion – Why I agree with the call
Blake Coleman had a potential game winning goal called back as it was ruled he used a distinct kicking motion. The game went into overtime where Coleman’s Flames were eventually eliminated from playoff contention.
I agree with the call, based on the current rules. But I endorse removing the delays and the zebras. If your allowed to kick the puck then you can kick the puck. Period
Coleman was turning away. When his right skate came in contact with smith’s pad it twisted him off the direction and veered him more to the net..no kicking motion good goal.
The sad things is that puck looks likely to go in anyway if he doesn't touch it. His actions took it from a no brainer good goal to one subject to human opinion.
Call on the ice was 'good hockey goal'. I do not see enough evidence to overturn that ruling, even after your excellent analysis. This series should still be going, imho.
I agree. Attempt at the puck with his foot and was trying to get in the goalie beforehand. If he left the puck alone it looks like it was going in. The kicking rule is too vague. Any puck off a player's skate with his intent of putting it in the net is no goal, kicking or directing motion.
Just go back to no goal off the skate no matter what! To hard to determine if it was on purpose or not! You can turn your skate and direct it in,but you can't kick it in?
He was in the process of side-stopping, and NO all of your weight is NOT on your front leg. Add to the fact, he got that front leg tied up with the goalie, forcing the other leg to bare the strain of all his weight while still trying to stop. His foot did not change positioning at all during that sequence. If you ignore the puck (which is hard to do) you can plainly see his actions were one of trying to stop. All you need to do is watch video of other players that are crashing the net and watch their footwork. I'm sorry, you are dead wrong here.
Coleman's foot hitting Smith's right leg knocked the puck loose. So he should have been called for goalie contact in the blue paint regardless. So they could have said no distinct kicking motion, but goalie contact. Either way, no goal.
SIMPLY NOT IN EVIDENCE ESPECIALLY AS THE PUCK WOULD HAVE ENTERED THE NET AND AFTER SEEING SIGNIFIGANTLY WORSE KICKING ATTEMPTS THAT WERE ALLOWED ALL YEAR ROUND i JUST DON'T SEE IT ANY DIFFERENT
I did not see the game but based on the video replays you can clearly see he purposefully use his skate blade to move the puck towards the goal therefore under the current rules no goal.
Good video, the only problem I have with calling it a good goal is that Coleman's kick increased the speed of the puck like a kick would. Coleman was barely touched going into Smith's pads. And at the point he made contact with Smith, Ceci was already down on his knees with his back partially to Coleman. So Coleman wasnt pushed or shoved, and has intented to get into the crease by the angle he went there. Once he saw the puck behind Smith and couldnt move his stick, he moved his skate to the puck. When he makes contact with the puck its clearly hit with enough force to increase its speed by a noticeable amount. If it was a deflection or because he was stopping, the puck wouldnt have gained that much momentum because the loss of energy wouldnt transfer to the puck as much as a kick would.
You read the rule wrong. 0:31 you say subsection 4 of rule 49.2 says "A goal will be disallowed if…" That's not what the rule says that you showed us. The rule you showed us says "A goal will be allowed if.." You changed "allowed" to "disallowed". So what you ended up trying to justify wasn't what you read.
Most important is that in the post-game he admitted to doing it deliberately. He was intentionally guiding the puck into the net, but he didn't think that constituted a kick.
The big one for me is he’s looking at the puck if he was falling like CeCe was anyone’s first reaction be too brace themselves for the fall not look at the puck and if he as was trying to stop he wouldn’t reach his left leg out like that too be smashed into the goal post. The reach out of his leg I believe what they looked at and determined he purposely meant too kick it in and this is backed by Coleman himself who thought he could do that.
All goals involving skates intentionally or not should not be allowed even that case where he was push by defender and why it was not challenged by coach
Yeah this is why people who do analysis is slow motion sometimes get it really wrong, this whole pay happens in fractions of a second, even with these being high level athletes the dexterity and reaction time it would take to intentionally kick/redirect a puck that just came loose while in the process of either stopping or turning while on one leg would be nothing short of God level and there is definitely no kicking motion and the reason Smith isn't moved that much from Coleman going into him is because his weight is shifted from Ceci pushing him from the other side shifting his weight to his left foot
I think a few factors come into play. 1) the NHL was majorly pumping Mcdavid and it really does make sense with all those weird double minor calls that had people shaking their heads. the no goal was icing on the cake. We've seen allowed goals that were obvious kicking motion and were allowed. Now after that said would Calgary have won the series? Well its tough to win 3 straight. I'm curious how the refs play out against Colorado. If there is mysterious double minor calls, no goals etc…well then ladies and gentlemen, it's been fixed.
This video should be entitled "Why I Choose to be Wrong". If the call on the ice was "no goal", then maybe I agree that there isn't enough evidence to overturn it. But the call on the ice is a goal, and again, there is not enough evidence to overturn this. Maybe in a bell jar, you make a good point. But in the context of similar calls over the past several years of NHL hockey, this is contrary to many MANY goals which counted despite having gone off a skate with much more of an overt "kicking motion". P.S. Intent has nothing to do with it. Refs can't be asked to try and read player's minds. Of course his intent is to make sure the puck deflects off his skate. But he's simply positioning his skate in the path of the puck and using his forward momentum, which does not equate to a "distinct kicking motion". Again, check out similar off the skate goals in the NHL over the past few years to see that this call was in complete contradiction to an overwhelming majority of calls in the NHL in recent years. So what is it? Is it true that the overwhelming majority of calls over the past few seasons have all been wrong, and this call is the lone correct call? Or was this a bad decision which should not have overturned the correct decision on the ice?
I'm assuming you've never played before ? Everybody is going hard to the net ! If Coleman just skates quietly to the left, there is zero chance of scoring and he's playing 3rd line winger on my Rec League team ! He is in the process of stopping to engage the play and create a scoring opportunity ! Right skate gets stopped after being parallel with left in a stopping motion, Ceci is heavy on him and right skate continuing a natural stopping motion and coincidentally hitting puck in ! You could possibly convince me of goaltender interference, but in full speed it's a whole different game than dissecting it in a tenth of a second interval ! Plus to imply that the Kinetic Energy KE =(1/2 mass in kgs x velocity squared in M/S ) created by a 180 kgs of mass at maybe 5 m/s only convinces me with absolute certainty that you don't know hockey or science ! Colemans foot has no real mass and not a lot of velocity so there's not a lot of energy being absorbed by Smith's pad ! Scientifically. Coleman is simply trying to dissipate energy, stop and create a scoring chance . This can be seen in both his feet turning parallel to his line of motion and his right foot getting impeded but at the same time his left foots continuing in a rectilinear motion with variable velocity or aka straight trajectory with deceleration and doesn't veer from course from top of crease to goal line , which could not be deemed as a kicking motion ! But to be fair because I'm a Smith fan and don't like either team this simply convinces me that I have way too much time on my hands and need to get a job ! LOL PS For every player that believes Smith has that puck safely tucked under his arm ? They're playing Duffer Hockey now ! I;m going to give you 1 more chance before I unsubscribe ! This would all be better if Hockey Night in Canada brought back Don Cherry !!!! PS At the end of the day , let the boys play ! On such a controversial call it was obvious the puck was going in so just let the Refs have a little Veto power to keep the games fair !
I find it interesting that very few people assess this as a deflection. If you use Coleman's body as the frame of reference, then the puck & arena are moving towards him. He's allowed to position his skate to deflect the puck into the net.
Got it wrong!! The rule reads a goal will stang if a players skate redirected the puck into the net not using a distinct kicking motion. His skate blade never left the ice therefore no distinct kicking motion was observed. This goal should have counted based on other goals that were called good goals with very distinct kicking motions far beyond what Coleman's skate did to direct the puck over the goal line. Again this proves the inconsistent calls made in the NHL. Not to mention this was called a good goal by Wes McAuley who is one of the most experienced refs in the league.
For all of you that think this is a distinct kicking motion, I challenge you to put on skates and attempt to kick a puck in motion while standing on one foot!
He may have intentionally directed the puck with his foot, but that is ALLOWED.
44 Comments
I agree with the call, based on the current rules. But I endorse removing the delays and the zebras. If your allowed to kick the puck then you can kick the puck. Period
Coleman was turning away. When his right skate came in contact with smith’s pad it twisted him off the direction and veered him more to the net..no kicking motion good goal.
Not a distinct kicking motion. The puck would have went in anyway. Cheap call.
I appreciate this kind of analysis. Would love to get more of this kind of analysis on various controversial calls/no calls.
The sad things is that puck looks likely to go in anyway if he doesn't touch it. His actions took it from a no brainer good goal to one subject to human opinion.
Call on the ice was 'good hockey goal'. I do not see enough evidence to overturn that ruling, even after your excellent analysis. This series should still be going, imho.
Bet that he plays soccer in the offseason
I agree. Attempt at the puck with his foot and was trying to get in the goalie beforehand. If he left the puck alone it looks like it was going in. The kicking rule is too vague. Any puck off a player's skate with his intent of putting it in the net is no goal, kicking or directing motion.
Just go back to no goal off the skate no matter what! To hard to determine if it was on purpose or not! You can turn your skate and direct it in,but you can't kick it in?
If Coleman just fell the goal would have e counted
Bs call puck was going in regardless
Maybe I'm hearing you wrong but @ :36 IV say a goal WIIL BE allowed when puck enters the goal…not disallowed.
He was in the process of side-stopping, and NO all of your weight is NOT on your front leg. Add to the fact, he got that front leg tied up with the goalie, forcing the other leg to bare the strain of all his weight while still trying to stop. His foot did not change positioning at all during that sequence. If you ignore the puck (which is hard to do) you can plainly see his actions were one of trying to stop. All you need to do is watch video of other players that are crashing the net and watch their footwork. I'm sorry, you are dead wrong here.
Doesn't matter, that one goal wasn't the reason they lost the series. They were awful for 5 games straight.
Coleman's foot hitting Smith's right leg knocked the puck loose. So he should have been called for goalie contact in the blue paint regardless. So they could have said no distinct kicking motion, but goalie contact. Either way, no goal.
SIMPLY NOT IN EVIDENCE ESPECIALLY AS THE PUCK WOULD HAVE ENTERED THE NET AND AFTER SEEING SIGNIFIGANTLY WORSE KICKING ATTEMPTS THAT WERE ALLOWED ALL YEAR ROUND i JUST DON'T SEE IT ANY DIFFERENT
He mad no effort to stop.
Propelled the puck – his skate significantly and intentionally changed the velocity and direction of the puck.
I did not see the game but based on the video replays you can clearly see he purposefully use his skate blade to move the puck towards the goal therefore under the current rules no goal.
One of the worst and most consequential ever, Oilers would have lost in seve
Good video, the only problem I have with calling it a good goal is that Coleman's kick increased the speed of the puck like a kick would. Coleman was barely touched going into Smith's pads. And at the point he made contact with Smith, Ceci was already down on his knees with his back partially to Coleman. So Coleman wasnt pushed or shoved, and has intented to get into the crease by the angle he went there. Once he saw the puck behind Smith and couldnt move his stick, he moved his skate to the puck. When he makes contact with the puck its clearly hit with enough force to increase its speed by a noticeable amount. If it was a deflection or because he was stopping, the puck wouldnt have gained that much momentum because the loss of energy wouldnt transfer to the puck as much as a kick would.
One foot on the ice. The other leg was in the air. Clear kicking motion?
You read the rule wrong. 0:31 you say subsection 4 of rule 49.2 says "A goal will be disallowed if…" That's not what the rule says that you showed us. The rule you showed us says "A goal will be allowed if.." You changed "allowed" to "disallowed". So what you ended up trying to justify wasn't what you read.
Easy call. Kicked it in. This isn't soccer
Most important is that in the post-game he admitted to doing it deliberately. He was intentionally guiding the puck into the net, but he didn't think that constituted a kick.
The big one for me is he’s looking at the puck if he was falling like CeCe was anyone’s first reaction be too brace themselves for the fall not look at the puck and if he as was trying to stop he wouldn’t reach his left leg out like that too be smashed into the goal post. The reach out of his leg I believe what they looked at and determined he purposely meant too kick it in and this is backed by Coleman himself who thought he could do that.
All goals involving skates intentionally or not should not be allowed even that case where he was push by defender and why it was not challenged by coach
He was looking at the puck and making sure his foot hit it. Enjoy the golf boys!
Yeah this is why people who do analysis is slow motion sometimes get it really wrong, this whole pay happens in fractions of a second, even with these being high level athletes the dexterity and reaction time it would take to intentionally kick/redirect a puck that just came loose while in the process of either stopping or turning while on one leg would be nothing short of God level and there is definitely no kicking motion and the reason Smith isn't moved that much from Coleman going into him is because his weight is shifted from Ceci pushing him from the other side shifting his weight to his left foot
I think a few factors come into play. 1) the NHL was majorly pumping Mcdavid and it really does make sense with all those weird double minor calls that had people shaking their heads. the no goal was icing on the cake. We've seen allowed goals that were obvious kicking motion and were allowed. Now after that said would Calgary have won the series? Well its tough to win 3 straight. I'm curious how the refs play out against Colorado. If there is mysterious double minor calls, no goals etc…well then ladies and gentlemen, it's been fixed.
This video should be entitled "Why I Choose to be Wrong".
If the call on the ice was "no goal", then maybe I agree that there isn't enough evidence to overturn it. But the call on the ice is a goal, and again, there is not enough evidence to overturn this.
Maybe in a bell jar, you make a good point. But in the context of similar calls over the past several years of NHL hockey, this is contrary to many MANY goals which counted despite having gone off a skate with much more of an overt "kicking motion".
P.S. Intent has nothing to do with it. Refs can't be asked to try and read player's minds. Of course his intent is to make sure the puck deflects off his skate. But he's simply positioning his skate in the path of the puck and using his forward momentum, which does not equate to a "distinct kicking motion". Again, check out similar off the skate goals in the NHL over the past few years to see that this call was in complete contradiction to an overwhelming majority of calls in the NHL in recent years.
So what is it? Is it true that the overwhelming majority of calls over the past few seasons have all been wrong, and this call is the lone correct call? Or was this a bad decision which should not have overturned the correct decision on the ice?
I'm assuming you've never played before ? Everybody is going hard to the net ! If Coleman just skates quietly to the left, there is zero chance of scoring and he's playing 3rd line winger on my Rec League team ! He is in the process of stopping to engage the play and create a scoring opportunity ! Right skate gets stopped after being parallel with left in a stopping motion, Ceci is heavy on him and right skate continuing a natural stopping motion and coincidentally hitting puck in ! You could possibly convince me of goaltender interference, but in full speed it's a whole different game than dissecting it in a tenth of a second interval ! Plus to imply that the Kinetic Energy KE =(1/2 mass in kgs x velocity squared in M/S ) created by a 180 kgs of mass at maybe 5 m/s only convinces me with absolute certainty that you don't know hockey or science ! Colemans foot has no real mass and not a lot of velocity so there's not a lot of energy being absorbed by Smith's pad ! Scientifically. Coleman is simply trying to dissipate energy, stop and create a scoring chance . This can be seen in both his feet turning parallel to his line of motion and his right foot getting impeded but at the same time his left foots continuing in a rectilinear motion with variable velocity or aka straight trajectory with deceleration and doesn't veer from course from top of crease to goal line , which could not be deemed as a kicking motion ! But to be fair because I'm a Smith fan and don't like either team this simply convinces me that I have way too much time on my hands and need to get a job ! LOL PS For every player that believes Smith has that puck safely tucked under his arm ? They're playing Duffer Hockey now ! I;m going to give you 1 more chance before I unsubscribe ! This would all be better if Hockey Night in Canada brought back Don Cherry !!!! PS At the end of the day , let the boys play ! On such a controversial call it was obvious the puck was going in so just let the Refs have a little Veto power to keep the games fair !
I find it interesting that very few people assess this as a deflection. If you use Coleman's body as the frame of reference, then the puck & arena are moving towards him. He's allowed to position his skate to deflect the puck into the net.
In this season there was goal when player almost jungle puck like cristiano ronaldo and goal still counts. SO no – it is not kick
If you look at his other skate how it was caught in the pad of smith while being pushed into the net
I think he was trying to stop and not to keep going into the net. Smh
Lol….what is stupid if it was distinct this would not be controversial? He guided it sticking your foot out on an oncoming puck is not kicking.
Agreed.100 percent
When will people learn. In doubt t the call always favors the NHLs agenda.Aaron Romes suspension etc ….lol Don't worry the NHL will repay the favor.
He had an unnatural leg extension if he was in the process of slowing down as was what his argument was.
Got it wrong!! The rule reads a goal will stang if a players skate redirected the puck into the net not using a distinct kicking motion. His skate blade never left the ice therefore no distinct kicking motion was observed. This goal should have counted based on other goals that were called good goals with very distinct kicking motions far beyond what Coleman's skate did to direct the puck over the goal line. Again this proves the inconsistent calls made in the NHL. Not to mention this was called a good goal by Wes McAuley who is one of the most experienced refs in the league.
For all of you that think this is a distinct kicking motion, I challenge you to put on skates and attempt to kick a puck in motion while standing on one foot!
He may have intentionally directed the puck with his foot, but that is ALLOWED.
It's funny that Flames fans think this cost them the series. You may have had a shot if you sat Markstrom
Hes being shoved in to the goal while he was trying to get out of the way.
Read the rule book all you want. Does the physical “book” talk and make a decision. Was the “book”watching the game? No… NHL / bettman does
If that was Sidney Crosby kicking in the game winning goal it would have counted for sure.