|
|
Post by allingtonskates on Dec 1, 2023 21:36:11 GMT
Just another day in the EIHL. 🤣🤣 unbelievable decision by the refs |
|
|
|
Post by kievthegreat on Dec 1, 2023 21:52:59 GMT
I get that kicking is a subjective call as to what is a kicking motion and can be ambiguous, but Jesus Christ on a tiny bike, that's so obvious, deliberate and crucially...distinct!
Giants have a right to be fuming. Good for us though!
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Dec 1, 2023 23:18:20 GMT
Just another day in the EIHL. 🤣🤣 EIHL refs are absolutely useless. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2023 5:59:28 GMT
Back in the day the likes of Carson, Hanson, Boniface, kirkham etc were all controversial but they are least got the basics right most nights.. reffing these days is in the gutter
|
|
float
Pat Casey
Posts: 296
|
Post by float on Dec 2, 2023 8:10:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chris111 on Dec 2, 2023 9:17:35 GMT
Yep, I'm a giants fan when I first seen it I was like "that's a kick this gonna be ruled out on review". Even the clan webcast commentators expected it to be ruled out. That 2nd angle looks like it's a deflection and could be a good goal. But the first one clearly shows a kicking motion. Only thing I can think, is the refs reviewed or only seen the 2nd angle for that goal. Anyway that takes nothing away from the clan, they deserved to win, this giants team are pants and need some serious work. Refs make mistakes happens in all games, but awarding that goal after a review is baffling, not seen Keefes post match I'm sure that was colourful. |
|
|
|
Post by spik on Dec 2, 2023 12:03:22 GMT
A carefully placed foot, I'd say.  |
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Dec 2, 2023 12:58:25 GMT
Just another day in the EIHL. 🤣🤣 unbelievable decision by the refs I’d like to know the thought process behind that decision. Looks like it was kicked in to me? Maybe there’s another angle we’ve not seen? |
|
|
|
Post by spik on Dec 2, 2023 16:16:32 GMT
unbelievable decision by the refs I’d like to know the thought process behind that decision. Looks like it was kicked in to me? Maybe there’s another angle we’ve not seen? Float’s ‘behind the goal’ makes it a tad better ( for a goal) but still, I’ve seen less disallowed. |
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Dec 2, 2023 16:46:19 GMT
A carefully placed foot, I'd say. Looks to me like he moves his foot to try and control the puck but in doing so kicks it in the net. Goal should never have stood in a million years. |
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Dec 5, 2023 11:26:02 GMT
Rules as follows re a kicked puck.
The following should clarify deflections following a “kicked puck” that enters the goal:
(I) A “kicked puck” that “deflects” off the body of any Player of either Team (including the Goalkeeper) shall be ruled
“no goal”.
(II) A “kicked puck” that “deflects” off the stick of any Player (excluding the Goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a “good goal”.
(III) A goal will be allowed when an attacking Player “kicks” the puck, and the puck “deflects” off their own stick and then
into the net.
(IV) A goal will be allowed when a puck enters the goal after “deflecting” off an attacking Player’s skate or “deflects” off their
skate while they are in the “process of stopping”.
The only one that may apply is (IV).
Was he deemed to be "in the act of stopping"?
FWIW I don't think so, that's a kicked in goal all day long.
Interestingly, ex ref Dave Cloutman on X...
"It's a good goal, he stretches and angles his foot to direct the puck, it's a deliberate direction,which is legal. If a player did this towards another player and was thrown from the game for a kick, you'd all go mad and scream "that's not a kick!"
Direction legal goal Kicking no"
|
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Dec 5, 2023 12:18:34 GMT
Rule 49.2 continued...
"A goal cannot be scored by an attacking Player who uses a “distinct kicking motion”
to propel the puck into the net with their skate/foot.
A goal cannot be scored by an attacking Player who “kicks” a puck that deflects into the net off any Player 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."
Hmmm.
There's clearly a degree of subjectivity here which means that it can always be controversial.
For my way of thinking, if a puck goes in off a "stationary" (i.e. player is gliding or stationary), it can be allowed, if the skate is "moving" relative to its position on the ice at the point of contact (that being a decent definition of a "kick"), as in this case, not.
|
|
|
|
Post by awooga on Dec 5, 2023 12:29:56 GMT
Have we noticed the sly digs have resumed from our friend at the Steelers?
Tweeted about being conflicted re our Cardiff result (glad title rival lost, but it was to us).
Simms congratulated Dundee on their win at ours also on Twitter/ X.
What a sad man.
|
|
shinobi
Randall Weber
Forum Dictator
Posts: 4,867
|
Post by shinobi on Dec 5, 2023 13:58:13 GMT
Trying to generate ticket sales for the “biggest game in European hockey.”
|
|
Joe
Jim Keyes
Posts: 824 
|
Post by Joe on Dec 5, 2023 14:15:27 GMT
Rule 49.2 continued... "A goal cannot be scored by an attacking Player who uses a “distinct kicking motion” to propel the puck into the net with their skate/foot. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking Player who “kicks” a puck that deflects into the net off any Player 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." Hmmm. There's clearly a degree of subjectivity here which means that it can always be controversial. For my way of thinking, if a puck goes in off a "stationary" (i.e. player is gliding or stationary), it can be allowed, if the skate is "moving" relative to its position on the ice at the point of contact (that being a decent definition of a "kick"), as in this case, not. Always going to be controversial because there is a kicking motion but as he kicks his skate into the path of the puck which then deflects it into the net by the letter of the law I think the correct call was made |
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Dec 5, 2023 15:58:18 GMT
Have we noticed the sly digs have resumed from our friend at the Steelers? Tweeted about being conflicted re our Cardiff result (glad title rival lost, but it was to us). Simms congratulated Dundee on their win at ours also on Twitter/ X. What a sad man. Giving this kind of thing the oxygen of publicity on here perpetuates it. If we all ignore it, it can't be relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by awooga on Dec 5, 2023 16:16:54 GMT
Have we noticed the sly digs have resumed from our friend at the Steelers? Tweeted about being conflicted re our Cardiff result (glad title rival lost, but it was to us). Simms congratulated Dundee on their win at ours also on Twitter/ X. What a sad man. Giving this kind of thing the oxygen of publicity on here perpetuates it. If we all ignore it, it can't be relevant. You’re right. Just surprised how long it took to resume really. |
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Dec 5, 2023 16:21:28 GMT
Meanwhile, and very quietly, as far as I can tell, Bobby from Beeston is on course for his best EIHL season since 2013-14... !
Currently 5+7 from 15 GP
|
|
|
|
Post by spik on Dec 7, 2023 17:11:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by blackandgold73 on Dec 9, 2023 13:49:15 GMT
Some pretty harsh wording# from DOPS to accompany Chad Pietroniro's three game suspension for Boarding and injuring Nate Kallen:
"Pietroniro, moving with excessive momentum after traveling from a distance"
"seeing Kallen release the puck, leaving him *ineligible to be hit*, Pietroniro loads up for contact and makes a *dangerous hit on a player who is unaware and unable to protect himself*; delivering a hard, violent check to an opponent *with no regard for the player* or the puck, that is *made with the intention to separate the player from the game*."
"He choses to make contact with a vulnerable opponent *with a predatory hit* that causes an injury."
Think that's the first time I've ever seen them the use the term predatory? And to state that the intention was to take a player out of the game.
Edit: #I mean harsh here in the sense of DOPS laying down the law and expressing their distaste for this; a warning to the league
|
|
Joe
Jim Keyes
Posts: 824
|
Post by Joe on Dec 9, 2023 14:39:52 GMT
Some pretty harsh wording from DOPS to accompany Chad Pietroniro's three game suspension for Boarding and injuring Nate Kallen: "Pietroniro, moving with excessive momentum after traveling from a distance" "seeing Kallen release the puck, leaving him *ineligible to be hit*, Pietroniro loads up for contact and makes a *dangerous hit on a player who is unaware and unable to protect himself*; delivering a hard, violent check to an opponent *with no regard for the player* or the puck, that is *made with the intention to separate the player from the game*." "He choses to make contact with a vulnerable opponent *with a predatory hit* that causes an injury." Think that's the first time I've ever seen them the use the term predatory? And to state that the intention was to take a player out of the game. I think the words used are pretty fair though, you can tell he’s only looking for an opportunity to lay a bit hit and he just steamrolls Kallen |
|
|
|
Post by blackandgold73 on Dec 9, 2023 16:10:36 GMT
Some pretty harsh wording from DOPS to accompany Chad Pietroniro's three game suspension for Boarding and injuring Nate Kallen: "Pietroniro, moving with excessive momentum after traveling from a distance" "seeing Kallen release the puck, leaving him *ineligible to be hit*, Pietroniro loads up for contact and makes a *dangerous hit on a player who is unaware and unable to protect himself*; delivering a hard, violent check to an opponent *with no regard for the player* or the puck, that is *made with the intention to separate the player from the game*." "He choses to make contact with a vulnerable opponent *with a predatory hit* that causes an injury." Think that's the first time I've ever seen them the use the term predatory? And to state that the intention was to take a player out of the game. I think the words used are pretty fair though, you can tell he’s only looking for an opportunity to lay a bit hit and he just steamrolls Kallen Yeah I agree they're very fair. It was a nasty cheap shot and nowhere near a legal one at all. I meant harsh in the sense that I think they're sending out a warning message with them. Realise now that's not clear from my post. I'll add an edit to it. |
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Dec 9, 2023 17:13:07 GMT
It’s a really nasty hit. 3 games is a big EIHL suspension, well deserved.
|
|
|
|
Post by texpef on Dec 9, 2023 20:47:31 GMT
"Pietroniro, moving with excessive momentum after traveling from a distance"
"seeing Kallen release the puck, leaving him *ineligible to be hit*, Pietroniro loads up for contact and makes a *dangerous hit on a player who is unaware and unable to protect himself*; delivering a hard, violent check to an opponent *with no regard for the player* or the puck, that is *made with the intention to separate the player from the game*."
"He choses to make contact with a vulnerable opponent *with a predatory hit* that causes an injury."
Think that's the first time I've ever seen them the use the term predatory? And to state that the intention was to take a player out of the game.
Edit: #I mean harsh here in the sense of DOPS laying down the law and expressing their distaste for this; a warning to the league
imho how is this any different to what was done in sheffield albeit with a more severe outcome?
|
|
|
|
Post by bobness on Dec 11, 2023 13:59:31 GMT
Not sure what's happening in Manchester, but their last 3 home games have seen 170 SOG for Storm, after 114 in the first 4.
|
|
