May 03, 2008
As we said in last night's 3 Stars review, the disallowed goal in Game 5 by Brenden Morrow of the Dallas Stars was a very close call. The fact that the goal was counted initially meant there needed to be conclusive evidence that Morrow did, in fact, use a "distinct kicking motion" to send the puck into the net behind Evgeni Nabokov. NHL rules clearly define what a "kicking motion" means, and it appears Morrow's back foot -- which lifted ever so slightly before moving forward to connect with the puck -- may fit that definition. But try telling that the Jennifer Floyd Engel of the Star-Telegram:
Let's just end that debate, shall we? The NHL embarrassed itself by disallowing the goal and with their logic for doing so. Morrow had scored with 4:29 remaining in the second period, the way he usually does. He was in front of the net, locked up with a Sharks defenseman and the puck went in off of his skate.
This is not against the rules. It is only naughty if the player purposely kicks the goal in. The league ruled he had used "distinct kicking motion", thus disallowing the goal. They, of course, are idiots.
"Absolutely not," a very angry Stars coach Dave Tippett said when asked if he saw anything distinct. "He had no idea where it was. How could he kick it in?" Who you going to believe? The same geniuses who changed a rule mid-playoffs? Or your eyes?
Seriously, Jen, don't hold back so much next time. The venerable Daryl "Razor" Reaugh believes it may be time to add "intent" to the "distinct kicking motion" rule, which wouldn't be a bad idea if it didn't mean adding yet another layer of decision-making for NHL officials, who don't seem all that interested in ruling on complicated plays. Razor makes one important point, however: There will be "'I can't poop a BB' sphincter tightening" if this series against the San Jose Sharks goes to a Game 7.