Easy solution for NHL to avoid future 'kicking motion' controversies

Under the current definition, it's easy to understand why there was so much confusion and frustration over Blake Coleman's disallowed goal against the Oilers in Game 5, even though it was very clear what the Flames forward was intending to do on the play.

Video Transcript

JUSTIN CUTHBERT: Quickly on the disallowed goal from Coleman, what's most frustrating, I think, obviously for the Flames, is the moment in which this happened, also the context of having a history where they should have won the Stanley Cup on a goal that crossed the goal line, but there wasn't proper video review at the time, just 15, 16 years ago. But the real problem for the NHL is the lack of consistency when it comes to distinct kicking motion. I mean, we saw goals over the course of the regular season far worse or far more blatant in terms of what should constitute a kick stand. We saw similar ones also stand.

Scroll to continue with content

We saw others called back all over the course of the regular season. There was really no consistency here. So it's pretty clear that something has to be written into the rule book about this. And I think, really, the easiest solution is this.

If the skate is lifted up and used to propel the puck into the net, it's no goal. If the skate stays planted, so either angled, pushed in with momentum, et cetera, it should count. And under that ruling, Coleman's goal would count because he just kind of stopped into the puck and pushed it over the goal line.

But there's also one thing that's very obvious to me. Coleman put his skate on the puck with the intention of depositing it into the net. And I guess by that loose definition, or if you can call it a definition, it's a reasonable call. I thought it was an impossible call in the moment because it wasn't distinct, it was going in anyway and it might have meant the Flames' season and it and it end up did meaning the Flames' season, but I don't buy the he was protecting himself or it was incidental argument.

He meant to do what he did and he disguised it pretty well or the situation allowed for him to feign something that was less than a kick, I guess. But, I mean, it was put into the back of the net by a skate and it was intentional. So under that, I can't be too mad about it.

More Related Videos