GDT: WCQF | G1 | "of Kings; Dragons & Demons" | Oilers vs. Kings | 4.22.24 | Rogers Place | 8:00PM | SN

[Bozo Nicholson]

Deflections off a glove are good goals, see the rule:

67.6 Disallowed Goal - A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. When the puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be allowed.

You're right it's pretty ambiguous. Too much room for interpretation between direction and deflection. Kinda bullshit.

 

[McFlyingV]

I don't think that's how its interpreted. There have been several goals scored off of inadvertent deflections off a glove.

Yeah you're right. Regardless they got the call right because he moved into the puck. If he didn't move at all and it hit his glove it would have counted but he clearly moves his hand into the puck and even if he was trying to get stick on it he got glove and therefore no goal.

 

[SullivanT]

I

Kings got screwed. If that was the Oilers, they never would have even reviewed it.

Rule 618 (b) No goal can be scored as a result of the puck being propelled by the hand of an attacking player regardless if the puck enters the goal directly from the hand or deflects off of any player prior to entering the goal.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

Kings got screwed. If that was the Oilers, they never would have even reviewed it.

They would've awarded an extra goal to Edmonton tbh Bettman's team is in northern Alberta

Edit: north of red deer whatever I'm not a geologist

 

[robertocarlos]

IMO no different than a hand pass. Weird rule, but we don’t need guys swinging at pucks (not that that’s what happened)

If he missed the puck he might have punched another player in the face.

 

[fsanford]

How can one direct a puck with their eyes closed?

Clearly Lewy is Spiderman in the off season
He got Spidey senses

 

[Three On Zero]

So, you just have to close your eyes and it's a good one.

Close eyes and stand still

 

[Pukboy5kroner]

It's not hard to play with McDavid

Tell that to Poolparty.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

Pasting the rule over and over isn't going to change the wording of the unbolded that actually is what happened here.

Bats or directs, to me, means the puck wouldn't have been going towards the net, think someone swatting the puck in. In this goal's case it hit is glove and went down as it would with a stick deflection.

 

[phrenssoa]

Weird that they consider that conclusive

If it was against the Flames I think the goal counts.

This is what every fan base says lmao (maybe other than Colorado).

Deflections off a glove are good goals, see the rule:

67.6 Disallowed Goal - A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. When the puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be allowed.

Except it wasn’t your typical deflection. He literally directed the puck into the net with the downward motion, intentional or not.

 

[William H Bonney]

Tell that to Poolparty.

A black hole does not make it true lol

 

[Pukboy5kroner]

Close eyes and stand still

Exactly. Then probably shrug shoulders and mouth wtf? Oh, and shake your hand, yell owie, go to the locker room for hand repairs. No intent, that hurt, settled.

 

[trilobyte]

They should just make it like the “distinct kicking motion” rule

It’s the motion that matters, it would only be a good goal if it randomly deflected off his glove

Still, it becomes the same can of worms as the skate rule.
It turns into a toss the coin, spin the wheel judgement on movement and intent.

 

[McFlyingV]

Kempe is sneaky dirty (kind of like Draisaitl). I hate him but I'd love him if he was on my team lol.

 

[Panthaz89]

You're right it's pretty ambiguous. Too much room for interpretation between direction and deflection. Kinda bullshit.

Direction is when you are actively moving towards the object while deflection is just letting it bounce off you....

 

[JKG33]

Moved his hands toward the puck and directed in off his glove, shouldn't be a goal.

He's getting hit and his eyes are closed. That's about as unintentional as a puck off the hand and into the net can get.

The only way the call makes sense is if they rule anytime the puck touches the glove its no goal

 

[Bozo Nicholson]

Tell that to Poolparty.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

This is what every fan base says lmao (maybe other than Colorado).

Except it wasn’t your typical deflection. He literally directed the puck into the net with the downward motion, intentional or not.

I disagree, I would call it a deflection and not a bat or re-direct.

 

[PuckG]

I see the Flames conspiracy theorists are out in full force today. Odd thread to bring it to though…

 

[GrumpyKoala]

Bouchard from last year would just have one time that into the shin for a turnover breakaway

Maturity

 

[Three On Zero]

You're right it's pretty ambiguous. Too much room for interpretation between direction and deflection. Kinda bullshit.

It’s actually pretty clear cut

 

[GOilers88]

Deflections off a glove are good goals, see the rule:

67.6 Disallowed Goal - A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck with his hand into the net. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who bats or directs the puck and it is deflected into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. When the puck enters the net on a clear deflection off a glove, the goal shall be allowed.

It's basically an open to interpretation rule imo.

Either he "batted" the puck down with his hand, or he moved his hand and it "deflected" off and into the net. The downward motion of his hands probably was the tipping point, but it's just a terribly worded rule.

 

[Ezekial]

He's getting hit and his eyes are closed. That's about as unintentional as a puck off the hand and into the net can get.

The only way the call makes sense is if they rule anytime the puck touches the glove its no goal

I don't care if his head was turned around like an owl you can't score goals in hockey like that.

 

[robertocarlos]

Basically just take "distinct kicking motion" and replace "kicking" with "punching." If a player has his eyes closed but he kicks the puck into the net it's not gonna count either.

Saw a distinct kicking motion that resulted in no goal just recently. Never saw one before. It was because he raised his foot before deflecting it in the net.

 

[RedRocking]

Still, it becomes the same can of worms as the skate rule.
It turns into a toss the coin, spin the wheel judgement on movement and intent.

Yea, but ultimately the skate calls basically go by how much movement your skate has.

There, whether he intended or not, he moved his glove downward and knocked it in the net. Impossible to tell intent - but the motion is easy.