The anatomy of a controversial NHL goal review, and a distinct disagreement

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/05/2022 (1270 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It comes down to your interpretation of the word distinct. As my Grade 12 English teacher Mr. Howell always reminded us, one must choose their words carefully. Language matters. Words have power.

The word in question is part of NHL Rule 49.2, which states: “A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net with his skate/foot.” Further down: “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.”

Confused? So was Blake Coleman, the Calgary Flames forward who thought he had scored the go-ahead goal late in Game 5 against the Edmonton Oilers on Thursday night.

“I don’t think I understand the rule,” said Coleman. “Getting pushed, just trying to keep my foot on the ice. I haven’t watched it enough. But in live speed, it felt like I was in a battle. My understanding is you can direct the puck, but you just can’t kick it. And I didn’t feel that I kicked it. Can’t go back and change it now. It is what it is.”

I would have loved to be part of the decision-making process in the NHL situation room as that review was taking place, where I would have focused on the word distinct.

The review was quick, which was the first surprise. I had expected an animated discussion, like the ones I had later with hockey pundits who were very much split on the decision. But it was unanimous in that situation room, my second surprise.

This is a very veteran group, including a retired NHL referee and a total of more than 150 years of league experience. They’ve seen a lot. The day after, they told me four people were involved in the final call and that they’d initially thought the goal wouldn’t hold up; the review didn’t change that. I respectfully replied that I would have been a dissenter, if I’d had a vote.

The rule is there for safety. With razor-sharp skate blades and crowded creases, you can’t have players actively kicking away at a puck. Keeping the blade on the ice and directing the puck is another matter.

In 2013-14, an extensive package of clips showing kicked-in goals was assembled for the powers that be. The directive to the situation room that followed, from the GMs who were canvassed, was actually to be more liberal and allow more goals. That’s when the stipulation of the blade not leaving the ice was reinforced, and that kicking could still be called even if the blade didn’t leave the ice.

The Coleman play is a remarkable seven seconds to rewatch, just the pure athleticism it took to even get to the puck. Closing in on Oilers goalie Mike Smith and on a collision course with the goalpost, Coleman — with Edmonton defender Cody Ceci all over him (417 pounds combined) — deftly manoeuvred his left leg toward the puck while twisting to narrowly avoid the iron. It would have been a work of art with a happy ending, save for that whole distinct thing.

It was called a goal on the ice, and things would have been much quieter had the original call stood. Those involved knew that, and knew it was close, but felt strongly that Coleman understood exactly what he was doing in making sure the puck went in the net.

The play didn’t decide the series, but it did come at an important time late in an elimination game, and took a goal away from the team that was trying to survive. As Flames veteran forward Mikael Backlund said: “It’s hard, but I didn’t think we lost the series today.” Coach Darryl Sutter agreed. “Quite honest, this series was about Games 2, Games 4 and Games 5 … They were all tied in the third period halfway through. Edmonton scored the big goal, if you look at it.”

That they did. Led by Hart Trophy winners Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl, the Oilers showed an edge and resiliency that surprised many against a veteran Flames squad seemingly built for the playoffs, and to play for Sutter. Bouncing back from a raucous 9-6 defeat in Game 1 that had many envisioning a Flames sweep, the Oilers flexed their offensive muscle and made defensive adjustments to take the next four games.

The series was a great reminder of what the Battle of Alberta brings, and of a time when both clubs were NHL powerhouses. The first matchup in 31 years provided entertaining games from start to finish, and distinct memories for fans on both sides. It all depends, of course, on your interpretation of the word distinct.

Dave Poulin is a former NHL player, executive and TSN hockey analyst based in Toronto. He is a freelance contributing columnist for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @djpoulin20