Gentlemen (I use this term very loosely, but you might misinterpret my tone as vicious if I greet you as Glorified Bean-Counters in Suits):
As a game-tying goal off of Troy BroUwers skate in last night's Blue Jackets-Capitals game tied the game and set up the quick overtime winner -- not to mention the fact that it was allowed to stand by the Toronto War Room -- I got to thinking about the rules the game, and how the league has dealt with controversy in the past.
I suppose it's not just hockey, as there are a lot of rules in sports that are arbitrary and left to interpretation.
In college football, you have the excessive celebration rule. Well, what's excessive? The midair chest bump? A few guys piling on a guy in the end zone after a touchdown? This things happen all the time. Sometimes they get flagged, and other times they don't. Completely arbitrary. But the silly rule is still there.
|Photo: USA Today|
Then just about every college under the sun got those gloves, and pretty much no one ever talked about it again. Nice end-around beat down of that rule.
In hockey, we have this foggy set of standards that discusses whether a goal of someone's skate is legitimate, based on whether a player is making a "distinct kicking motion." It goes up to Toronto for review, they flip a coin, spin the explanation and tweet it.
Troy Brouwer's goal probably should not have counted. You might argue that there is not an explicit "distinct kicking motion." However he was sliding toward the goal, and the centering pass was sent towards him. Come to think of it... I don't think it's too far of a reach for hockey teams to have drills covering the stuff... how to crash the net and deflect the pass into the net without making a "distinct kicking motion."
That's the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard, strange hockey blogger from Columbus, you say.
And that is exactly my point about the rule: It's ludicrous, and you guys are morons for having such a rule with such an unreliable and unacceptable margin for human error.
Back on November 18, Boone Jenner had a power play goal disallowed against the Detroit Red Wings. Jenner was going by the net, took a shot that rebounded back toward his feet. Danny DeKeyser was in the process of knocking Jenner off his feet when the puck hit his skate and went into the net.
Now your whole thing is about a "distinct kicking motion." That tells me that a distinct kicking motion is an action that is taken. A deliberate action.
Hockey is a fast game. I sincerely doubt any hockey player in the process of falling down can -- in a fraction of a second -- make a determination of "Hey, a puck! I can't get a stick on it, but if I just kick at it..." and take said action.
I defy you to give me a sound argument to the contrary.
In short, you guys are freaking idiots.
Not just for having a War Room where a "distinct kicking motion" might as well be determined by a "distinct coin-flipping motion," but for the fact that we should even be talking about this rule.
So, here's my proposal: You guys have no problem getting rid of a rule if it causes controversy and and gets people to the point where they just won't stop bitching about it.
For example… I give you the 1999 Stanley Cup final. Dallas versus Buffalo. Your infamous "skate in the crease" rule... in which, essentially, if there was an attacking player's skate in the crease when a goal was scored, that goal was disallowed, whether it had any bearing on the play or not.
However, Brett Hull's skate was clearly in the crease when he scored the Cup-winning goal in the third OT in Game 6. You counted it. Dallas won the Stanley Cup, and Buffalo is probably still pissed at you.
THEN... so as to avoid any further controversy the "in the crease" rule disappeared.
Like the original actress playing Roseanne's older daughter (although Sarah Chalke was a step up... rrrrowr).
Like Charlie Harper on Two and a Half Men... after Charlie Sheen started "winning," "tiger blood" and all that other stuff in between eight-balls of coke, and his character drove off a cliff.
So, gentlemen... might I humbly suggest that we send this whole "distinct kicking motion" bull$#!+ to the same lock box containing the "in the crease" rule, Charlie Harper, actress-who's-less-hot-than Sarah Chalke, and the CBJ's Boomer mascot.
This is not about the Columbus Blue Jackets' winning streak. It's not about the loss.
It's about the fact that this is a rule that is open to interpretation by individuals relying only on their eyes and not common sense. Or in Jenner's case, physics.
That's my interpretation, anyway.
It is time to consider whether any goal should be allowed in off a skate. That is something that you can definitely make a solid judgment call based on video replay: If the puck goes in off an attacking player's skate, under any circumstances... no goal.
If the puck goes in off a defending player's skate... oh well. $#!+ happens. Move on.
Plain and simple.
Follow @MartiniHockey on Twitter....