The direct kicking motion is an NHL rule, and I wonder if the same rule exists in college hockey rules. The college hockey rule might not require a direct kicking motion, because there certainly was none. If the rule says something like "direct contact with the skate before going in" then that is right.

Who do you think was the video judge? Probably the same referee (and I use that term lightly) who officiated the Skills Competition on Friday night. No wonder they messed it up if that was the case.

Nathan Hampton


On 4/14/08 10:44 AM, "Rowe, Thomas" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Who am I to say, but I disagree with the decision to disallow the ND goal.  The anouncers went on and on about a "distinct kicking motion in the direction of the goal" and concluded the goal would stand.  The booth decided otherwise.

Here is what I saw:  The left skate was used to stop the puck which almost instantly hit the right skate.  There was no motion at the instant of impact, but immediately thereafter the right skate was pulled away, but not in a kicking motion and not actually at the goal.  I guess they saw something I didn't see.  It looked to me it was just happenstance the stopped/redirected puck went towards the goal.  Too bad he missed with his stick which would have stopped any controversy.  It sure would have been more exciting at 3-2 even if BC scored shortly after to make it 4-2.  4-1 was going to be a nearly impossible task against a disciplined team.

Kudos to BC for making the third time the charm, and kudos to ND for surpassing all expectations of them.  Remember LSS's 12-1 win in the final?  Moral:  Don't bet against a Jackson coached team in the playoffs.  Of course, the conflicting moral:  Don't bet against York in the playoffs, either.  :-)

Tom Rowe
I used to have a hockey quote here, too