Flames season ends after controversial no goal, a breakdown
What Happened
The Calgary Flames and Edmonton Oilers are locked in a tight playoff series, tied at 4-4 late in the third period of a crucial elimination game. With the season on the line, the Flames crash the net and score what they believe is the go-ahead goal with just six minutes remaining. However, the referees immediately wave it off, signaling they will review the play. Upon further inspection, it appears the puck deflected off the skate of Flames forward Andrew Mangiapane and went into the net. The rule in the NHL states that a goal can be scored off an attacking player's skate as long as there is no "distinct kicking motion." This leads to a lengthy discussion and debate over whether Mangiapane's play constituted an illegal kick or a legitimate redirection. Flames head coach Darryl Sutter argues passionately with the referees, insisting his player did not intentionally kick the puck. Mangiapane himself admits he deflected the puck with his foot, but says he was simply trying to get to the net and did not feel he made a kicking motion. The officials ultimately rule that Mangiapane did in fact kick the puck into the net, disallowing the goal. The Flames are stunned, with both the players and coach expressing frustration and confusion over the call. Edmonton Oilers fans, on the other hand, erupt in celebration as the potential game-winning goal is taken off the board. The game goes to overtime, where the Oilers end up prevailing, eliminating the Flames from the playoffs and dashing their postseason hopes. Sutter laments the inconsistency of the NHL's "kicking" rule, pointing to a previous similar play that was ruled a good goal. In the end, the controversial no-goal call proves to be the decisive moment, as the Flames' season comes to a bitter and controversial end. As Sutter says, "The worst part about this is it goes to overtime and they lose. They maybe would. They might have won and extended the playoffs, but instead their playoff run is short, just like most of your guys' time in the bedroom.".
Full Transcript
Click timestamps to jump to that momentEdmonton and Calgary tied at four in the third period.
This one happened a couple weeks ago, but it's interesting,
and some people don't watch hockey, and they might find this interesting,
and they might even generate an opinion on it.
It's brought to you by Roman.
The Flames come in, crash the net, score the go-ahead goal
with six minutes left in the third period, which would save their season
because if they lose, they're eliminated.
Goalie comes up and says, what are you talking about, ref?
That ain't no goal.
Now, at first, no one had any idea what they were reviewing,
and then they realized that, did he kick it in?
Did he intentionally kick the puck into the net?
So they go to check it out.
Here's the review, and he definitely, it hits his skate and goes in,
but that's not quite the rule.
It's allowed to hit his skate and go in.
He's just not allowed to kick it in.
They actually changed the rules, I think in 2020,
but they're not allowed to kick it in.
They're not allowed to allow more goals that ricochet off feet
and said the only way it's not allowed is if it's a kicking motion.
So what do you guys got?
Did he just skate into this puck, or did he intentionally kick it?
It really comes down to, what the hell's a kick?
Okay, so here's the official wording of the rule.
A goal cannot be scored on a player where an attacking player
propels the puck with his skate into the net
using a distinct kicking motion.
And they go on to explain even further.
A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player's skate
who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal.
So, was this a distinct kicking motion?
That's what everyone has to decide.
And when this rule got put into place, the Kraken, the new team,
they benefited from it because this, they ruled not a kicking motion,
and they said that's a good goal, when in my opinion,
that dude definitely kicks that puck with his skate.
But they said, no, he was just deflecting it, not kicking it.
So what are they going to say here?
After a video review, there is no goal in the play.
The puck was kicking from the net.
Fucking kidding me?
What?
Edmonton fans excited?
Are you fucking kidding me?
The fucking puck goes right in.
What are you talking about?
No way.
No way.
No way.
Now, he admits that he deflected it with his foot.
He says, I don't think I understand the rule.
Fair.
Fair.
He said, there's no intent.
I'm just trying to get there.
I opened my foot, but my understanding is that you can redirect the puck
off your foot as long as you're not lifting it and kicking it into the net.
I'll go watch it again.
Maybe it's glaringly obvious.
I just didn't feel like I did what it looks like.
So he's like, yeah, I skated into the puck.
I thought that was the whole damn.
New rule.
I didn't kick it.
Let's watch it again.
Is this a kicking motion?
Or is he just gliding his foot as he skates into the net?
What do you guys got?
I think that's kind of bizarre to rule that a kicking motion when this one was ruled not
a kicking motion.
Doesn't seem consistent.
The worst part about this is it goes to overtime and they lose.
They maybe would.
They might have won and extended the playoffs, but instead their playoff run
and short, just like most of your guys' time in the bedroom.
And if you want that to stop, you got to go to get Roman dot com slash John boy
and you can get the Roman swipes, which are clinically proven to make you last
longer in bed and you get $10 off your first order.
If you do it now, get Roman dot com slash John boy.