Which call was worse; Coleman's disallowed goal in Game 5? Or this Sens goal against the Leafs?
It's quickly become one of the most controversial calls in the playoffs this year, and we've seen our fair share already. Blake Coleman was robbed of a goal on Thursday and the Flames were robbed of a Game 6 in their series. There are two things the NHL will never get right apparently, goaltender interference and distinct kicking motions.
When it comes to these reviews, it seems the league has too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak when these reviews are done by the war room in Toronto. Too many cooks in the kitchen with too many egos that all want their decision to be the one used. This has cause a mass amount of confusion over the years specifically with goaltender interference and kicking motions. One game, contact with a goalie's stick is ruled interference, the next it's not, the same for the definition of kicking motion.
Earlier this season, the below goal was reviewed for a kicking motion and deemed a good goal because there was no distinct kicking motion. I don't know about you, but that is way more of a kicking motion than Coleman made last night. Not only that, but in the case below, there is no contact with any defensive player and the goal scorer purposely moves his foot in a kicking motion to direct the puck in. Last night, Coleman not only got tangled up with Smith going for the puck, but he also had Ceci landing on his back leg and dragging him to the ice.
Coleman said himself in his post game interview, "I don't think it was a kicking motion, but I guess I don't understand the rule." You're not alone on that one Blake, no one, not even the league itself understands the rule apparently. It would not be surprising if the players' association holds long discussions with the league in the off-season about setting clear definitions and examples of what is considered goaltender interference and what is a kicking motion.
