WASHINGTON, DC — The Washington Capitals allowed one of their more questionable goals so far this season against the New Jersey Devils on Saturday night, but the goal came on a play fans in DC thought should be called back.
During a first-period power play for New Jersey, former Cap Connor Brown tied the game with what the NHL ruled was not a distinct kicking motion. With Brown at the netfront, Devils winger Jesper Bratt ferried the puck right to his skates, which sent the puck into the back of the net.
Capitals fans were in uproar over the goal at Capital One Arena, and the NHL’s Situation Room deemed it borderline enough to warrant a video review. Ultimately, however, the goal stood.
The guiding principle in this case is NHL Rule 37.4: Distinct Kicking Motion, which defines what counts as an illegal kick. Pucks are allowed to deflect off of skates and into the net, but a player who beats the goalie with a “distinct kicking motion” will have his goal overturned.
After the video review, the Situation Room released a statement on their findings:
Video review supported the Referee’s call on the ice that the puck deflected off Connor Brown’s skate and entered the net in a legal fashion. Rule 37.4 states, in part, “a puck that deflects into the net off an attacking Player’s skate who does not use a ‘distinct kicking motion’ shall be ruled a GOAL. A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking Players’ skate shall also be ruled a GOAL, as long as no ‘distinct kicking motion’ is evident.”
Brown appeared to move his foot forward as the puck hit it, contributing to the eventual goal, but the NHL determined that his actions did not go far enough to break the rule.
While Brown’s foot certainly seemed to kick the puck at first viewing, the Capitals weren’t shocked at the league’s decision.
“I knew when I looked at it on the monitor, I thought it was 50-50,” said Spencer Carbery, who has been happy to publicly criticize officials’ rulings in the past.
Ilya Protas was slightly more critical of the decision when speaking to reporters postgame, but he was far from decisive.
“It’s tough, the play,” he said. “I don’t know how they look at that situation because it’s definitely a 50-50 moment. And we thought it was a kick, but, I mean, refs look at that in a different angle. I don’t know. But, yeah, I guess it was clean.”
In fact, if anyone seemed truly puzzled by the ruling, it was Brown, who looked visibly surprised on the bench after the officials confirmed his goal would stand.
Carbery noted that the NHL has worked to better define the “distinct kicking motion” rule, though this particular play was still right on the edge of legality.
“They’ve really tried to clear up that rule of, someone that makes a motion, kicking. That one was as close as I’ve seen of directing it. Because they allow you to direct it in. You can turn your foot and it goes in. That’s perfectly fine. That was right on the borderline for me, of turning your foot and then a little bit of kicking motion.
“But I knew when I watched it, I’m like, ‘This could go either way.’ It’s not a slam dunk that this is coming back.”
Though Brown’s goal tied what had been a Capitals lead, its effect on the final result may have been more limited, with the Capitals eventually falling 7-4 for their fourth loss in the past six games.
