Rangers Twitter Account Didn’t Like Galchenyuk Goal

While none of us enjoyed when the referee reaffirmed Alex Galchenyuk's goal which was redirected into the net off his skate and essentially iced the game for the Canadiens last night. The Rangers Twitter account took their disgust to a whole new level…

…we feel you guys. We feel you.

The tweet was deleted shortly after it was sent out. H/T to readers Matty K. Tim C. and Mike D. for the screen shots.

To the goal itself, if you read my game recap you know I felt the refs got the call correct…

"did Galchenyuk purposely redirect the puck into the net? Yes. Was it a distinct kicking motion? No. Did Miller purposely redirect the puck into the net in Philly? Not likely. Was it a distinct kicking motion? Yes. You see the difference? Sorry, you guys may not like that explanation, but it's true. Both calls were correct."

…yes, I just quoted myself in my own blog post. Blogception.

And if you don't believe me ask former ref Kerry Frasier…

…Fraser has no horse in the game, so why would he purposely be going against the Rangers? Plus, I'm pretty sure he knows the rule better than anyone.

…also the decision was made in Toronto where they have numerous televisions and angles. And please don't say it's an NHL conspiracy against the Rangers. Why the hell would the NHL not want the team in the biggest media market to do well?

Here's the videos of the two goals with explanation from the NHL's Situation Blog

At 17:09 of the third period in the Canadiens/Rangers game, video review supported the referee's call on the ice that the puck deflected off Alex Galchenyuk's right skate and into the net in a legal fashion. According to Rule 49.2 "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." Good goal Montreal.

At 5:36 of the third period in the Rangers/Flyers game, video review determined that J.T. Miller propelled the puck into the net with a distinct kicking motion. According to Rule 49.2 "A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who uses a distinct kicking motion to propel the puck into the net.". No goal New York Rangers.

Here's Lundqvist's thoughts on the goal (via New York Post)…

“If that’s not a kick, I don’t know what a kick is,” Lundqvist said. “Seriously, there needs to be some sort of consistency in the call. I think that’s a kick. That’s my opinion.

“It’s just a frustrating goal there that kind of kills the whole game. It is what it is. It would be very interesting to hear their explanation for it just to know, moving forward, what the rule really is.”

…whenever a rule is up for interpretation, there's going to be controversy surrounding it eventually. Look at the runner interference call to end Game 3 of the World Series. Not really sure how they can change the wording unless they just allow for players to start kicking in the puck.

Remember to follow me on Twitter & Facebook or e-mail me at


About Kevin

If you have any questions e-mail me at