DENVER — The NHL can’t seem to go a season without confusing its fans with controversial officiating decisions, and Wednesday night’s disallowed goal in the Colorado Avalanche’s loss to the Dallas Stars is the latest example of a league struggling to define—and consistently enforce—its own rules.
Colorado Avalanche captain Gabriel Landeskog scored Wednesday night, but he also had a goal taken away in a 3-2 shootout loss to the Dallas Stars at Ball Arena. During the first period, Jaden Schwartz ripped a one-timer that bounced off Stars goaltender Casey DeSmith’s pads before deflecting off Landeskog just below his right knee and into the net.
NHL replay officials in Toronto overturned the goal, ruling that Landeskog had directed the puck into the net with a distinct kicking motion.
First and foremost, this was a poor call by the officials. It’s not difficult to dissect the ruling and question the reasoning behind it. The definition of distinct is unmistakable or readily discernible. If the kicking motion was so distinct, why did it take so long to make the call? Why did it require an extended review of the replay?
Clearly, the call wasn’t as unmistakable as the rule’s wording suggests. If officials need that much time to scrutinize the footage, perhaps the motion wasn’t nearly as distinct as they ultimately determined.
After reviewing the replay several times, Landeskog’s skate does move forward. But is that really a kicking motion? Not necessarily. You have to consider the play in real time. How else was Landeskog supposed to react?
The game is faster than ever, and the players are more skilled than ever. Everything happens in a split second, leaving little time to process what’s happening, let alone consciously decide how to redirect a puck. Do we really think Landeskog had time to calculate some Jackie Chan-style maneuver to kick the puck into the net? Of course not. He was reacting to a play unfolding in front of him.
Landeskog himself seemed to share that frustration. When asked whether he felt the call was fair, the Avalanche captain pointed to the difference between watching the play in slow motion and seeing it unfold in real time.
“If you watch it in real speed, there’s no chance I can react to that and kick that puck,” Landeskog explained. “When you watch a slow-mo, it looks like a kick motion, maybe. But if you’re watching real time, there’s just, like, I have it lifted already, and I go to plant it, to skate.”
Landeskog acknowledged that the decision had been made and that it wasn’t the first time a goal had been overturned, nor would it likely be the last. Still, his explanation gets to the heart of the controversy: a movement that might look intentional in slow motion can appear entirely different at full speed.
That’s what makes this call so frustrating. There’s a difference between a player deliberately kicking a puck into the net and a puck deflecting off a skate as a player reacts instinctively. If the NHL wants to disallow goals in these situations, the distinction needs to be clearer. Otherwise, we’re left debating the same subjective interpretations that have plagued the league for years.
Maybe the NHL needs to rethink the wording of the rule. Perhaps it should remove the word distinct and simply refer to a kicking motion. At least then, the argument would be more straightforward. Landeskog’s skate moves forward as the puck makes contact just below his knee. You can make a case that there was a kicking motion, even if I disagree with the decision to overturn the goal.
But the word distinct matters. It implies something clear, obvious and unmistakable. And after watching the replay, I don’t believe the evidence meets that standard. What stands out most isn't the clarity of the kicking motion, but the inconsistency with which these types of plays seem to be judged across the NHL.
And I guarantee we’ll see another controversy like this soon. Much like goaltender interference, the distinct kicking motion could become another source of frustration for players, coaches and fans who are left wondering what the rule actually means from one game to the next.
Now, before this turns into an exercise in making excuses for the Avalanche, let’s give credit where it’s due: Wednesday night was an incredible game. Both teams played well, and Colorado and Dallas had plenty of opportunities to add to the score. Did the disallowed goal mathematically affect the final result? Of course. A goal changes the circumstances of a game, and nobody can say with certainty how things would have unfolded if it had counted.
But that doesn’t mean the call alone decided the outcome. Both teams contributed to a competitive game that ultimately went to a shootout, and either side could have found another way to win.
That’s precisely why the officiating deserves scrutiny on its own merits. This isn’t about pretending the Avalanche played a perfect game or suggesting that one decision explains everything. It’s about asking whether the NHL got a crucial call right and whether its rules are being applied consistently.
The NHL needs to be more transparent about how these decisions are made. Explain the standard. Show fans how the rule is being interpreted. Establish consistency so that players and teams know what to expect.
Because if a goal can be overturned based on a motion that remains debatable even after repeated reviews, then the league has a problem that goes beyond one game.
In my view, this was not the right call. And if the NHL doesn’t do a better job of clarifying and consistently enforcing the rule, it’s only a matter of time before we’re having this same conversation again.