Puck goes in after whistle blown, reviewed and ruled a goal

[Filthy Dangles]

The zebras huddled up and “changed” call on the ice to a goal. Then they quickly reviewed it a called it a goal.

Right call or league bending the rules after a quick whistle?

No excuse for Shesterkin not to have the shot though

 

[The Crypto Guy]

It’s ok. Nothing new. Rangers just had a goal called against them when the ref clearly blew the play dead before the puck went in. They just make shit up as they go. No more intent to blow the whistle anymore either lol

Edit - ok nvm, just made aware of a rule change. Good goal.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Well it just happened now.

There was absolutely zero reason for that whistle. It's not like the puck was shot in after the whistle.

 

[Kane One]

There was absolutely zero reason for that whistle. It's not like the puck was shot in after the whistle.

There’s no reason for “intending to blow” whistles either but somehow that’s a thing.

 

[Machinehead]

The whistle blew too early and it's probably karmic justice that the Devils got the goal.

In regards to NHL rules, they made something up here as far as I'm concerned.

 

[fm]

The only consistency in these calls is that they must go against nyr.

 

[Machinehead]

The most confusing part of all that was that they said the call on the ice was goal. I never saw that signal and I'd be interested if somebody has them signaling goal.

 

[Blender]

It’s ok. Nothing new. Rangers just had a goal called against them when the ref clearly blew the play dead before the puck went in. They just make shit up as they go. No more intent to blow the whistle anymore either lol

This is a new rule.

Continuous Play rule (Rule 37), which states that a goal may be awarded, even after a whistle is blown, "if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown[...]"

 

[The Crypto Guy]

This is a new rule.

Ohh ok, thank you for posting this, i wasnt aware of the new rule change. Then yes, absolutely 100% a goal.

 

[phillyb]

Laughable at best. Nefarious at worst. f*** the NHL.

 

[Whoot Whoot]

Is the whistle meaningless ? I don’t get it.
But yes of course it should have been a goal but is it according to the rules

 

[Jersey Fresh]

Right call was made, Shesterkin fluffed it. The injustice would have been negating the goal.

 

[MikeK]

Of course they did. This is the NHL.

 

[SladeWilson23]

There’s no reason for “intending to blow” whistles either but somehow that’s a thing.

The intent to blow rule is there in case the refs for whatever reason have issues with the actual whistle.

 

[NoQuitInNewMexico]

Well it's not like the goalie deserved to get rewarded on that play. And look on the bright side: since the standards on NHL video reviews are consistent, and not made up to match whatever outcome they want, that means "intent to blow" is gone forever, and I don't think anyone will miss it.

 

[Machinehead]

"Sorry, we shouldn't blown the whistle, but we did" has been the rule as long as I can remember.

 

[Nikki Potnick]

Good goal. Anyone saying otherwise is ignorant to the rules of the game.

 

[Machinehead]

Good goal. Anyone saying otherwise is ignorant to the rules of the game.

Please enlighten me.

 

[Nikki Potnick]

Please enlighten me.

Continuous Play rule (Rule 37), which states that a goal may be awarded, even after a whistle is blown, "if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown[...]"

 

[phillyb]

Whistles count except when they don’t.

 

[Machinehead]

Continuous Play rule (Rule 37), which states that a goal may be awarded, even after a whistle is blown, "if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown[...]"

Yeah, fair enough.

Seems subject to a lot of grey area which why this type of play is such a source of frustration, but in this case, it was clearly continuous.

 

[Machinehead]

I was today years old when I learned that all the times they said "oopsie doopsie f***y wucky we blew the whistle" they were wrong.

I'll tip my cap to this one and just remember it when they f*** it up next time.

Let me put "hey remember the Hughes goal???!!" in my copy and paste pile.

 

[Super Cake]

Didn't the same thing happen in game 5 of the cup final. I think it was the 2nd goal where you could hear a whistle, yet the puck entered the net quickly after and it was ruled a good goal.

 

[Machinehead]

It’s ok. Nothing new. Rangers just had a goal called against them when the ref clearly blew the play dead before the puck went in. They just make shit up as they go. No more intent to blow the whistle anymore either lol

Edit - ok nvm, just made aware of a rule change. Good goal.

I don't think it's a rule change, I just think they weren't following the rule all the times they told us "sorry we blew the whistle but we did."

 

[SladeWilson23]

I was today years old when I learned that all the times they said "oopsie doopsie f***y wucky we blew the whistle" they were wrong.

I'll tip my cap to this one and just remember it when they f*** it up next time.

Let me put "hey remember the Hughes goal???!!" in my copy and paste pile.

Make sure you compare it to similar plays though.

As in don't compare it plays where the puck was shot after the whistle. IE scramble in front of the net, puck trickles out, whistle blows, puck gets put in.

That's the most common scenario in which the whistle rule gets implemented.