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

[Taluss]

Don't know the official rule on this. But the outcome is how it should be in this situation.

 

[Machinehead]

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.

It's usually when the goalie falls on it and knocks it in with his butt which would constitute the whistle not affecting the shot.

My favorite is still when we scored with like 2 seconds left and Toronto was just like "we have the official clock and the official clock was moving 2 seconds faster."

Granted, it's not the Devils' fault or this crew's fault if we feel like we have a history of this, so you have to look at this call in a vacuum.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

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

That’s not true at all.

 

[WaitingForThatCab]

This is a new rule.

Correct, the rule is that this was indeed a goal.

Complaining about an obvious goal because a referee blew the whistle way too quickly is funny, though.

 

[SladeWilson23]

That’s not true at all.

Yes it is. If the whistle malfunctions or if the ref drops it or something like that happens is what the rule is for.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Yes it is. If the whistle malfunctions or if the ref drops it or something like that happens is what the rule is for.

Still wrong.

 

[phillyb]

Here's the actual rule and I'm a little confused. Taken from the NHL's site - https://media.d3.nhle.com/image/private/t_document/prd/qsm22dydafa8mevh39ip.pdf

Puck entering the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result of the play was unaffected by any whistle blown by the Referee upon his losing sight of the puck;

..."unaffected by any whistle"
If I'm interpreting this correctly, and it's very possibly I'm not, they're saying that the goal can be reviewed if the play was unaffected by a whistle, but this play was affected by a whistle. Kinda strange.

 

[ijuka]

If we have "intended to blow whistle" and "didn't intend to blow whistle" as deciders, might as well just remove the whistles from the refs since they don't matter.

Yes it is. If the whistle malfunctions or if the ref drops it or something like that happens is what the rule is for.

No it's not. It's there for if the ref intended to blow the whistle but didn't manage to physically do it in time.

I've never seen it used the way you're saying.

 

[Empoleon8771]

This has been a rule for years, this isn't anything new. If the puck is already in motion to go into the net when the whistle is blown, and the early whistle didn't have any impact on the puck going in, it's a goal.

This is a case where it's pretty cut and dry, a textbook example of why this rule exists. The ref blew the whistle early because he thought the puck was covered, but it wasn't and squeezed through. The movement of the puck wasn't altered due to the whistle, so it was therefore a good goal.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

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.

I learned about it on a Malkin goal. Unlike this one it wasn't trickling into the net, the whistle blew before Malkin shot it but they ruled that it would've gone in so counted it anyway.

I get that they're ultimately trying to let goals count that should count, but we know how things end up when refs have this much discretion on a grey area rule. There's potential for this to go horribly wrong in a playoff situation.

 

[ICanMotteBelieveIt]

This goal was disallowed even though it clearly crossed the line and the ref blew the whistle after the puck already crossed the line.

You might wonder why was it disallowed? The refs meant to blow the whistle, but they didn't. But they intended to do it earlier, what a joke.

And now McLeod hits Lindgren in the face with a dirty hit. McLeod gets a major, play gets reviewed and they change the call and no penalty is given out despite him making contact with his head.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Here's the actual rule and I'm a little confused. Taken from the NHL's site - https://media.d3.nhle.com/image/private/t_document/prd/qsm22dydafa8mevh39ip.pdf




..."unaffected by any whistle"
If I'm interpreting this correctly, and it's very possibly I'm not, they're saying that the goal can be reviewed if the play was unaffected by a whistle, but this play was affected by a whistle. Kinda strange.

by "unaffected by the whistle" I think they mean like the goalie or a player didn't stop playing because they heard the whistle, which resulted in someone scoring.

 

[Empoleon8771]

by "unaffected by the whistle" I think they mean like the goalie or a player didn't stop playing because they heard the whistle, which resulted in someone scoring.

This is exactly it. If a whistle blows early and it could conceivably make a player give up on the play, that's not a goal if a goal is scored after it. If the whistle blew and there was no impact on the puck going in the net, it's a goal.

It's why that Malkin goal you mentioned ended up a good goal. If I remember that goal correctly, the ref blew the play dead when Malkin had the puck behind the goalie with a completely empty net. The ref blowing that play dead early had no chance of causing a goal against from players giving up on a play, which is why it was reversed to being a goal.

 

[Jersey Fresh]

Here's the actual rule and I'm a little confused. Taken from the NHL's site - https://media.d3.nhle.com/image/private/t_document/prd/qsm22dydafa8mevh39ip.pdf




..."unaffected by any whistle"
If I'm interpreting this correctly, and it's very possibly I'm not, they're saying that the goal can be reviewed if the play was unaffected by a whistle, but this play was affected by a whistle. Kinda strange.

How was it affected by the whistle? lol

 

[SladeWilson23]

If we have "intended to blow whistle" and "didn't intend to blow whistle" as deciders, might as well just remove the whistles from the refs since they don't matter.


No it's not. It's there for if the ref intended to blow the whistle but didn't manage to physically do it in time.

I've never seen it used the way you're saying.

If the ref doesn't blow the whistle in time, why do think that would be the case? The aforementioned reasons is the answer. You basically confirmed my point and you're in agreement with me.

Still wrong.

No not really. The ref failing to get the whistle blown for various reasons is why the rule exists. You're being obtuse.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Here's the actual rule and I'm a little confused. Taken from the NHL's site - https://media.d3.nhle.com/image/private/t_document/prd/qsm22dydafa8mevh39ip.pdf




..."unaffected by any whistle"
If I'm interpreting this correctly, and it's very possibly I'm not, they're saying that the goal can be reviewed if the play was unaffected by a whistle, but this play was affected by a whistle. Kinda strange.

By “unaffected by the whistle”, they mean the whistle had no impact on the puck entering the net.

If the whistle blows and everyone stops playing except one guy, who then shoots it into the net, that play has been affected by the whistle. No goal.

If a guy shoots the puck at a wide open empty net and is in the process of crossing the goal line when the whistle blows, that play was unaffected by the whistle. Good goal.

This situation was more like the latter. The goalie failed to stop the puck and it was clearly going to cross the line on its own. No player was going to get to it in time to stop it, so it makes no difference whether the whistle caused them to stop playing or not. The whistle did not impact the outcome of the shot. Good goal.

 

[TropicOfNoReturn]

Hilarious how many people are outraged by this when it is 100% a good goal as per the NHL rulebook

 

[Kane One]

By “unaffected by the whistle”, they mean the whistle had no impact on the puck entering the net.

If the whistle blows and everyone stops playing except one guy, who then shoots it into the net, that play has been affected by the whistle. No goal.

If a guy shoots the puck at a wide open empty net and is in the process of crossing the goal line when the whistle blows, that play was unaffected by the whistle. Good goal.

This situation was more like the latter. The goalie failed to stop the puck and it was clearly going to cross the line on its own. No player was going to get to it in time to stop it, so it makes no difference whether the whistle caused them to stop playing or not. The whistle did not impact the outcome of the shot. Good goal.

That’s fair, but then can you please explain how Cuylle’s shot wasn’t called a goal in the video a few posts up?

 

[phillyb]

Appreciate those who have pointed out and explained the rule to me after not understanding. Good goal.

- rags fan

 

[Xirik]

So are the refs out to get the rangers or not?

 

[phillyb]

That’s fair, but then can you please explain how Cuylle’s shot wasn’t called a goal in the video a few posts up?

Consistency is not allowed.

 

[Kane One]

So are the refs out to get the rangers or not?

Gotta play against the refs every game. I still don’t think a single goal review went our way. Some good calls and some aren’t but that’s NHL consistency for you.

I have no issue with that major getting overturned before though.

 

[Ezekial]

Here's the actual rule and I'm a little confused. Taken from the NHL's site - https://media.d3.nhle.com/image/private/t_document/prd/qsm22dydafa8mevh39ip.pdf




..."unaffected by any whistle"
If I'm interpreting this correctly, and it's very possibly I'm not, they're saying that the goal can be reviewed if the play was unaffected by a whistle, but this play was affected by a whistle. Kinda strange.

You probably just don't want to understand the rule to think the goal shouldn't count.

The original shot came from Hughes, it was unaffected by the whistle because it was on it's way in regardless if the whistle was blown or not. They have that verbiage to differentiate a puck sitting there and a guy putting it home as the whistle blows compared to what happened, which is exactly why they put the rule in place.

This is going to be used in the reffing video for the rule as it is the perfect example. Great rule to stop a bonehead play by the official.

 

[phillyb]

You probably just don't want to understand the rule to think the goal shouldn't count.

The original shot came from Hughes, it was unaffected by the whistle because it was on it's way in regardless if the whistle was blown or not. They have that verbiage to differentiate a puck sitting there and a guy putting it home as the whistle blows compared to what happened, which is exactly why they put the rule in place.

This is going to be used in the reffing video for the rule as it is the perfect example. Great rule to stop a bonehead play by the official.

I didn’t understand the language. Others helped me understand it. Below is what I posted:

Appreciate those who have pointed out and explained the rule to me after not understanding. Good goal.

- rags fan

You probably didn’t read that far in the thread before quoting me to prove the need to be right…or some other snarky reply that passively accuses you of something stupid.

Good goal. Better Rangers win.

 

[Dust]

Seems like the right call. The whistle blowing didn't change the play at all. Nobody gave up on the play or the puck because of it, it was going in regardless.