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

[tarheelhockey]

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?

From what I can tell — and this may or may not be the actual explanation — it seems the call in that scenario was that the goalie had the puck frozen against the pipe at first, and then the activity on the post caused it to slide back across the line. But the ref had called the play dead at the point when the puck was lodged somewhere near the post, and there’s not a clear look at whether it had fully crossed the line by that point.

The difference between the plays is the continuous motion of the puck. In the Cuylle goal it isn’t clear whether the puck crossed the line in continuous motion, or whether it was initially stopped and then jimmied loose. In today’s goal, it was a straightforward case of the puck getting through the goalie and sliding into the net on its own accord.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The strawmen arguments gotta stop.

No one is saying this shouldn’t be a goal.

The debate is whether it is a goal by the NHL rule book and how they officiate games.

This continuous play stuff is just their way to justify the spin the wheel decision. They’d have a intended to blow the whistle justification if the wheel came up as no goal.

They make all this up as they go along. Usually this ends up not being ruled a goal, but I guess they wanted a high scoring and competitive game today, so they found a way to justify a goal on a play that every previous time I’ve seen it in this league is ruled no goal.

 

[Bounces R Way]

We can view a supermassive blackholes hundreds of millions light years away but the NHL can't tell if a small rubber puck is across a arbitrary painted line.

The human race is really just one ironic contradiction after another.

 

[ijuka]

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.

You don't know. Maybe without the whistle the goalie reacts differently, for example.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

They make it up as they go. Goals are called back because they say they meant to call the play dead and goals are allowed because didn't mean to call the play dead. Clown league,

 

[MtoD]

You don't know. Maybe without the whistle the goalie reacts differently, for example.

So you think Shesterkin heard the whistle and was like "f*** it, I'll let this one squeeze through my 5 hole?"

 

[tarheelhockey]

The strawmen arguments gotta stop.

No one is saying this shouldn’t be a goal.

The debate is whether it is a goal by the NHL rule book and how they officiate games.

This continuous play stuff is just their way to justify the spin the wheel decision. They’d have a intended to blow the whistle justification if the wheel came up as no goal.

They make all this up as they go along. Usually this ends up not being ruled a goal, but I guess they wanted a high scoring and competitive game today, so they found a way to justify a goal on a play that every previous time I’ve seen it in this league is ruled no goal.

It’s really not that deep. This was a goal any way you read it. Watch enough hockey games and you will see this same scenario come up again.

 

[ToDavid]

Regardless of what they decided the call on the ice was, that would have been called a goal on review. This isn’t even a grey area, it’s a goal.

 

[phillyb]

So you think Shesterkin heard the whistle and was like "f*** it, I'll let this one squeeze through my 5 hole?"

I think what this person is saying is that if the whistle isn’t blown, Igor might realize the puck isn’t covered and reacts accordingly, whether that’s reach behind him (real common goalie move) or look behind him, etc.

 

[Mattb124]

Good goal, and fun to watch “hockey fans” who do not understand the rules complain.

 

[TGWL]

As a NYR fan, I'm pretty sure our entire fan base would have been pissed if we made that shot that tricked in and it was called no goal. I have no issue with this one or the addition to the rule. I think the hate against this comes from NYR having a goal called no-goal previously.

 

[TD Charlie]

It’s the most NHL thing ever to allow goals after a whistle, and then take back a goal that was in prior to a whistle.

 

[Incognito]

This is one of those rare instances where they got it right. That's a good goal.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

It’s really not that deep. This was a goal any way you read it. Watch enough hockey games and you will see this same scenario come up again.

When was the last time you saw it called this way?

 

[Wallet Inspector]

How it should be tbh, if a ref screws up with his whistle and a puck is in, it should count as a goal.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

It was the right call though.

Anyone upset about it needs to get a life IMO.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

It was the right call though.

Anyone upset about it needs to get a life IMO.

How do you know if the ref doesn't blow the whistle that Shestyorkin doesn't reach behind himself? Goalies often recognize when they don't catch the puck cleanly, and save their own errors.

The "it was the right call" people are looking at this so superficially. How can we have a consistent understanding of how the game is officiated if they're just going to make this up as they go along? Also, there's no way of knowing it would've definitely been a goal without the whistle.

This goal has made me more upset than any bad call we've dealt with in a long time because they re-refereed a play based on outcomes they couldn't possibly predict and they basically ignored the way this stuff is always called because the wheel or the league wanted an interesting or high scoring game.

On principle, this was an abomination of a call for what it says about the standard of officiating in this league.

If I need to get a life for being right about this, doesn't bother me.

 

[JPeeper]

Haven't read all three pages (so it might have been pointed out already), but Kadri scored on a quick whistle when the puck was lose and got a penalty.

There has to be no one at this point who can defend how utterly inconsistent and trash the officiating in this league is. At least here they got the call right here in the end, but like put yourself in a position to actually try and make the right call the first time.

 

[MVP Zacha]

How do you know if the ref doesn't blow the whistle that Shestyorkin doesn't reach behind himself? Goalies often recognize when they don't catch the puck cleanly, and save their own errors.

The "it was the right call" people are looking at this so superficially. How can we have a consistent understanding of how the game is officiated if they're just going to make this up as they go along? Also, there's no way of knowing it would've definitely been a goal without the whistle.

This goal has made me more upset than any bad call we've dealt with in a long time because they re-refereed a play based on outcomes they couldn't possibly predict and they basically ignored the way this stuff is always called because the wheel or the league wanted an interesting or high scoring game.

On principle, this was an abomination of a call for what it says about the standard of officiating in this league.

If I need to get a life for being right about this, doesn't bother me.

I have never seen anyone be so wrong before and have it pointed out by fans of their own team yet continue to argue that they are right. Congratulations.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I have never seen anyone be so wrong before and have it pointed out by fans of their own team yet continue to argue that they are right. Congratulations.

Congratulations on your loss yesterday.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

When was the last time you saw it called this way?

NYR-NJ the other day, called it by the book, literally....

 

[MVP Zacha]

Congratulations on your loss yesterday.

I didn't lose, I'm not playing for the Devils. But you should really just take the L here.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

NYR-NJ the other day, called it by the book, literally....

What? I’m saying other than this game.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

What? I’m saying other than this game.

The Malkin goal, haven't you been paying attention?

But your contention is that Shesterkin, who didn't stop the original thought, would have realized the whistle didn't blow, and reach behind and grab it, in the split second or two that the whistle did go, and the puck was in the net? That's a really huge leap there

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

The Malkin goal, haven't you been paying attention?

But your contention is that Shesterkin, who didn't stop the original thought, would have realized the whistle didn't blow, and reach behind and grab it, in the split second or two that the whistle did go, and the puck was in the net? That's a really huge leap there

That stuff happens all the time.

Regardless if not, it’s never called like this. I have been watching hockey for a million years and they never call it like this.

They make it up as they go along.