The NHL rulebook says that in order for a goal to be awarded legally by video review, there must be conclusive evidence that the puck completely crossed the goal line.
Such was the case in the Flyers-Penguins game tonight at Mellon Arena. On a 4-on-4 in the first period, Sidney Crosby tipped the puck into the crease, and it hit Martin Biron, the post, then Crosby tipped it into the net. Biron quickly put his glove over the puck and then swept it out of the net.
The referee immediately waved his arms to signal no goal, yet Crosby seemed to know it was in, and told everyone on the bench that it was in.
Today's Must Reads
From the replays, it looked as if it truly was in. The problem was that from every replay angle, it was impossible to see if there was white ice between the puck and the goal line, because Biron was able to cover the puck so quickly.
It was obvious that the puck was in the net, because there is no other place that it could have been. But the rule says that there must be conclusive evidence to overturn an on-ice call. There wasn't, so the call had to stand.
Crosby argued the call, as he always does, but this time he had reason to.
However, the NHL and the war room in Toronto made the correct call not to award the goal to the Penguins. Once again, everyone could see that the puck had to have been in, but no one clearly saw the puck completely across the line.
The play stands, and so I am pre-empting the cries from Pittsburgh that will come tomorrow morning by saying not to protest this goal, because it will show a great deal of ignorance and knowledge of the NHL rulebook.
comments (12) write a comment »
write a new comment
3 months ago
The rule is that the puck is in if it has completely crossed the line. You don't have to see white between the puck and the line, you just have to have evidence that conclusively shows that it was in. If it is obvious that it was completely in, the evidence is necessarily conclusive. I thought that it was pretty conclusive, as did the announcers, but the boys in Toronto apparently did not. At least it settles once and for all that the officials are not trying to hand the games the PIT.
from 3 months ago
Actually, it's not the official's choice it is the boys in the War Room's choice. The refs don't have anything to do with the decision. And yes, the rule is that you must have conclusive evidence it is in the net. We did not have conclusive evidence, we just assumed it was in. It was probably the right assumption, but you can't call a goal on that.
3 months ago
From the angle I saw tere shouldn't have been any question I saw white clearly between goal line and the puck I respectfully BLOWN call from on ice officials and War Room.
3 months ago
http://timesonline.com/articles/2008/05/12/sports/doc4827cf4a84653629091394.txt
check the pic, total goal
3 months ago
yes, conner, in that picture it is clearly across the goal line. however, there was no camera angle to show this during the game, so they could not see it was across the line. maybe the solution is for the NHL to put more cameras in, as crazy as that sounds.
3 months ago
it was definitely in. they checked and re-checked. in the case of doubt, they will follow the referee's decision ... freaking bad referee, how could he say it was not.
still, they won.
3 months ago
Doesn't matter....PENS still won.
......as expected
3 months ago
that blown call was about as much BS as rutuus diving penalty after Biron crushed him.
any idiot could see the white the canadians were just urked that the pens swept ottawa with ease and screwed them over for the SECOND time. (first time was the high stick they called a goal against the penguins)
but doesnt matter pens win the cup sid the kid gets more reasons to claim hes better then AO.
3 months ago
hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaah I totally agree
GO PENS!
3 months ago
Conclusive evidence is not limited to seeing the puck cross the line. How about some deductive reasoning. The goalie's glove is between 4" to 5" past the line. The puck is visibly at the end of the goalie's glove. The puck is only 3" in diameter. Therefore, there was no way the puck wasn't across the goal line.
The intent of the review rule is to get the call right. The NHL failed to get the call right. If you say it is correct by the letter of the law and would make a decision based on that - you should work for the government - you'd be a good bureaucrat.
from 3 months ago
agreed, dave. it should've been a goal, but based on the law of the game, it wasn't. meaning...RULE CHANGE!!!! seriously, they should at least use some logic when calling the game.
3 months ago
Dude quit defending your own article.
write a new comment