Already there is an uproar in the National Hockey League about the disallowed goal in tonight's Game Four of the Dallas-Detroit series. I already discussed why the goal should have counted, as Holmstrom did not touch Turco and was clearly not in the crease.
But once the call was made, many people were saying that it should have been reviewed—and when it wasn't, they were upset. However, here is the reason why it was not reviewed:
Rule 39.4 in the 2007-08 Official NHL Rulebook states:
The following situations are subject to review by the Video Go al Judge:
(i) Puck crossing the goal line.
(ii) Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being dislodged.
(iii) Puck in the net prior to, or after expiration of time at the end of the period.
(iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. See also 49.2 and 67.6.
(v) Puck deflected directly into the net off an Official.
(vi) Puck struck with a high-stick, above the height of the crossbar, by an attacking player prior to entering the goal. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.
(vii) To establish the correct time on the official game clock, provided the game time is visible on the Video Goal Judge’s monitors.
(viii) The video review process shall be permitted to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”).
This explains why it was not able to be reviewed. Yes, the goal should have counted, but it was ruled off to interference, and people have to deal with it.
However, if the goal was waved off for goalie interference, why wasn't there a penalty on the play as well?
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!