Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22

Late in the second period of Saturday night's game in Columbus between the Blue Jackets and Boston Bruins, Columbus' Matt Calvert collected the puck off a turnover by Boston's Milan Lucic near the right boards and wired a shot into the net. The goal gave Columbus a 5-2 lead en route to a 6-2 win.

The goal and of itself was indisputable and had no bearing on the final outcome of the game. The issue was something that happened 75 seconds earlier. At the 17:44 mark of the period, a deflected shot in the Columbus end of the ice hit the safety netting behind the net and quickly rebounded back onto the ice directly in front of Columbus goalie Curtis McElhinney. The Blue Jackets claimed the puck and skated the other way.

There was a missed call here. Play should have been whistled dead when the puck hit the safety netting, regardless of the fact that it went right back into play.

For most of my active referee in the NHL, there was no safety netting atop the end glass. It was put in place following the death of a little girl struck with a puck in a game in Columbus. I am all favor of the added safety precaution, but it does create situations where pucks rebound back into play.

People have asked "how can all four officials on the ice miss the puck going over the glass and hitting the safety netting?"

The nets are different colors in different buildings. In some, the netting is nearly invisible so as to not to obscure the view of spectators in the stands behind the net. Also, from a referee's standpont, I know that the puck in the air was not something I looked for during the play. I told the linesmen to watch pucks going up and I would concentrate on the players, their sticks and elbows, etc.

That is not an excuse. Someone on the officiating team should have picked up on the puck leaving the playing surface and play whistled dead immediately. I'm simply explaining how and why such a call can be missed.

In this instance, no harm was done. Play simply continued without a whistle for over a minute until a goal was finally scored at the other end of the ice. This case was nothing like what happened last season when the Detroit Red Wings scored a crucial goal against the Los Angeles Kings when the puck pinballed off the safety netting, then off LA goalie Jonathan Quick and into the net.

That play, which was not subject to video review under the NHL rules at the time, resulted in a rule change for the 2014-15 season. While I am no fan of the NHL's so-called "Situation Room" system, I was and remain in favor of video reviews to determine whether a goal is scored legitimately. A bounce off the safety netting and subsequent deflection off a player into to net should absolutely be disallowed upon review if the call is missed on the ice.

In this case, the missed call on the puck that went out of play and directly back onto the ice had absolutely nothing to do with the goal scored 1:15 later. It was simply a live puck (see Rule 85.1).

As I understand it, the spirit of the new replay rules are designed to cover situations like the one that arose in the Detroit-LA game last season. Situations like the one on Saturday are not intended to be subject to review for something that happened long before the goal was scored.

It is NOT the same thing as a no-goal ruling (e.g., the referee rules the puck hit the post and stayed out) that is followed by another goal. In that instance, if a video review shows the initial goal was legal and the no-goal ruling is overturned, the second goal is wiped out regardless of which team scores it. The clock would then be reset to the point of the first goal.

Now, because of the clunky way the NHL Rulebook is worded and the vague explanation the league gave for the boundaries of the new replay rules, I suppose the definition of what's reviewable could have been stretched a few more seconds in the event that a goal was scored a few moments later in continuation of the puck coming back into play.

But 75 seconds later? No way. Once the puck exited the Columbus zone, the incorrect live-puck ruling was the lesser of two evils. It would been wrong to disallow a goal scored over a minute later -- regardless of which team scored it -- simply because there hadn't been a whistle in the interim.

Of course, that didn't stop outrageously biased Boston announcer Jack Edwards from going off on a lengthy rant, both while play was still underway and especially after Calvert scored, about how nothing that was taking place would ultimately count. Of course, once the Columbus goal was scored, poor Jack nearly had a nervous breakdown.

Had it been a Boston goal, Edwards would said something like, "Well, it's all good now!"and laughed in oddball fashion over how he was glad he was proven wrong about a much-belated goal being reviewable for the puck exiting the rink 75 seconds earlier. The combination of being wrong and having a goal go against Boston was just too much for poor Jack to take.




Listen: I respect the job that announcers do. I also realize that there is an expectation placed on local broadcasters to filter things through the lens of the team for whom they are employed to broadcast. Some do it better than others. Edwards takes things to such a ridiculous extreme that he has no credibility even when he makes a legitimate or semi-legitimate point.

I say this as objectively as I possibly can. I was fired as an NESN studio commentator for not being pro-Bruins in my commentary and, rather, calling things as I saw them. Specifically, the final straw was saying Kerry Fraser made the correct call on a penalty shot ruling that went against the Bruins.

You know what? I don't care. I believe loyalty is owed to the game and honesty is the best policy. In this case, I actually do agree with Edwards that a call was missed and play should have been stopped immediately on the ice long before the goal was scored at the other end of the ice.

It's the specifics of what happened afterwards, as well as his almost comically slanted rant after being embarrassed by the fact the next faceoff went directly to center ice without Toronto ordering a replay, that rendered Edwards' argument irrelevant.

The prime directive is to get the call right for the good of the game. In this case, there were two calls involved: one minor missed call (a puck out of play that did not immediately contribute to a scoring chance let alone a goal) and a major one (allowing or disallowing a goal).

In the end, the spirit of hockey prevailed in this case over the vagueness of the NHL Rule Book and the messy replay rules. Not even the Bruins were upset afterwards about the Calvert goal standing. It had nothing to do with the outcome and, to their credit, they realized that.

Only a complete twit would whine and carry on incessantly on over an overlooked technicality taking precedence over the game. Then again, perhaps Jack Edwards should change his surname to Lampwick because he's no stranger to looking like a jackass.

*********

Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games.

Today, Stewart is an officiating and league discipline consultant for the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) and serves as director of hockey officiating for the Eastern College Athletic Conference (ECAC).

The longtime referee heads Officiating by Stewart, a consulting, training and evaluation service for officials. Stewart also maintains a busy schedule as a public speaker, fund raiser and master-of-ceremonies for a host of private, corporate and public events. As a non-hockey venture, he is the owner of Lest We Forget.

In addition to his blogs for HockeyBuzz every Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, Stewart writes a column every Wednesday for the Huffington Post.