Follow Paul on Twitter: @PaulStewart22
It's deja vu.... all over again. Four-plus years ago, there was a game between the Boston Bruins and Columbus Blue Jackets in which Columbus (Matt Calvert, in this case) scored a goal after a puck went into the safety netting (at the other end of the ice roughly 75 seconds earlier, in the former case).
Since the first situation happened in a late December game, the controversy was soon forgotten. This time around, it happened in a playoff game and the goal was scored by Artemi Panarin off a pass from Oliver Bjorkstrand a moment after the puck went into the taut netting above the end boards.
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 was taught that the linesmen are to watch airborne pucks would the referee concentrates on the netfront area players, their sticks, 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 at the speed of live play.
There is also a Rule Book conundrum as pertains to the video review allowances for such situations.
On the one hand, there is a broad allowance specified in Rule 38.4 (ix): (ix)
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”). It then says the examples
include but are not limited to pucks that hit the spectator netting before being directed immediately into the net (note: bolded and underlined emphasis is mine).
On the other hand, the instruction later in the very same rule book section is very specific and limited as pertains to reviews for goals on plays where puck goes off the netting:
For pucks that hit the spectator netting undetected by the On-Ice Officials, “immediately” shall mean the following: a) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and deflects directly into the goal off of any player; b) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and falls to the ice and is then directed into the goal by the player who retrieves the puck.
So which is it? Are all potential goals reviewable for their legitimacy or not? Why does a single touch pass by the retrieving attacker to a wide-open teammate amidst the confusion magically transform the goal from reviewable (and overturnable) to unreviewable?
There is zero logic to this. And if the Panarin goal had been the deciding goal of the game, we'd REALLY have a controversy on our hands. Andy van Hellemond used to say that sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.
The Rule Book really needs an edit for clarity and organizational flow. Every time one of these situations pops up, it brings me back to the days when I'd sit in meetings and someone would ask "Does this rule read the way it really ought to read?" The league had a guy who was from Dartmouth College and a guy who was from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Which one's clarity of expression and depth of thought do you suppose was more often reflected in the wording?
Secondly, and briefly, here are my two cents on the Brad Marchand punch to the back of Scott Harrington's head. It was not worth a suspension in this case. It was worth an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty had it been spotted by an official.
In the big picture, it showed once again that a snake might shed its skin but it's still a snake. Marchand has supposedly been working hard at moving beyond his penchant for cheap and dirty plays, and kept his nose relatively clean this year. That does NOT mean, however, that officials should ever take their eyes off him. Given the opportunity and an unsuspecting, vulnerable opponent, he will still deliver a cheap shot. It's his nature as a hockey player, and he showed yet again that his nature is never going to completely change.
The next time there is a marginal penalty committed by Marchand, he can think back to that cowardly little punch to the back of Harrington's head as one he got away with. He deserves no benefit of the doubt. As for the next time Marchand does something that's actually suspension-worthy -- it's only a matter of time, because he can't help himself -- he deserves no leniency.
*************
A Class of 2018 inductee to the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame, 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.
Visit Paul's official website, YaWannaGo.com.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»