Paul Stewart: A Hole in the Replay Rules: The Safety Netting Goal

Paul Stewart: A Hole in the Replay Rules: The Safety Netting Goal
- Paul Stewart

Absolutely should have the leeway to wipe out a goal like that...otherwise, why have video review in the first place?

In a flyers game earlier this year. Agoal was s cored after the players assumed the play would be called dead after a puck hit the safety netting and stopped skating. Within about ten seconds the other team had stashed the puck into the net. Would the review process protect against a situation like this or just directly into the net off the safety netting?

I agree %100, the same thing is true with regard to penalties. The original intent of a penalty was to stop the offender from gaining an unfair advantage over their opponent in a game. It seems that over the past that thought process has been completely thrown out the window. More often than not teams look for a penalty to gain an advantage, not as a way of stopping an unfair advantage. In this case Detroit was given an unfair advantage by allowing an illegal goal to stand.
GET THE CALL RIGHT!

I agree %100, the same thing is true with regard to penalties. The original intent of a penalty was to stop the offender from gaining an unfair advantage over their opponent in a game. It seems that over the past that thought process has been completely thrown out the window. More often than not teams look for a penalty to gain an advantage, not as a way of stopping an unfair advantage. In this case Detroit was given an unfair advantage by allowing an illegal goal to stand.
GET THE CALL RIGHT!
- jtb3rd

This is why diving should be called a penalty, without also calling the trip/hold/hook that "occurred" as well.

This is why diving should be called a penalty, without also calling the trip/hold/hook that "occurred" as well.
- mehetmet

and the lame "puck leaving the defensive zone out of play", too many times this has been called when the player was just trying to ice the puck and it bounced or flipped on the player.

In a flyers game earlier this year. Agoal was s cored after the players assumed the play would be called dead after a puck hit the safety netting and stopped skating. Within about ten seconds the other team had stashed the puck into the net. Would the review process protect against a situation like this or just directly into the net off the safety netting?
- FlyersSteve118

Personally, I don't think that should be reviewable once the puck touches the ice again and play continues. Players are taught to play until there's a whistle. In the Detroit-LA situation, the puck never touched the ice again until it was in the net.

In those very rare situations like the one on Saturday, I agree with Paul that it should be reviewable.

Personally, I don't think that should be reviewable once the puck touches the ice again and play continues. Players are taught to play until there's a whistle. In the Detroit-LA situation, the puck never touched the ice again until it was in the net.

In those very rare situations like the one on Saturday, I agree with Paul that it should be reviewable.
- bmeltzer

I agree with you there. This is the same as a missed penalty or hand pass or high stick resulting in a goal. Just wondering how you word this kind of rule to discriminate between the two.

How about moving the safety netting back one foot leaveing a gap between the glass and the net. The puck would then drop in the stands instead of slingshot back on the ice. This will stop the confusion of "did it hit the mesh" and the puck won't cause injury because the velocity of the puck will be stopped by the net as the puck drops into the crowd.

Forget this reviewable vs. non-reviewable nonsense. The on-ice officials should be given the opportunity to review any play they want to see over again or from a different angle. Goals, offsides, highsticking penalties, puck out of play, any ruling they want. All it would take is a tablet at the timekeepers bench. If the goofs in Toronto see something they disagree with or have a different interpretation on a ruling they can call the timekeeper and ask that the next faceoff be delayed until they have discussed it with the on-ice official.

But it won't happen because the NHL would then be giving up more control to the on-ice officials, which impedes their ability to interfere with the outcome of games.

Personally, I don't think that should be reviewable once the puck touches the ice again and play continues. Players are taught to play until there's a whistle. In the Detroit-LA situation, the puck never touched the ice again until it was in the net.

In those very rare situations like the one on Saturday, I agree with Paul that it should be reviewable.
- bmeltzer

When a goal is scored without the referee seeing or calling it and play is allowed to continue, the situation is reviewed and corrected at the next stoppage in play. The clock gets reset back to the point the goal was scored and play that took place after the uncalled goal gets wiped out.

My reading of this section of 38.4 would mean that ALL goals (no matter how they are scored) are subject to review, just as ALL scoring play in the NFL are:

(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”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that enter the net undetected by the referee, etc.

My reading of this section of 38.4 would mean that ALL goals (no matter how they are scored) are subject to review, just as ALL scoring play in the NFL are:

(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”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that enter the net undetected by the referee, etc.
- scottak

This goal was scored legitimately. The puck went in the net by legitimate means. A shot that ricocheted off of something and off of the goalie and into the net by clearly crossing the goal line.

What needed to be reviewed was the fact that the puck should have been blown dead before it went in the net. And that is not something that can be reviewed.

This goal was scored legitimately. The puck went in the net by legitimate means. A shot that ricocheted off of something and off of the goalie and into the net by clearly crossing the goal line.

What needed to be reviewed was the fact that the puck should have been blown dead before it went in the net. And that is not something that can be reviewed.
- FlyersSteve118

In any court of law in the USA, you are incorrect. The goal was not scored legitimately. As soon as the puck touched the netting, any subsequent action is null and void. The gray area in the wording of the rule allows the NHL to review any goal at any time for any reason.

The NHL chose to make an interpretation of their own rule that would not stand up in any judicial hearing.

Forget this reviewable vs. non-reviewable nonsense. The on-ice officials should be given the opportunity to review any play they want to see over again or from a different angle. Goals, offsides, highsticking penalties, puck out of play, any ruling they want. All it would take is a tablet at the timekeepers bench. If the goofs in Toronto see something they disagree with or have a different interpretation on a ruling they can call the timekeeper and ask that the next faceoff be delayed until they have discussed it with the on-ice official.

But it won't happen because the NHL would then be giving up more control to the on-ice officials, which impedes their ability to interfere with the outcome of games.
- YeOldTimer

Leave it to a Canuck fan to go down this path...

In any court of law in the USA, you are incorrect. The goal was not scored legitimately. As soon as the puck touched the netting, any subsequent action is null and void. The gray area in the wording of the rule allows the NHL to review any goal at any time for any reason.
- scottak

Just what we need... lawyers taking up the case of hockey goals and leaving it to the courts to decide. This message was sponsored by the American Bar Association, .

As I wrote in the blog, the puck going out of play is NOT a reviewable call. Once the puck is ruled in play (or not ruled to be out of play), it's a live puck and what would be reviewable is whether the puck entered the net legally thereafter; which it did in going off the goaltender. This is a rulebook rationale, not what I think it ought to be.

What I think is that the introduction of the safety netting created a new wrinkle in potential goals being scored, and a slight amendment to the rules should make it clear that such plays such be dead pucks and a goal that results from a bounce off the safety netting should be disallowed. Then there is grounds for Chinese-takeout-dinner gang in Toronto to review whether it's a legal goal and then disallow it when they see on replay that it hit the safety netting.

Hey Stewwy, what about the issue of the official losing sight of the puck? Why wasn't the play ruled dead if 8 eyes lost sight of the puck? Something fishy going on.

Hey Stewwy, what about the issue of the official losing sight of the puck? Why wasn't the play ruled dead if 8 eyes lost sight of the puck? Something fishy going on.

Hey Stewwy, what about the issue of the official losing sight of the puck? Why wasn't the play ruled dead if 8 eyes lost sight of the puck? Something fishy going on.
- powerenforcer

Fishy, eh? It was simply a fluke play (pun intended) but I suppose that not everything that gets caught in a net is digestible .

Explained in latter part of the blog how such a call can be missed.

In any court of law in the USA, you are incorrect. The goal was not scored legitimately. As soon as the puck touched the netting, any subsequent action is null and void. The gray area in the wording of the rule allows the NHL to review any goal at any time for any reason.
- scottak

You seem to get what I am trying to explain. Its kind of hard to try and find the wording for it. The only thing that is review able is how the puck crosses the goal line.

Though the rule has been amended for kicking motions and high sticks so it needs to be amended for immediate bounces off of the safety netting. The only hard part to determine is how long after it hits the netting is the play review able?

Is it only the first bounce off the goalie? Until it hits the ice? Until a player plays the puck?

All of these are "blown" calls, but which are allowed to be checked through the review process if the rule is amended?

Fishy, eh? It was simply a fluke play (pun intended) but I suppose that not everything that gets caught in a net is digestible .

Explained in latter part of the blog how such a call can be missed.
- Paul Stewart

But you haven't answered the part about losing sight of the puck. Why wasn't the play blown dead by anyone who lost sight of the puck?