Was David Backes' Second Goal Against Jets A Good One? Yes.

As I was reading The Hockey News' game recap this morning, I noticed an interesting quote from Paul Maurice. It was in reference to this goal from David Backes, his second of the game:

"I don't think that game should have gone to 3-1," Maurice said. "I don't think that's an automatic goal. I don't think it's a slash. He goes down, maybe they locked feet. But it's not unimpeded progress. That game should be still 2-1 in my mind.

"But 2-1 is still a deficit for us."

Interesting quote. First off, ok, that probably isn't a slash. I will give Maurice that. However, the "maybe they locked feet" part is, in fact, impeded progress.Jacob Trouba locking Backes' feet up and causing him to trip and fall is in fact an impediment.

The NHL Rulebook has this to say:

25.1 Awarded Goal – A goal will be awarded to the attacking team when the opposing team has taken their goalkeeper off the ice and an attacking player has possession and control of the puck in the neutral or attacking zone on, without a defending player between himself and the opposing goal, and he is prevented from scoring as a result of an infraction committed by the defending team (see 26.3 Infractions – When Goalkeeper is Off the Ice, below).

25.3 Infractions – When Goalkeeper is Off the Ice – Refer to the Reference Tables – Table 14 – Summary of Awarded Goals (When Goalkeeper has been Removed for an Extra Attacker) for a list of the infractions that shall result in an awarded goalbeing awarded when the goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker (see specific rule numbers for complete descriptions).

What does that table list?

So, to conclude, Backes was tripped up on his way to the goal, which lead to the impeded progress, which lead to the empty net goal. It might not happen often, but that doesn't mean that it's incorrect when it does. Sorry, Paul.