clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Canucks' Goal Allowed After Whistle Blown: Right Call?

New, comments

It looked like a no goal until it was a good goal.

Anne-Marie Sorvin-USA TODAY Sports

So, this happened in the second period tonight:

Should it've counted?

It's commonly assumed that once that whistle blows (or once someone thinks about blowing it), the play is dead and any goals afterward do not count. This year the NHL instituted this rule change:

* Rule 38.4 (viii) has been modified to allow broader discretion to Hockey Operations to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g., to ensure they are "good hockey goals"). The revised Rule will allow Hockey Operations to correct a broader array of situations where video review clearly establishes that a "goal" or "no goal" call on the ice has been made in error. The new expanded rule will also allow Hockey Operations to provide guidance to referees on goal and potential goal plays where the referee has blown his whistle (or intended to blow his whistle) after having lost sight of the puck.

The issue here is that once that whistle blows, at least one team probably will stop playing, so this new rule could potentially allow one team to score a good goal while the other team believes that play is dead.

The rub comes here:

So, hockey ops determined that the original shot by Jannik Hansen never ceased moving, and that shot happened before the whistle. If the play would've happened after the whistle, then the goal would not've counted. Since the shot happened before the whistle, it did. Allen should've had it, and the ref needed to be aware of where the puck was before he blew the whistle. The blame, though, doesn't lie on the ref or on hockey ops. Allen needed to have that puck controlled.