I can't really say anything but WOW. Unbelievable.

I'm not even going to explain it, just watch:



THAT'S RIGHT.

With 20 seconds left in a game in which the Kings led 2-1, a point shot deflected off a King player, hit the netting and came back down into play, hitting Jonathan Quick in the back and going in.

IT STOOD.

This play stood.

Know why? Because in the NHL rulebook it is a non-reviewable play because it does not fall under this list of reviewable plays. OR SO I THOUGHT. Here is the full list of reviewable plays. Fast forward to the bottom section.

38.4 Situations Subject to Video Review - The following situations are subject to review by the Video Goal Judge:

(i) Puck crossing the goal line.

(ii) Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being dislodged.

(iii) Puck in the net prior to, or after expiration of time at the end of the period.

(iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. See also 49.2.

(v) Puck deflected directly into the net off an Official.

(vi) Puck struck with a high-stick, above the height of the crossbar, by an attacking player prior to entering the goal. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.

(vii) To establish the correct time on the official game clock, provided the game time is visible on the Video Goal Judge’s monitors.

(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.

So essentially the refereeing crew could have reviewed it by letter of the law but opted not to because of some sort of interpretation. Not only do four grown men with good vision lose site of the puck, you have an entire team saying it went into the netting and another team sheepishly celebrating. But nope, they do not to review it. It is what it is the Kings were robbed of the extra point in a very tight Western Conference race. They are human, and mistakes will happen, especially with a so wonky worded rule exists in the book.

The NHL issued a statement after the game

The NHL said in a statement although "video of the play appears to show the puck hitting the protective mesh above the glass before deflecting off goaltender Jonathan Quick and into the Los Angeles net. While the Situation Room examined the video, this is not a reviewable play; therefore the referee's call on the ice stands."

Even if it is a play that is never reviewed or "not reviewable" the wording of said clause makes it seem as if it were.

Either the law is flawed or the interpretation of the law is flawed. Either way it is definitely not the finest moment for NHL officiating considering their own rulebook contradicts their statement.

The more I think about it the more I applaud the way this rule is written in the book. It is, in fact, the perfect fall back for ANY referee. Review it if you aren't sure. After all, any and all goals are subject to review to make sure they are good goals. What becomes more...almost infuriating is that the officials in both Toronto and on the ice don't seem to understand their own rulebook. For whatever reason it is accepted that that play was not reviewable, despite the rulebook stating otherwise.

If any of those officials skated over to the King bench or a King player and said, "You know what it looks like it did hit the net when I caught the replay on the jumbotron but sorry the play isn't reviewable." They were incorrect.

Follow me on twitter for news and notes about the Kings and the NHL

Follow @SirJDL


++++I AM CURRENTLY LOOKING FOR SPONSORS! If you, or anyone you know would be interested in sponsoring our blog here at HockeyBuzz then send me a PM!+++++