We should expect a correction on the point standings?...............four clowns in sripes all missed it............shyt happens but a bad show by the NHL.
If the puck got stuck in the netting then a wings fan throws a puck at Quick, then essentially they still would have called it a goal
- dprice818

no,move on.

no,move on.
- Jurco_28

Of course...........next game: Bruins. Shyt happens and Its nice to hear that the Wings aren't pulling a Clowe and denying that it happened the way it did.

no,move on.
- Jurco_28

The Red Wings had a very similar goal scored against them six years ago (Feb. 29, 2008) against the San Jose Sharks. Shot deflected into the netting, popped down right in front of the net, and Setoguchi buried it.

In truth I can sort of understand why that sort of play is not reviewable; it's hard to know where you draw the line. Tonight it went straight from the net to Quick's backside and in -- but what if, like the San Jose game, it landed near somebody's stick and was shot in? What if it had landed behind the net, the Red Wings recovered it, and made a few passes before scoring? Obviously all those plays should be blown dead as soon as the puck hits the net, but if the officials miss that initial call then how long should the "review window" last?

I disagree with Jason that the rulebook allows this kind of play to be reviewable. While the final paragraph is ambiguous and seems to allow the rule to be applied to various foreseen and unforeseen scenarios, I do not think the intent is to allow any and all play from the puck being dropped to the puck finding the back of the net to be reviewable. If the linesman misses an offside call and a goal is scored 3 seconds later, should that be reviewable? What about 10 seconds later? 15 seconds later? What if they miss a hand pass that leads to a goal? And so on and so forth.

In this instance the puck entered the goal in a legal manner (e.g., was not batted in with a high stick, was not kicked in, did not go in through a hole in the side of the net, etc.); that the play should have been whistled dead due to the puck going out of play is a completely separate matter.

That said, it's obviously a brutal miss by all four officials. Worst blown call I've seen in a long time, and it absolutely sucks when that happens to your team.

Worth noting that both teams handled this incident very professionally in the post-game comments.

The Red Wings had a very similar goal scored against them six years ago (Feb. 29, 2008) against the San Jose Sharks. Shot deflected into the netting, popped down right in front of the net, and Setoguchi buried it.

In truth I can sort of understand why that sort of play is not reviewable; it's hard to know where you draw the line. Tonight it went straight from the net to Quick's backside and in -- but what if, like the San Jose game, it landed near somebody's stick and was shot in? What if it had landed behind the net, the Red Wings recovered it, and made a few passes before scoring? Obviously all those plays should be blown dead as soon as the puck hits the net, but if the officials miss that initial call then how long should the "review window" last?

I disagree with Jason that the rulebook allows this kind of play to be reviewable. While the final paragraph is ambiguous and seems to allow the rule to be applied to various foreseen and unforeseen scenarios, I do not think the intent is to allow any and all play from the puck being dropped to the puck finding the back of the net to be reviewable. If the linesman misses an offside call and a goal is scored 3 seconds later, should that be reviewable? What about 10 seconds later? 15 seconds later? What if they miss a hand pass that leads to a goal? In this instance the puck entered the goal in a legal manner (e.g., was not batted in with a high stick, was not kicked in, did not go in through a hole in the side of the net, etc.); that the play should have been whistled dead due to the puck going out of play is a completely separate matter.

That said, it's obviously a brutal miss by all four officials. Worst blown call I've seen in a long time, and it absolutely sucks when that happens to your team.

Worth noting that both teams handled this incident very professionally in the post-game comments.
- Sven22

You can't tell me that four on ice officials all missed that? The rule needs to be readdressed.

If there is any question regarding a goal, it should be reviewed. End of story. We live in an age where we have access to every possible angle. Who cares if it prolongs the game an extra 10 minutes because of reviews. Tickets are overpriced anyway. I'll take the extra 10 minutes viewing experience. I'd rather leave a game knowing all of the calls were the rights ones instead of complaining about the bs i had to witness.

Just horrible. These refs should be held accountable for botched calls. Not only in this game but across the league.

[quote=dprice818]
I see your point, I think all goals should be reviewed, like the NFL's policy on TD's. What happens if this was the SCF's?.......the league would look second rate and could scare away potential new fans.

I see your point, I think all goals should be reviewed, like the NFL's policy on TD's. What happens if this was the SCF's?.......the league would look second rate and would be discredited by all potential new fans.
- dprice818

I would tend to agree, with some caveats.

The NFL isn't really a totally fair comparison because it's a set of discrete plays that take just a few seconds at a time. It's not so hard to say an entire touchdown play from a snap is reviewable, and if the refs missed someone stepping out of bounds or ruling a catch when it should have been incomplete, that they can go back and correct the mistake. Hockey is free flowing; it may have been minutes since the last face-off. How far back to you go when reviewing a scoring play?

That said, I think everybody wants common sense to prevail. This sort of goal absolutely should not count, and it looks extra ridiculous because the puck literally goes straight from the mesh to Quick's back and in. Hopefully there is some kind of tweaking that can be done that would allow this sort of play to be reviewable and reversible without opening up a giant can of worms.

EDIT: One partial solution might be to say that everything that happens between the puck last touching a player on the scoring team and entering the net is automatically reviewed. That obviously wouldn't stop something like the Setoguchi goal from 2008, but it would have overturned this particular goal.

I would tend to agree, with some caveats.

The NFL isn't really a totally fair comparison because it's a set of discrete plays that take just a few seconds at a time. It's not so hard to say an entire touchdown play from a snap is reviewable, and if the refs missed someone stepping out of bounds or ruling a catch when it should have been incomplete, that they can go back and correct the mistake. Hockey is free flowing; it may have been minutes since the last face-off. How far back to you go when reviewing a scoring play?

That said, I think everybody wants common sense to prevail. This sort of goal absolutely should not count, and it looks extra ridiculous because the puck literally goes straight from the mesh to Quick's back and in. Hopefully there is some kind of tweaking that can be done that would allow this sort of play to be reviewable and reversible without opening up a giant can of worms.
- Sven22

When a goal is scored and refs aren't sure they wait till a whistle and look back at film and make the correct call. If a goal was scored then everything that happens after is nullified. In this case after a quick look, make the right call and no harm to the integrity of the game. The way its handled affects the integrity of the game.

you mean to tell me all 4 zebras didn't following the puck! It dropped straight down on Quick's back!
- arh777

See Ryan Clowe stick on ice from bench. Referees and linemen need to follow the puck since most infractions occur there. Professional officials? HA!!! Heck, even Doughty had his stick pointing up before the puck fell back down and the officials couldn't see that either? Thanks Bettman or only hiring the "best". The best rejects.

- sushi

Is this directed at your coach's current public mental breakdown?

Basically, my point is this.

A "goal" is, essentially, any puck that crosses the goal line, between the posts while the net is not dislodged, and is not:

1) kicked in
2) batted in with a hand
3) batted in with a high stick
4) deflected in off an official.

By those standards, Kronwall's goal is legitimate. It matters not a whit that the play should have been blown dead when the puck hit the protective netting, just as it would have mattered not a whit if the goal was scored after a missed offside call. The fact that it happened immediately before the goal makes it much more agonizing, but conceptually it's no different than if the puck had gone out and the goal was scored 3 minutes later.

I think the rulebook was applied correctly here. The problem is that the refs blew the call. Moving forward, I would like to see the rulebook changed so that this kind of goal would be reviewable/overturnable; the trick is writing a rule that would apply to these sorts of common-sense scenarios without unintentionally creating more chaos than it prevents, by creating more ambiguity over what can be reviewed, and how far back the reviewer can look.

Brutal call, but lets all hope that the Wings now beat Toronto for the final playoff spot in the East by one point.

Here we go again with 'letter vs intent.' We all want the same thing: consistent and correct officiating. Who cares if the rules don't specify 'hitting the meshing' as one of the examples? It doesn't mention banking one off of the scoreboard either. Do the right thing and have the courage to take the necessary steps to make the right call.

Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wooooooooooooooooooow. What the actual sh!t?

You can't review THAT. Garage league.

NHL is an embarrassment, poorly officiated, poorly run. Every goal should be reviewable EVERY goal. Aww I've spent 20 years defending this sport, what a waste of time.

Sorry Kings fans, if that happened to my team 20 years ago, stuff gets broken.

I see your point, I think all goals should be reviewed, like the NFL's policy on TD's. What happens if this was the SCF's?.......the league would look second rate and could scare away potential new fans.
- dprice818

Bingo!!! Its bad enough we have 3rd period rules and playoff rules but they missed this??? How? Not reviewable. Give me a break.

Goal shouldn't have counted but this is as weird a goal as you can get. Sure pucks can hit the net and come back in play with a team picking it up and shooting it in to score but to hit the net, come off it right into the back of the goalie backing into his net, roll off his back into the net...the odds of that happening again are almost none. This will go down as one of the weirdest most fluky goals ever.

Sucks for the Kings for sure.

They actually can't review that in my mind. What if the pick hits the meshing at 19:30 left in the 3rd and no whistle stops play until 2:00 (highly unlikely but possible) and then someone scores. The NHL would not want a technicality to disallow the goal and reset the clock to 19:30.

Bad break for LA (and crappy deal for my Leafs who will be fighting Detroit for a playoff spot) but if the refs don't blow the play dead they can't roll the clock back even though it would only be a second or two.
- Steven_Dean

Yes...what if there were no whistles for 17 minutes.

Basically, my point is this.

A "goal" is, essentially, any puck that crosses the goal line, between the posts while the net is not dislodged, and is not:

1) kicked in
2) batted in with a hand
3) batted in with a high stick
4) deflected in off an official.

By those standards, Kronwall's goal is legitimate. It matters not a whit that the play should have been blown dead when the puck hit the protective netting, just as it would have mattered not a whit if the goal was scored after a missed offside call. The fact that it happened immediately before the goal makes it much more agonizing, but conceptually it's no different than if the puck had gone out and the goal was scored 3 minutes later.

I think the rulebook was applied correctly here. The problem is that the refs blew the call. Moving forward, I would like to see the rulebook changed so that this kind of goal would be reviewable/overturnable; the trick is writing a rule that would apply to these sorts of common-sense scenarios without unintentionally creating more chaos than it prevents, by creating more ambiguity over what can be reviewed, and how far back the reviewer can look.
- Sven22

You are (frank)ing high if you truly think that goal is anywhere near legitimate.

LOVE IT

You can't review THAT. Garage league.

NHL is an embarrassment, poorly officiated, poorly run. Every goal should be reviewable EVERY goal. Aww I've spent 20 years defending this sport, what a waste of time.

Sorry Kings fans, if that happened to my team 20 years ago, stuff gets broken.
- Sell My Monkey

This is from Kerry Fraser @kfraserthecall: Understandable for ref on goal line not to look back, up & away from action in front of net. Back officials can lose puck in dark clothing

But he also goes on to say that there's no way that goal should have counted but as far as the play goes Toronto can't review if it went out of play only if the puck crossed the goal line legally (which it did) as bad as it was and don't get me wrong I would be throwing things at the tv if this happenend to my team it was good to finally see a bounce go the wings way

Jason Lewis: Prepare To See the WORST Call of the Year
- Jason_Lewis

LEAGUE’S RESPONSE TO KRONWALL’S GOAL

From The Situation Room Blog on NHL.com:
At 19:33 of the third period in the Kings/Red Wings game, the puck crossed the Los Angeles goal line and, following a discussion between the four on-ice officials, the referees awarded a goal to Detroit. 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.

LEAGUE’S RESPONSE TO KRONWALL’S GOAL

From The Situation Room Blog on NHL.com:
At 19:33 of the third period in the Kings/Red Wings game, the puck crossed the Los Angeles goal line and, following a discussion between the four on-ice officials, the referees awarded a goal to Detroit. 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.


- arh777

"Coaches get fired, GMs get fired, but somebody's got to be held accountable." - Dean Lombardi

"Coaches get fired, GMs get fired, but somebody's got to be held accountable." - Dean Lombardi
- arh777

On being so close to a victory:
Yeah, that’s what I told our [players.] You know what? We got screwed. Right? It’s one-one going into the third. You know what? It’s like friggin’ tough rinks. We scored a power play goal late. They could see the puck when Dwight King covered it with his hand, but they couldn’t see it when it went over the barn and came back in. Hell, just think – if there wasn’t a net there, they could’ve caught it, thrown it back in, scored, and they still had time, and nobody would’ve seen it. What are you going to do at the outdoor game? What happens if it goes through a cumulus cloud and comes back down?…Like, what are they going to say? [Reporter: Is the beach volleyball court out of bounds?] That’s just embarrassing. That’s embarrassing. It shouldn’t even be that.

http://lakingsinsider.com...ame-quotes-darryl-sutter/