Got a question on rule clarification, comments on rule enforcements or some memorable NHL stories? Kerry wants to answer your emails at email@example.com.
Thanks for your insight on some great situations! I don't always agree with your assessment but I appreciate it. My simple question is this; since when did goalie interference become a reviewable thing? During the Hawks-Kings game 1, Toews was driving the net, got a bounce off the skate of a d-man and the pucks goes in the net. As the puck is crossing the line, Toews gets a gentle nudge from said d-man falling onto Quick, even though he did everything but levitate to avoid him. Goal called good on-ice, Toronto calls no goal for goalie interference. While it didn't matter in the end, I'd still love to understand better. Thanks!
I would just like to have some clarification on this disallowed goal in the Los Angeles versus Chicago Western conference game #1. The call originally was called a goal. Then when reviewed they said that there was goalie interference. Isn't the rule you can't review goalie interference? And if they called it off because of goalie interference why was there not a penalty?
Can you tell me why Jonathan Toews' spectacular goal on Jonathan Quick was disallowed in second period today? There's no doubt there was contact, but Toews received a slight push in the back on the drive to the net. Even if there was a goal disallowed by contact, I thought that call had to be made by the on ice officials. It looked from the lengthy headset conference that the call was made by Toronto. What gives?
Jason, Jordan and Mike,
I can understand your confusion once referee Marc Joannette's initial decision to allow Jonathan Toews goal was reversed following discussion with the other members of the officiating crew and then a rather lengthy teleconference with the Situation Room personnel in Toronto. The correct protocol was implemented by the on-ice officials to determine that Toews' goal would be disallowed based on incidental contact with Jonathan Quick in the goal crease. The officials quickly gathered for a conference just 10 seconds after Joannette pointed into the net to signal the scoring of Toews' goal. The conference (protocol) became necessary because the other officials had important information to share with Joannette on how and why the puck entered the net illegally from their perspective.
This play was a classic case of incidental contact with the goalkeeper that should result in no goal and no penalty under Rule 69. Toews received a lead pass through a seam that required his abrupt hard left turn toward the crease for the Hawks captain to make a scoring attempt. Slava Voynov followed close behind in pursuit and used an active stick to separate Toews from the puck a split second before Quick, positioned fully within his blue paint, pushed his paddle toward the puck and made contact with Toews' skates at the edge of the crease.
In spite of the contact to his skates by Quick's goal stick, Toews was in too close and going too hard (momentum) to effectively stop or avoid contact with the goalkeeper, regardless of any effort to "levitate", Jason. Voynov placed his glove on the pants of Toews after the Hawk was in flight from contacting the goal stick with his skate. Toews made significant contact with Quick inside the crease, causing the goalkeeper to be knocked laterally and allowed the puck to enter the net off the skate of Voynov.
Referee Joannette was unable to observe these developments and render an initial decision on the goalkeeper interference, based on his position deep behind the goal line and against the end boards on the opposite side of the goal as Toews was attacking the net. By the time the referee had curled to the other side, the contact had long since taken place and the puck was in the net. Both linesmen rushed to the referee following his point toward the net and as Toews got up off the ice to celebrate. I am firmly convinced the goal was disallowed in the subsequent conference of officials, held at the timekeeper's bench, based on the accurate information provided by the other members of the crew to referee Joannette!
The system then broke down and needless confusion was created when the referee picked up the headset and engaged in a lengthy conversation with the Situation Room personnel in Toronto that lasted over a minute; even though interference on the goalkeeper is not reviewable. Beyond protocol, it is mandatory that the referee take the call when the headset is passed through the hole in the glass at the timekeeper's bench and when a disputed goal has been scored.
All goals are reviewed and Hockey Operations does need to be kept informed, since they have to answer questions from irate general managers (and on occasion owners). That part is reasonable and should be expected.
This unusual delay however gave Blackhawks coach Joel Quenneville, game broadcasters, members of the media and you (the fans) an impression that the call was reversed through video review. That impression is understandable because none of you have ever been on the other end of that headset nor have you had the direct line ring in the officials' dressing room between periods. Toronto wants to know every detail and control the process where they can.
If they could referee the game from 'mission control', I'm convinced they would. Since that is not yet an option the phone line is their best source to exert and maintain control.
The nature of this particular conversation however, should have been very brief and controlled by the referee. Joannette should have informed the caller on the other end of the line that, "following a conference of the four officials, it was determined that incidental contact with goalkeeper Quick by Toews took place prior to the puck entering the net. We have NO GOAL and NO PENALTY on the play!"
The ref should have then handed the headset through the hole in the glass, moved back from the side boards to his 'broadcast position', clicked on his microphone and made the exact same announcement to the hockey world that was waiting patiently for the referee's decision.