With the Maple Leafs facing elimination in Game 5 of their series with the Panthers, the NHL got its latest playoff controversy. Late in the second period, with the Leafs trailing 2-1, they seemed to tie it up on a nice rush by Morgan Rielly.
As you’ll see from the replay, the initial celebration turns out to be in vain, after a replay review to determine whether the puck ever actually crossed the goal line.
Advertisement
So was it in? It sure seems like it.
When you add up the evidence, that’s the most likely conclusion. Start with the reactions of the players, who have a better view of things than just about any camera. Rielly celebrates immediately, as do John Tavares, Mitch Marner and Ryan O’Reilly. Sure, they could be faking it, but the natural instinct for attacking players is to dig for a puck rather than try to pull off a spontaneous gaslighting. The Panthers sure look like a team that knows it’s in too.
But fine, put that aside. You can see Rielly tuck the puck under Sergei Bobrovsky’s pad, and from the front angle, you can see where — right under the red part of his pad. Almost immediately after, that part of the pad is in the net. Could the puck have shifted to his skate or somewhere else by then? Maybe, although the physics don’t seem to make much sense. Instead, we can apply some common sense and say that the puck was tucked under Bobrovsky’s pad, it was over the goal line at some point, and almost everyone on the ice knew it.
So should it have counted? Unfortunately for the Maple Leafs, that’s a different question.
You may have spotted that “almost” that I tacked onto the part about how everyone knew it was in. That’s because the referee behind the net, Jean Hebert, didn’t signal a goal. He didn’t emphatically wave it off either; he just kind of stared at it. That’s frustrating, but it’s not necessarily wrong — we don’t want refs calling what they don’t see, and if Hebert truly doesn’t know if the puck is in then it’s not his job to pretend otherwise. But after consulting with the other officials, the call on the ice was no-goal. And once that was the case, the odds of the call going the Leafs’ way plunged.
The rulebook is fairly clear on a disputed play like this. First of all, it’s not a challenge — the review comes from the war room, not either team’s bench. And once it’s initiated, they need to be able to see a view where the puck is completely over the line. It doesn’t have to be there for long; even one frame is enough. But unless it’s a situation where there’s just no other possibility (like a puck that’s clearly in a goalie’s trapper, which is all the way over the line), they need that frame.
Advertisement
Tonight, they couldn’t find it. The review took forever, and we got multiple angles, including some that were zoomed in. The evidence that the puck was in just wasn’t there.
Or was it? Leaf fans will be screaming about this image:
creds: @ice_chip pic.twitter.com/dn5O9GOzyN
— Mike Stephens (@mikeystephens81) May 13, 2023
That’s pretty conclusive — that puck is definitely all the way over the line. But it’s deceptive because it’s taken after Bobrovsky stands up. The play is over by this point and has been for a while. Note that it’s not a case where Bobrovsky’s movement reveals that the puck was past the line all along. Instead, the goalie himself very clearly nudges the puck over the line before kicking it back out again. If you’re looking for evidence, this isn’t it.
And you do need that clear evidence because the rulebook is specific that the call on the ice stands without it. The balance of probability isn’t enough. You need to know for sure. We don’t always see that standard upheld on things like offside review and goalie interference, but on go/no-goal situations, the league has been fairly consistent over the years.
If you want to make the case for reversing the no-goal call based on video evidence, this is probably your best look:
THAT'S IN MAN pic.twitter.com/c5V73jwMZ5
— x – round 2 liz🌻 (@lizskeeley) May 13, 2023
That’s close. We won’t get into the whole parallax view mess, but a neutral fan looking at that clip probably says the puck is in. But again, “close” and “probably” aren’t conclusive.
Finally, there’s the question of continuity. A goal can still count even if the whistle has gone as long as the play is continuous. This is a confusing rule, but we’ve seen it called a few times this postseason. But it doesn’t really apply here either. You certainly can’t call the late shot of Bobrovsky’s skate pushing the puck in as continuous, as he’s getting up after the play is over. And according to the league, the second push by Rielly’s stick on Bobrovsky’s pad would have prevented the play from being ruled continuous. (It also could have made the play challengeable for goaltender interference, which would have been a whole new mess.)
Advertisement
Bottom line: Did the Maple Leafs get screwed? By the refs, no. By luck and circumstances? Probably, but once the call on the ice was no-goal, the league got it right according to their own process and rulebook.
(Photo: Chris Young / The Canadian Press via AP)
ncG1vNJzZmismJqutbTLnquim16YvK57k25obm1gbXxzfJFsZmltX2Z%2FcLnAqaOeZZyarqe%2FjKmYp6yYmr%2B0ec2oZKCnkaF8