Do you want more discussions about expanded replay in sports, and especially in the NHL? Well, if you do, I have some good news for you because you are probably going to get a lot more of them after Columbus Blue Jackets forward Artemi Panarin scored a controversial goal in the first period of Game 4 against the Boston Bruins on Thursday night.
With the Blue Jackets trailing, 2-0, Panarin scored his fifth goal of the playoffs to cut the deficit in half and bring his team back into the game. The controversy comes due to the fact that before Panarin scored, the puck clearly hit the protective netting above the glass and fell back into play, a development that was missed by all four officials on the ice.
It was not missed by the Bruins, who immediately protested the non-call.
There were two problems for the Bruins.
First, that sort of play is not one their coaching staff could have challenged as coaches only have the ability to challenge plays for offside and goalie interference.
The other problem is that the Situation Room in Toronto can only get involved and call for a review of plays that hit the protective netting if it “immediately” results in a goal.
What does that mean?
Here is what the NHL rule book says:
“For pucks that hit the spectator netting undetected by the On-Ice Officials, “immediately” shall mean the following:
a) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and deflects directly into the goal off of any player;
b) When the puck strikes the spectator netting and falls to the ice and is then directed into the goal by the player who retrieves the puck.
In both of the above scenarios, the NHL Situation Room must have definitive video evidence of the puck striking the netting in order to disallow the goal.”
Neither of these situations apply to this goal, as the puck did not bounce directly into the net after hitting the spectator netting, and it was not scored by the player who immediately retrieved the puck (that would be Oliver Bjorkstrand). Once Bjorkstrand played the puck and passed it to Panarin in front, the Situation Room could not get involved to review the play.
This sort of thing has happened before, and oddly enough it actually happened between these same two teams in the same building back in 2014.
The Bruins aren’t going to be happy, and it is probably something that will be addressed over the summer as a potential addition to the replay system, but the current rule is pretty clear on what the replay system could and could not do on this particular play once it was missed by the on-ice officials.