clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

NHL's no-goal ruling on Joe Pavelski's tally is unconvincing

New, comments

This ruling doesn't make any sense.

Aaron Doster-USA TODAY Sports

For all six of you who didn't see Joe Pavelski's would-be game-winning goal waived off in overtime on Thursday, here's the video with an explanation on the call from the NHL. For those looking for something to read instead of something to listen to, check out this excerpt from the article.

At 7:34 of overtime in the Sharks/Predators game, the Situation Room initiated a review under the terms of a Coach's Challenge to review the "Interference on the Goalkeeper" decision that resulted in a "no goal" call.

After reviewing all available replays and consulting with NHL Hockey Operations staff, the Referee confirmed that San Jose's Joe Pavelski made incidental contact with Nashville goaltender Pekka Rinne before the puck crossed the goal line, preventing Rinne from doing his job in the crease.

Therefore the original call stands - no goal San Jose Sharks.

This is not a good call. Not a terrible call, not evidence of a conspiracy, but not the right call. Rinne moves outside the crease to make a play on the puck and then Paul Gaustad pushes Pavelski into the crease. Pavelski then makes a play on the puck after taking a shove right on his numbers. If nothing else, this play should have ended with a Sharks power play — in my opinion it should have ended the game.

Missing this call in real time is largely excusable; the game is moving quickly and officials have so much to watch for during a play. But I don't understand how this play, after a review, can be ruled a no goal. Pavelski did not initiate contact with Rinne, who had left his crease to make a save anyway. The NHL rewards Gaustad for making an illegal play and it makes the miss all the more glaring given the end result of Thursday's contest.

It would be unfair to pin the Sharks loss on this one call, but it certainly doesn't make it any easier to swallow.