Skip to main content

Headlines

Situation Room

Coach's Challenge: ANA @ SJS - 9:44 of the 1st Period

Good goal Anaheim Ducks

NHL.com @NHL

Situation Room: ANA vs. SJS

Situation Room: Garbutt's goal stands after review

The Sharks challenge for goaltender interference after Ryan Garbutt's goal is deemed a good goal on the ice, but after review, the call stands

  • 01:43 •

At 9:44 of the first period in the Ducks/Sharks game, San Jose requested a Coach's Challenge to review whether Anaheim's Ryan Garbutt interfered with San Jose goaltender Martin Jones prior to his goal. 

After reviewing all available replays and consulting with NHL Hockey Operations staff, the Referee confirmed that the actions of San Jose's Brent Burns caused Garbutt to contact Jones before the puck crossed the goal line. The decision was made in accordance with Note 2 of Rule 78.7 (ii) which states, in part, that the goal on the ice should be allowed because "the attacking Player was pushed, shoved or fouled by a defending Player causing the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper."

Therefore the original call stands - good goal Anaheim Ducks

Since the Coach's Challenge did not result in the original call being overturned, the San Jose Sharks forfeit their time-out

--- 

Coach's Challenge 
1. A team may only request a Coach's Challenge to review the following scenarios: 

a) "Off-Side" Play Leading to a Goal 
A play that results in a "GOAL" call on the ice where the defending team asserts that the play should have been stopped by reason of an "Off-Side" infraction by the attacking team. 

b) Scoring Plays Involving Potential "Interference on the Goalkeeper" 

(i) A play that results in a "GOAL" call on the ice where the defending team asserts that the goal should have been disallowed due to "Interference on the Goalkeeper," as described in Rules 69.1, 69.3 and 69.4; or 

(ii) A play that results in a "NO GOAL" call on the ice despite the puck having entered the net, where the on-ice Officials have determined that the attacking team was guilty of "Interference on the Goalkeeper" but where the attacking team asserts: (i) there was no actual contact of any kind initiated by an attacking Player with the goalkeeper; or (ii) the attacking Player was pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending Player causing the attacking Player to come into contact with the goalkeeper; or (iii) the attacking Player's positioning within the goal crease did not impair the goalkeeper's ability to defend his goal and, in fact, had no discernible impact on the play. 

2. A team may only request a Coach's Challenge if they have their time-out available and the Coach's Challenge must be effectively initiated prior to the resumption of play. 

3. If the Coach's Challenge does not result in the original call on the ice being overturned, the team exercising such challenge will forfeit its time-out. 

4. If the Coach's Challenge does result in the call on the ice being overturned, the team successfully exercising such challenge will retain its time-out.

View More