Skip to Main Content

Situation Room Blog

by Staff
Video Review - Pittsburgh at Detroit, 1:39 of third period
05.31.2009 / 10:17 PM ET

Hockey Operations determined that the shot by Sidney Crosby did not cross the Red Wings' goal line.  No goal.

New Record set- Carolina at Pittsburgh, 1:51 of first period
05.21.2009 / 9:20 PM ET

Sidney Crosby tied an NHL playoff record with his sixth game-opening goal of the 2009 playoffs (1:51 of the first period).  The record was originally set by Bobby Hull of the Chicago Blackhawks in 1962 and tied by Fernando Pisani of the Edmonton Oilers in 2006. 

Video Review - Boston at Carolina, 2:01 of first period

05.12.2009 / 7:30 PM ET

NHL Hockey Operations reviewed the play to determine if there was a distinct kicking motion by Boston forward Mark Recchi. The video review determined that the puck was not kicked therefore the call on the ice for good Boston goal stands. The displacement of the net was not subject to review because the officials call on the ice was that if the net had been displaced prior to the puck crossing the goal line, the net was displaced by a Carolina player and therefore the goal would have been awarded (Rule 63.6).

Video Review - Anaheim at Detroit, 4:01 of 2nd period

05.10.2009 / 6:13 PM ET

NHL Hockey Operations reviewed the play to determine if Detroit's Jiri Hudler struck the puck with a highstick prior to the puck going into the net.  Video review was conclusive that the puck was not struck with a highstick. Good goal.

Video Review - Carolina at Boston, 19:58 of 2nd period
05.03.2009 / 09:18 PM ET

Hockey Operations reviewed the shot by Carolina's Larose to see if the puck was entirely across the goal line.   The referee's call on the ice was no goal - therefore video review needed to determine conclusively that the puck was over the line.   Video review determined that it was inconclusive as to whether the puck crossed the goal line in its entirety - no goal. 

Video Review: Anaheim at Detroit - 14:00 of the first period
05.03.2009 / 02:38 PM ET

Hockey Operations used video review to determine if Detroit player Stuart used a distinct kicking motion (the fact that the puck bounced off  Anaheim defenseman Wisniewski before going in the net is not a factor - Rule 49.2 states  "A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team shall be ruled no goal").  The decision of Hockey Ops was that Stuart did not use a distinct kicking motion - Good goal.  

Video Review: Carolina at New Jersey - 3:42 of the second period
04.28.2009 / 08:45 PM ET

The play was reviewed by NHL Hockey Operations to determine if the puck was kicked in with a distinct kicking motion by Carolina forward Ray Whitney... the review determined that there was no distinct kicking motion. Call on the ice stands - good goal Carolina.

Video Review: Anaheim at San Jose - 6:02 of overtime
04.26.2009 / 01:05 AM ET

Play was reviewed to determine if the puck crossed the goal line into the Anaheim net in a legal fashion... The review determined that the puck crossed the goal line in a legal fashion.

Video Review: Calgary at Chicago - 6:14 of the 2nd Period
04.25.2009 / 10:19 PM ET

Play was reviewed to determine if the puck had been kicked into the Calgary net by Chicago forward Andrew Ladd … Review determined that the puck entered the net in a legal fashion - good goal.

Video Review - NY Rangers at Washington -  14:57 of first period
04.24.2009 / 7:35 PM ET

Video review confirmed the referee's call on the ice that Washington's Mike Green struck the puck with his stick above the height of the crossbar - no goal.

Stoppage of play, San Jose vs. Anaheim
04.24.2009 / 12:05 AM ET

The stoppage at 9:44 of the second period of the San Jose vs. Anaheim game was due to a broken pane of glass between the players bench.

Interpretation of penalty call, Detroit vs. Columbus, 18:26 of third period
04.23.2009 / 10:49 PM ET

Rule 74.1 from NHL Rule Book: Too Many Men on the Ice -If in the course of making a substitution, either the player entering the game or the player (or goalkeeper) retiring from the ice surface plays the puck with his stick, skates or hands or who checks or makes any physical contact with an opposing player while either the player entering the game or the retiring player is actually on the ice, then the infraction of “too many men on the ice” will be called.

Video Review – Philadelphia vs. Pittsburgh – 8:26 of the second period
04.23.2009 / 8:23 PM ET

Play was reviewed to determine if the puck had been kicked into the Philadelphia net by the Pittsburgh player … Review determined that the puck was propelled by a distinct kicking motion off Malkin’s skate and didn't not touch any skater's stick before entering the net  - no goal.

Here is Rule 39.4 in the NHL Rule Book explaining what potential goal situations are subject to review by the Video Goal Judge:  
04.22.2009 / 7:05 PM ET

(i)  Puck crossing the goal line.
(ii)  Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being dislodged.
(iii)  Puck in the net prior to, or after expiration of time at the end of the period.
(iv)  Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL.
(v)  Puck deflected directly into the net off an Official.
(vi)  Puck struck with a high-stick, above the height of the crossbar, by an attacking player prior to entering the goal. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.
(vii)  To establish the correct time on the official game clock, provided the game time is visible on the Video Goal Judge’s monitors.
(viii)  The video review process shall be permitted to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”).

NHL Sr. Vice President Mike Murphy addresses several topics
04.22.2009 / 4:41 PM ET

On the deciding goal in Game 4 of the New Jersey-Carolina Series: "Marty (Brodeur of New Jersey) does come out of the net, probably trying to cut down the angle. And (Carolina's Jussi) Jokinen is going to the net. And there's a collision. I would call it incidental contact. And that's what the referee deemed it to be. And the puck went in the net.

"The refs do the best they can to protect the goalies in the blue ice (the goal crease). If they (opposing players) are in the blue ice, the referees are instructed to take care of the goalies, let them do their job. Once they (goalies) step outside the blue, I don't want to say they're fair game, because they're not. But (if) there is contact in the white (ice) and if it's deemed to be accidental, which was the case last night, then that's a good goal.

"Referees get one quick look at this play and have to make a judgment on it. And the people who run our game – the owners, the managers and even the players – they want the referees to make the calls on the ice and the game to stay on the ice. We want to do as little video review as we can. That's kind of the feeling through all of hockey. And I think it's a healthy one. We're very strict in what we're able to review and we stick to it."

On the role Hockey Operations played in whether there was interference on the goaltender: "Really, no role at all. A lot of people still think we can review that and we can't. So we just step aside."

On hooking penalties assessed when a player's stick comes parallel to the ice: "There are going to be plays in a game where we don't like the call, you don't like the call, the fans don't like the call. But the call is made because we've been instructed to prevent players from putting sticks on other players . . . They (the NHL GMs) don't want the game going back to the hooking and the holding and the blocking and the interference that there was in the late '90s and into the 2000s . . . They say, 'We don't like the call. But we'll live with it because the game is way better and way faster. The small, skilled player is able to survive.'

"It might not please a lot of people, but that's the truth. We don't just arbitrarily decide: 'This is a good call.' We know there are some calls that aren't the greatest. But this is the direction we've been given. And I think it's worked.

"I think the game is outstanding. It's skillful. It's fast. You can come from behind. The fact that the Devils came back from a 3-0 deficit tells me that this game works. It's an entertaining, exciting game. And I'm not so sure it was that way going back to pre-lockout."

Interpretation of goalie interference rule: New Jersey at Carolina - 19:59 of the third period
04.21.2009 / 10:34 PM ET

The NHL's goalie interference rule sets a mandate to protect the goalie in the blue ice – to let the goalie do his job. In the white ice, it is a more delicate matter, including who moved into whom. The referee has one split-second look at it and it is a judgment call. NHL Hockey Operations has no video review capacity in this instance.  Hockey Operations officials agreed with the call on the ice, that it looked like the goalie, Martin Brodeur, moved out toward the skater.

Video Review: New Jersey at Carolina - 19:59 of the third period
04.21.2009 / 10:04 PM ET

Play was reviewed to determine if the shot by Carolina's Jokinen crossed the line before time expired in the third period... the review determined that the puck crossed the line with 00.2 seconds left - good goal for Carolina.

Video Review: Vancouver at St. Louis - 18:05 of the second period
04.21.2009 / 09:51 PM ET

The play was put under review by NHL Hockey Operations but the referee communicated to the video room that he had whistled the play dead before the puck crossed the line, the call on the ice stands - no goal for St. Louis.

Video Review: Vancouver at St. Louis - 13:43 of the first period
04.21.2009 / 08:46 PM ET

Play was reviewed to determine if the puck crossed the goal line... Review determined that the puck struck Vancouver defenseman Alexander Edler's skate and did not cross the goal line - no goal.

Video Review - Pittsburgh at Philadelphia - 3:19 of the second period
04.21.2009 / 08:19 PM ET

Play was reviewed to determine if the puck was batted in by the glove of Pittsburgh forward Sidney Crosby... the review determined that the puck went off of Crosby's stick, then his body, there was no batting motion - call on the ice for good goal stands.

Video Review - Chicago vs. Calgary – 5:24 of the third period
04.20.2009 / 11:44 PM ET

No formal review was necessary at 5:24 of the third period as there was no kicking motion from Calgary’s Moss.  Good Goal as called on the ice.

Video Review - Vancouver at St. Louis - 14:43 of the third period 
04.19.2009 / 9:40 PM ET

The delay at 14:43 of the 3rd period was the result of NHL Hockey Operations taking time to determine that the puck did not cross the line during the scramble in front of the Vancouver net.

Video Review – St. Louis vs. Vancouver - 12:59 of the second period
04.17.2009 / 11:23 PM ET

Play was reviewed to determine if the puck was batted in by the glove of Vancouver’s Burrows … Review determined that was the case … Call on ice stands - no goal.


Video Review - Carolina vs. New Jersey - 10:18 of 1st period
04.17.2009 / 08:01 PM ET

Play was reviewed to determine if the stick was higher than the cross bar .. Review determined that the call on the ice was correct .. puck was directed into the net with a stick that was above the crossbar. -  no goal

Colin Campbell remarks from The Situation Room:
04.17.2009 / 01:38 PM ET

On the suspension of Philadelphia's Dan Carcillo: "With six seconds left, you have a player who never kills penalties, a player who never takes faceoffs, coming out on a five-on-three (manpower disadvantage) and doing what he did – a repeat offender. So there are a number of criteria there that satisfy doing what we had to do ... I don't want to filter everything out of the game. But we want to take the dumb stuff out of the game."

On the events at the end of Boston-Montreal Game 1: "People take things out of different incidents last night (and say:) 'Oh boy! Same thing (as Philadelphia-Pittsburgh)! How many games are you going to suspend him?' You've got to let the games unfold. You've got to let hockey be hockey, playoffs be playoffs. You've got to let the energy flow. And then, when they cross that line, you do what you have to do."

On hit by Calgary's Mike Cammalleri on Chicago's Martin Havlat: "When Cammalleri hit Havlat, there was a lot of risk to doing that. He took a two-minute penalty in a game where there could have been ramifications for doing that. But there are no ramifications when you're losing 4-1 with six seconds left."

On Martin Havlat's winning goal for Chicago: "Things in hockey or in life never happen in slow motion or in replays. They happen live ... When the foot-in-the-crease rule was taken out – one of the worst rules in hockey – it was taken out with a couple of factors in mind: One was that there are two referees now and one is always around the net. He gets a good look at what's happening and he makes a judgment. Quickly. He's there to protect the goalie in the blue, but also to let hockey happen. And he's got to understand whether a guy was pushed by another player or whether he went in there on his own. And when the puck goes in the net, he's got to decide whether this was just incidental contact – allow the goal, no penalty – or (whether) it was contact made on purpose and take the goal down and give the player a penalty. In this case, he made a judgment call. And if he had made it the other way, you would have heard lots of arguments from the Chicago side. It's one those plays where you're going to get dissatisfaction one way or the other."

Video Review - Philadelphia vs. Pittsburgh - 4:41 of 1st period
04.14.2009 / 07:26 PM ET

Play was reviewed to determine if the net was in proper position and if there was a distinct kicking motion ... Review determined that Sidney Crosby touched the puck with his stick prior to puck crossing the line and the net was on its pegs - good goal.

Get the scoop from Toronto
04.14.2009 / 03:07 PM ET

You have arrived at the Situation Room Blog -- the place you want to be every night of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Starting Wednesday, reports instantly from inside the League's Hockey Operations situation room in Toronto, where Hockey Ops reviews and decides disputed goals. Plus, find out the "why" behind those calls. You get the NHL's official ruling first--here at the Situation Room Blog. See you Wednesday night!


View More

The NHL has updated its Privacy Policy effective January 16, 2020. We encourage you to review it carefully.

The NHL uses cookies, web beacons, and other similar technologies. By using NHL websites or other online services, you consent to the practices described in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy.