The Call On The Ice Stands

With the Edmonton Oilers and Anaheim Ducks battling into overtime last night, we saw the overtime game-winning goal scored by Anaheim called into question for a couple of reasons. Having watched the video over and over, I am convinced the NHL got the call right despite what Oilers fans and opinionated columnists think, but there seems to be a false consensus reached by those fans and columnists that the goal shouldn't be counted because Jarry's skate partially covered the puck. The problem with that reason is it's clearly wrong to the naked eye.

As shown in the image above, Oilers supporters aren't wrong in that Jarry's skate blade was covering the top of the puck. Because his skate covered both the goal line and the top of the puck, there was some question as to whether the puck fully crossed the line as the NHL requires "definitive proof" that a good goal had been scored.

Adding fuel to the fire was that none of the on-ice officials were in a position to see the goal when it was scored. They would confer after awarding Anaheim the goal, and I assume they came to an agreement there was no reason not to award the goal. Again, the image below shows where each official was standing when the goal was scored.

As we know, every goal scored in overtime gets reviewed, but this one needed to be called in by the on-ice officials. The Situation Room in Toronto would need "conclusive evidence" that the puck did not cross the line if they were to overturn the goal. This is from where all the controversy stems because the Situation Room ruled that the goal was good, the call on the ice would stand, and Anaheim would skate off with a 4-3 overtime victory in their pocket. All good, right?

Well, debate raged into the night on the Sportsnet broadcast, journalists and bloggers were already picking sides with their keyboards, and fans from both teams were already forming opinions on the goal, the NHL's handling of the goal, and any other conspiracies that were being imagined. However, it's clearly visible that the NHL got this call right despite the concerns because the puck's physical traits don't change throughout the entire game.

All hockey pucks used by the NHL are three inches in diameter. They are circles without any deformations that make them oblong or egg-shaped nor do they have any random protrusions that extend outside of their circumference. You can argue all you want about Jarry's skate obstructing the puck and goal line, but it seems pretty clear from the image to the right that the puck did cross the line entirely. Unless the puck developed some incredible irregularity after hitting Darnell Nurse's skate before sliding under Tristan Jarry, common sense and visual proof says that the NHL's Situation Room made the right call by upholding the "good goal" call made by the officials on the ice.

This argument that there isn't definitive proof that the puck crossed the line is the new "skate in the crease" controversy. It's very clear that the puck is across the line despite Jarry's skate obstructing the top of the puck, and most kindergarten students would tell you the puck crossed the line. If anyone wants to believe otherwise, that's baggage one will have to carry on one's own because Anaheim scored in overtime to win the game based on the visual evidence shown.

Of course, the NHL could simply pull its head out of the sand and start looking around when it comes to solving these kinds of problems. The Swiss National League solved this issue a while ago when they introduced a second, smaller line inside the net that's exactly the diameter of one regulation-sized puck away from the goal line. If any puck touches the second line, there is no controversy because it has to be a goal based on simple math and geometry. This two-line system has never failed in Switzerland when it comes to reviewing goals because the premise is simple: did the puck touch the second line at any point? If the answer is yes, the goal is awarded.

People will double-down on the idea that humans are falliable when it comes to judging whether a puck touched a line, but the system works. Reviews are quick and easy because it's a simple question to answer: did the puck touch the second line? If you want to blame human eyesight for a wrong call at that point, we might as well just stop playing the games and simulate them all through EA Sports' NHL video games. Athletes are people, officials are people, and people make mistakes. The goal here is to limit the number of mistakes by giving officials clear ways to determine if a goal is scored or not.

Whatever your feelings are towards the disputed goal, the fact remains that Anaheim leads 3-1 in their series over Edmonton with three chances to close out the series. You can say this goal changed the dynamics of the series which is debatable, but there are bigger problems that the Oilers need to address if they're going to make a third-straight Stanley Cup Final. One goal awarded correctly is not going to be the sole reason they're golfing earlier this year.

Until next time, keep your sticks on the ice!