Why Madden's winning goal counted

On Sunday, an inconclusive video review hurt the Devils on the go-ahead goal in a 4-3 loss in Anaheim.

Tonight, an inconclusve replay ruling led to John Madden's rebound goal with 8:41 remaining standing up as the game-winner in a 2-1 victory over the Columbus Blue Jackets.

The issue on Madden's goal wasn't whether the puck crossed the goal line. It was when the left post came loose from its mooring.

The Blue Jackets thought it came off before Madden knocked in the rebound of David Clarkson's wraparound, Referee Don Koharski ruled that it did not. The video review at the NHL war room in Toronto came up inconclusive because they could not tell the exact moment the left post came loose.

"The referee's call on the ice was 'good goal,'" NHL Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations Mike Murphy said in an e-mail. "The Toronto Video Room reviewed the play to determine if the net was completely off its pegs before the puck crossed the goal line [under Rule 78.5 (x)]......after reviewing the play we could not conclusively determine that the net was completely off its peg prior to the puck crossing the goal line and ruled the play 'inconclusive', as a result the referee's call on the ice stood"

As with referee Dennis LaRue's call on Chris Kunitz's goal on Sunday, Koharski ruled that it was a good goal on the ice.

"[Koharski] said the call was his and the [Toronto's video war room] sent it back to him," Blue Jackets coach Ken Hitchcock said. "They ruled it inconclusive. He said, 'The call was mine and I called it a goal.' Yes, the net was off,..but it's the referee's call and he called it a goal."

Hitchcock claimed that defenseman Marc Methot was pushed into the post by Jamie Langenbrunner, but Langenbrunner was not on the ice at the time.

Devils coach Brent Sutter thought that Koharski ruled, as is his right under Rule 63.6, that the net was knocked off by a defeding player (Methot). Under that rule, "the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in the act of shooting) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts."

If Koharski had used that rule, he would have "awarded" Madden a goal and there would have not been any assists on it. In this case, Clarkson was given the assist.

The Devils were just happy that the call went their way this time.

"That's the way a game goes sometimes," Madden said. "We've had it called the other way and we've had it called it against us. We can't worry about that, but tonight we got lucky with that."

Comments

[Cornholio]

I honestly thought that the overhead replay could not determine when the post moved. Perhaps that explained why Koharski's public explanation to the fans came off so brief. He could only say, "It's a good goal."

[NJSwampdragon]

That's the first controversial call going the Devil's way that I can remember in a long time. And from Mr Donut no less.

[Cornholio]

Controversial? Yes, but also correct. I would totally trust only a handful of referees in this league, and Koharski would make that list. Say what you want about the Devils only having one power play to the Jackets' three tonight, but I thought Koharski did pretty well, especially since he had to work this one by himself for most of it.

[Cornholio]

Update from Chicago: Brandon Dubinsky has given the Rangers a 2-1 lead over the Blackhawks with 12:02 remaining in the game.

[Scott731]

That was my guess on what Toronto would see. Those pegs are pretty long so even though the post was obviously about an inch or so off it's normal spot we couldn't tell if the peg was still in it's hole or not.

[Cornholio]

If the war room had washed out the goal, then would Methot have received a delay of game penalty? This all happened with less than 10 minutes remaining and I don't think Clarkson pushed him into the net. Perhaps if Toronto said "no goal," then Koharski would have thrown Methot into the box.

The Devils' success so far on the road trip gets pushed aside by this controversy, but they haven't given up a power play goal, they've won three of the first four, and Weekes has played well in both of his games. Lots of positives coming out of tonight's game.

[Henrik L]

YES!!!

Chicago scored and tied the game!!!

[Cornholio]

Good news from Chicago: Brent Seabrook has scored on a 5-on-3 with under five minutes remaining to tie the Blackhawks with the Rangers 2-2. And Rangers' coach Tom Renney stood in an open bench gate to complain to the referees following the goal.

[Cornholio]

End of 3: Chicago 2, N.Y.R. 2

[Henrik L]

oh crap, Rangers got one point, OT coming up

[Henrik L]

Go Hawks Go!

[Henrik L]

PP rangers in OT

[Henrik L]

Crap, Drury scored in OT

[TG]

I don't think Methot would have gotten a penalty because it didn't look like he intentionally knocked the left post free. From what I was told, if the NHL war room had ruled the post came free before the puck went in, Koharski probably would have invoked Rule 63.6 and "awarded" the Devils a goal -- which is what Brent Sutter thought happened.

You can read the wording of Rule 63.6 above.

In this case, it appears that no matter what the War Room said, the Devils probably would have ended up with a goal.

[modnarm]

nay-sayers can suck it

[Aric Calfee]

Nice to see a call from Toronto go our way. Makes up for the Anaheim goal.

[Merms]

Cornholio, if you trust Koharski, you must have an extremely short memory.

The Jackets got completely shafted by toronto again. If they had ruled under 63.6 it wouldve been alright, but to say it was inconclusive is absolutely ridiculous.

[Puckster]

It was a call that could have gone either way. We got lucky on this one. It's rare, but it happens.

[Salvatore from Garfield]

Win some, lose some. I'll take it.

[M.P.]

@ NJSwampdragon

I feel the same way, I never remember any video reviews going the Devils way.

I remember last year against the Bruins where they reviewed for what seemed like 20 minutes only to not give Zubrus a goal.

[ZuljinRaynor]

The call could not have gone either way. It was a goal. If not under normal conditions which it ended up being called as, rule 63.6 says it's a goal unless the ref doesn't know that rule for some reason.

If it was not a goal, then the rules need some reworking cause that is a goal under the current rules.