The Toronto Maple Leafs' disallowed goal on Friday emphasized the need for better communication and puck tracking by the NHL situation room, writes Rachel Doerrie.
The dust has settled, and the lockers are cleaned out, but the questions remain.
The Toronto Maple Leafs lost 3-2 in overtime on Friday night to the Florida Panthers. However, a controversial call left a lot up for debate as to whether the game should have gotten to overtime in the first place.
It is revisionist history to suggest that had Morgan Rielly’s second goal counted, that Nylander would have scored to lead Toronto to victory. Having a conversation about that controversial call and how it happened is important.
The NHL is so focused on getting calls right that they miss getting the calls correct. In their eyes, “right” seems to mean allowing blatant interference, lumberjack slashes and significant obstruction with minimal to no punishment. Obviously, none of that is correct by the rulebook written by the NHL. The NHL is obsessed with getting a review right that they don’t stop to consider the correct process to arrive at the call.
The problem on Friday night was that no call on the ice was made. At least, no one in the building was made aware of it. When a play is under review, the call on the ice stands unless there is evidence to overturn it. There was no call made in the aftermath of the play to go off. That’s where the confusion started. The goal light never went on, but no goal was signalled at first, either, until referee Jean Hebert eventually put his hands up to indicate a stoppage of play. Looking back at the video, the referee was not in the best position to determine if the puck was loose. Arguably, the back official was in a better position. That led to a lengthy review, which is where the craziness starts.
As a former video coach and person who helped with challenges, that is not a play I would say involved goaltender interference. Riellly was clearly making contact with a loose puck. He did not push Bobrovsky’s pad into the net in a different area from where the puck was. The application of the rule is always inconsistent on this – I lived it in my time in New Jersey and Vancouver. Usually, when the puck is loose and is contacted prior to touching the goalie’s equipment, without egregious force, the goal will stand.
That is why Tampa Bay's second-period goal in Game 3 of the previous series not counting compared to Florida’s fourth goal in Game 3 against Boston counting was so egregious. They were similar plays of pucks in the crease that seemed to be partially obstructed, and the argument is valid that the opposite result should have occurred. Watching both plays, Tampa’s goal should have counted, and Florida’s should not.
The problem is not which goal counted – the problem is that no one knows why the calls were made. The NHL puts out mundane decision explanations from the situation room that are not helpful to understanding how the rule was applied. Producing videos or having the official completely explain why the decision was made would go a long way to players, coaches and fans understanding how the rules are applied. Most video coaches have a decent idea of what is likely to count or not, but it isn’t cut and dry like offside. It feels like roulette and when a penalty is at stake, you’re less likely to make the call.
All of that does not even have to happen unless we know if the puck crossed the line. That brings us to Friday night.
Let me start by saying that I have long said “intent to blow the whistle” and “blowing the whistle” is nonsense. Either the whistle blows, or it doesn’t. It should be black and white. Based on how penalties are called, you’ll excuse me if I don’t trust the call of “this is what I meant to do.” Making this black and white would simplify things more. Overcomplicating things when stakeholders are already confused about other rules is not helpful. If you want to get the call “right” as the NHL claims, then “I meant to blow the whistle” does not cut it.
Let’s tackle the puck-over-line debate. Truthfully, I can’t even believe we are having this conversation in 2023. We have AI bots writing stories, making art and self-driving cars. We have player and puck tracking, too. We have other sports using technology to determine if balls cross lines. While I understand it is different in hockey and American football because bodies obstruct some views, if we can have a self-driving vehicle, surely, we have the technology to determine if a puck crossed the line.
The NHL has chips in pucks. I have seen them with my own eyes, and I have held them with my own hands. They exist. To not use technology in the posts and crossbars to determine whether or not the puck crossed the line seems ridiculous. It is even more silly when you consider the “we must see it” argument. If the goalie’s glove is in the net and the puck is in the glove, the puck is in the net. I don’t need to see the actual puck to know. If you put a cookie on a pan and put the pan in the oven, do you need to turn the oven light on to know the cookie is in the oven? No. Because the pan is in the oven, so the cookie is also in the oven. It is common sense.
On the Rielly/Bobrovsky goal, there is an angle that seems to show the puck over the line. However, mathematics tells us about the parallax angle skewing our perception. Here’s a really simple solution: each video coach has six non-broadcast angles to look at plus the broadcast angle. Freeze the video at the split second the puck looks in from the angle. Pair it with the exact moment on the overhead angle to determine where Bobrovsky’s pad is. Using simple geometry and common sense, it should be possible to determine where the puck is at that moment. You can use information from different angles to come up with a decision – there does not need to be a singular definitive angle.
All of this is moot if the NHL uses technology to determine if the puck crossed the line instead of the human eye of a video goal judge. The system may not be perfect, but we need to apply some common sense to the matter because it’s incredibly frustrating not to know on any given night what is and isn’t a goal.
The best solution isn’t a definitive angle that shows everything. The best solution is technology that makes the decision and failing that, it is using multiple angles to determine where the important parts of the equipment and puck are relative to the goal line.
Right now, the system does not work. Puck over or not, goalie interference or not, kicking motion or not. It’s a game of roulette every time it happens, and that is not how a multi-billion dollar league should be making decisions.