Skip to main content

You make the call: should Tampa Bay’s disallowed goal have counted?

The Canadiens deserve full credit for their Game 3 win – and their 3-0 series lead – against Tampa Bay, but if you’re a Lightning player, coach or fan, you’ve got to wonder if things would have taken a different turn had Ryan Callahan’s goal with less than five minutes left in the second period counted.
The Hockey News

The Hockey News

The Montreal Canadiens deserve full credit for their Game 3 win – and their 3-0 series lead – against Tampa Bay, but if you’re a Lightning player, coach or fan, you’ve got to wonder if things would have taken a different turn had Ryan Callahan’s goal with less than five minutes left in the second period counted instead of being waived off for goalie interference.

I, like most people, thought at first that the goal should have counted, but after digging into Rule 69.3 (after reading a tweet from former NHL referee turned TSN analyst Kerry Fraser), I started to waiver.

Rule 69.3 states…

“If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.”

What’s key in this case is contained within the second paragraph of the rule. Price initiated contact – smartly – and that could then be interpreted throughout the duration of the play that it caused an “impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal.”

Not surprisingly, the no-goal once again started cries for expanded instant replay. And that’s fair comment. It's something the league should look at in the off-season. In the end, we all just want the call right, right?

But for this one, Francis Charron got it right.

What do you think, was it the correct call?

TOP HEADLINES

Nazem Kadri

Nobody Deserves the Brutal Abuse Nazem Kadri is Facing

Nothing Nazem Kadri has ever done as an NHLer warrant treating him like some subhuman monster. These racist attacks on him – and everyone – need to stop.

USATSI_18328983_168393426_lowres
Play

Cat-astrophe: Florida Must Learn From Lightning Loss

The Panthers came into the series as the higher seed, but Tampa Bay taught their in-state cousins a lesson about playoff hockey.

2022 IIHF World Championship
Play

Men's World Championship Roundup: Quarterfinal Matchups are Set

The group of eight teams that will play for gold has been set at the men's IIHF World Hockey Championship after an interesting final day of round-robin play.