I am a flyers fan but any time a whistle blows, even by accident, the play is dead. That is how it should be. It seems only recently they starting allowing a few select goals count after a whistle is blown. This absolutely boggles my mind. I remember the « Intent to Blow the Whistle » doctrine where goals were called off not because the whistle had blown but because the ref was « in the process of blowing the whistle » before puck went in. Some days the NHL makes me feel like Im taking crazy pills.
likeslululemon
Did this result in an allowed goal? Asking because all of ours have been called no goals for one reason or another lol
Far-Two8659
That is absolutely atrocious. What’s the fucking point of refs if they pull this kind of crap?
That ref should be fired.
PhoenixRoadrunners82
The refs this year are the worst I’ve ever seen.
LingonberryBig9527
If you’re not going to show the result then at least explain what happened ffs
DocPsycho1
See , that’s kinda bs. As someone stated , whistle blown. Play is dead, yet the shot counted. So why didn’t they take the goal back ? Even incertain situations they won’t blow the whistle if there is a chance to score. So what’s gonna happen here? Nothing probably.
mildlysceptical22
Reminds me of my very first game refereeing roller hockey. They needed someone so I filled in not really knowing the rules. I blew the whistle to stop play just before a stick knocked the puck in. I allowed the goal based on a continuation play, like in basketball. The coach had a small fit (rightfully) but realized I wasn’t a trained ref and let it go. He did explain to me after the game that once the whistle blows, the play is over. Period.
You’d think the highly trained referees in the NHL would know this rule..
itsmb12
So play until the second or third whistle? Like what the fuck are we doing
Flyinghud
The rule is quite simple. If the ref blows the whistle but than the puck slides in as a continuation of the original shot than the goal can count.
panhandlepred
Kevin Pollock would never.
bcsmith317
This counting but Sissons’ goal in the Cup final not counting makes me extremely disappointed.
JealousMeringue6674
All this would’ve been avoided if the ref had whistled the play dead when he is supposed to.
”At any time where the Referee loses sight of the puck, play shall be stopped”
He clearly had lost the sight of the puck already because he was looking around trying to find it from the corner of the net, despite it being nowhere close.
TheLoomingMoon
It’s St. Laurent. If he wasn’t a ref, he’d be a corrupt politician. He’s garbage.
musicmills
Why have a rulebook when you have clowns enforcing it at this level?
Rule 78.5 disallowed goals
When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle.
Calling__Elvis
I think the rule says something like if the puck is already on its way while the whistle blows, it still counts as a goal even though the puck crossed the goal line after the whistle.
ProbablyUrNeighbour
Why is it always the sens
PoliteIndecency
I hate St. Laurent but he did everything right here. He gave the players a chance to sort the play out themselves, decided he’d lost sight of the puck and blew his whistle, and then correctly smized that the puck was already on the way to the net while he was blowing his whistle. He made the call on the ice, reviewed it to make sure the play was kosher, and then confirmed the goal.
For all of you complaining about officiating and using this play as evidence, just close the tab and take the loss. This was GREAT officiating.
Useful-Implement-286
Damn this is may be the worst thing I’ve seen in hockey in a minute
jlando40
Whistle didn’t blow
notalegend3000
Refs being refs
little_freddy
Home stadium referees
anatolykolsnakov
Anyone remember that SCF game? Poor Nashville..
Chance-Ad197
Too early? How is after an allowed goal too early?
Ofiotaurus
Good goal. Referee whistled as he should but Goal is continuation of play.
GearheadEngineer
This is hard to judge because even if the ref didn’t blow the whistle, none of the players knew where the puck was anyways, it would’ve probably ended up being the same outcome imo
25 Comments
I am a flyers fan but any time a whistle blows, even by accident, the play is dead. That is how it should be. It seems only recently they starting allowing a few select goals count after a whistle is blown. This absolutely boggles my mind. I remember the « Intent to Blow the Whistle » doctrine where goals were called off not because the whistle had blown but because the ref was « in the process of blowing the whistle » before puck went in. Some days the NHL makes me feel like Im taking crazy pills.
Did this result in an allowed goal? Asking because all of ours have been called no goals for one reason or another lol
That is absolutely atrocious. What’s the fucking point of refs if they pull this kind of crap?
That ref should be fired.
The refs this year are the worst I’ve ever seen.
If you’re not going to show the result then at least explain what happened ffs
See , that’s kinda bs. As someone stated , whistle blown. Play is dead, yet the shot counted. So why didn’t they take the goal back ? Even incertain situations they won’t blow the whistle if there is a chance to score. So what’s gonna happen here? Nothing probably.
Reminds me of my very first game refereeing roller hockey. They needed someone so I filled in not really knowing the rules. I blew the whistle to stop play just before a stick knocked the puck in. I allowed the goal based on a continuation play, like in basketball. The coach had a small fit (rightfully) but realized I wasn’t a trained ref and let it go. He did explain to me after the game that once the whistle blows, the play is over. Period.
You’d think the highly trained referees in the NHL would know this rule..
So play until the second or third whistle? Like what the fuck are we doing
The rule is quite simple. If the ref blows the whistle but than the puck slides in as a continuation of the original shot than the goal can count.
Kevin Pollock would never.
This counting but Sissons’ goal in the Cup final not counting makes me extremely disappointed.
All this would’ve been avoided if the ref had whistled the play dead when he is supposed to.
”At any time where the Referee loses sight of the puck, play shall be stopped”
He clearly had lost the sight of the puck already because he was looking around trying to find it from the corner of the net, despite it being nowhere close.
It’s St. Laurent. If he wasn’t a ref, he’d be a corrupt politician. He’s garbage.
Why have a rulebook when you have clowns enforcing it at this level?
Rule 78.5 disallowed goals
When the Referee deems the play has been stopped, even if he had not physically had the opportunity to stop play by blowing his whistle.
I think the rule says something like if the puck is already on its way while the whistle blows, it still counts as a goal even though the puck crossed the goal line after the whistle.
Why is it always the sens
I hate St. Laurent but he did everything right here. He gave the players a chance to sort the play out themselves, decided he’d lost sight of the puck and blew his whistle, and then correctly smized that the puck was already on the way to the net while he was blowing his whistle. He made the call on the ice, reviewed it to make sure the play was kosher, and then confirmed the goal.
For all of you complaining about officiating and using this play as evidence, just close the tab and take the loss. This was GREAT officiating.
Damn this is may be the worst thing I’ve seen in hockey in a minute
Whistle didn’t blow
Refs being refs
Home stadium referees
Anyone remember that SCF game? Poor Nashville..
Too early? How is after an allowed goal too early?
Good goal. Referee whistled as he should but Goal is continuation of play.
This is hard to judge because even if the ref didn’t blow the whistle, none of the players knew where the puck was anyways, it would’ve probably ended up being the same outcome imo