Hockey goal disallowed after it bounces off an official's gut.

[bcla]

The puck was dumped into the offensive zone where it bounced off the referee and did a slow bounce into the goal. The goalie didn't seem to believe it and made a weak effort to stop the puck.

This one doesn't have the angle showing the puck coming right at the referee, but it's longer and had the referee disallowing the goal.

 

[JaxDad]

A “fat” trick...

 

[Hikergirl]

It should totally count

 

[RedAngie]

I saw the puck bounce off an official and into the net in a minor league game decades ago. The goal counted. The victimized goalie was livid and caused a scene and was given a game misconduct.

 

[sam_gordon]

It should totally count

Agree. In every other sport, isn't the official part of the playing surface? So any rebound or anything off the ref should be "play on" (unless the ref is standing out of bounds which wouldn't be the case in hockey).

 

[bcla]

Agree. In every other sport, isn't the official part of the playing surface? So any rebound or anything off the ref should be "play on" (unless the ref is standing out of bounds which wouldn't be the case in hockey).

There are some complex rules in baseball if the ball hits an ump. Some are considered dead balls where they sort out where the runners go.

There are dead ball situations in basketball if the ball hits a ref. It may be different if a player collided with a ref.

 

[RedAngie]

Agree. In every other sport, isn't the official part of the playing surface? So any rebound or anything off the ref should be "play on" (unless the ref is standing out of bounds which wouldn't be the case in hockey).

I believe that's usually the case. If the puck bounces off an official a player can take advantage of the bounce and score a goal with his stick. But apparently the puck can't deflect off the official into the net. The announcers in the first video called it "no goal" immediately, so I'm guessing they're certain of the rules.

 

[BrianL]

I think it's funny that in the first video the announcers immediately state that the goal will not count and show the NHL rule citation on screen. In the second video those guys are sure that it will count and are surprised by the runling. I admit, I've never seen this situation and wasn't sure myself, but the announcers should know.

 

[bcla]

I think it's funny that in the first video the announcers immediately state that the goal will not count and show the NHL rule citation on screen. In the second video those guys are sure that it will count and are surprised by the runling. I admit, I've never seen this situation and wasn't sure myself, but the announcers should know.

It doesn't sound as if any of the announcers had seen it. I think the feed from the NHL was NBC Sports Network announcers. Sportsnet has different announcers I believe. It might be something that a rules geek might know. Or the director giving it to them over their headsets.

 

[sam_gordon]

I think it's funny that in the first video the announcers immediately state that the goal will not count and show the NHL rule citation on screen. In the second video those guys are sure that it will count and are surprised by the runling. I admit, I've never seen this situation and wasn't sure myself, but the announcers should know.

That's funny right there. If you listen to enough sporting events, you know, that while announcers might know more than we do, they don't know it all (even if they act like they do).

 

[BrianL]

It doesn't sound as if any of the announcers had seen it. I think the feed from the NHL was NBC Sports Network announcers. Sportsnet has different announcers I believe. It might be something that a rules geek might know. Or the director giving it to them over their headsets.

That's funny right there. If you listen to enough sporting events, you know, that while announcers might know more than we do, they don't know it all (even if they act like they do).

I get that they may not know everything, but it's just funny to me when they sound so sure but then are just plain wrong. Wait for the call.

 

[mrodgers]

It should totally count

Correction, they should do away with the rule that a deflection off the officials does not count. As it is now, no, it should not count.

 

[RedAngie]

A different article I read says the puck didn't deflect off the official's gut, but rather somewhat lower on his anatomy. Looks like he won't need to see The Nutcracker Suite this holiday season.

 

[bcla]

The first clip posted the rule - 85.4. I looked up the entire rule and not just the part they showed. Most cases where an official has contact with the puck are where it's still considered in play.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2018-2019-NHL-rulebook.pdf
85.4 Puck Striking Official - Play shall not be stopped if the puck touches an official anywhere on the rink, regardless of whether a team is short- handed or not.

A puck that deflects back into the defending zone off an official who is in the neutral zone, will be deemed to be off-side as per Rule83 – Off-side.

The puck striking or deflecting off an official does not automatically nullify a potential icing.

When a puck deflects off an official and goes out of play, the ensuing face-off will take place at the face-off spot in the zone nearest to where the puck deflected off the official.

If a goal is scored as a result of being deflected directly into the net off an official, the goal shall not be allowed.​

Was the rule applied correctly? Now maybe there's some other rule that clarifies it, but I saw the puck bounce off Luongo's pad before it went into the net. I'm pretty sure that if another player had deliberately played it off the ref carom and it then went in, that would count as a goal.

 

[Hikergirl]

Correction, they should do away with the rule that a deflection off the officials does not count. As it is now, no, it should not count.

I know nothing about hockey except it's fun to watch and that was a great shot, so I'm speaking as a casual fan not one that can recite the rules.

 

[bcla]

Was the rule applied correctly? Now maybe there's some other rule that clarifies it, but I saw the puck bounce off Luongo's pad before it went into the net. I'm pretty sure that if another player had deliberately played it off the ref carom and it then went in, that would count as a goal.

The NHL clarified that it was properly waved off, since bouncing off the goalie [correction] is included in the definition of "directly".

http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/...shot-hit-referee-hit-goalie-went-net-not-goal
The NHL clarified to ESPN on Wednesday that "directly" doesn't necessarily mean "directly." According to Stephen Walkom, NHL director of officiating, it also means the puck doesn't deflect off another player other than the goaltender after bouncing off an on-ice official.​

 

[Julie's Haircut]

I agree with the ruling.