The Minnesota Wild defeated the Pittsburgh Penguins on a game-winning goal that was challenged for a possible missed stoppage.
With 10:26 remaining in the third period, Wild forward Kirill Kaprizov fired the puck past goaltender Alex Nedeljkovic to put Minnesota up 3-2. Penguins head coach Mike Sullivan challenged the play for a potential missed stoppage.
Just prior to the goal, a pass from defenseman Zach Bogosian was deflected by Penguins defenseman Marcus Petterson. The puck hit the corner glass and deflected behind the net. Pittsburgh players – including Nedeljkovic – pointed up immediately to indicate the puck went out of play. A few of the players eased up as referee Tom Chmielewski yelled from the corner, “Keep playing! Keep playing!”
A lengthy review – lasting nearly seven minutes – was unable to provide evidence of the puck contacting the protective netting, and therefore unable to overturn the call on the ice.
“Most of the guys on the ice felt like it hit the net. It sucks being on the wrong side of some of these challenges,” Penguins captain Sidney Crosby said after the game. “Why do the replay if you’re not going to get it right? Yeah, I know some things are tough, but if you’re going to have the rule that you can review one into the net, then get a view that shows it instead of being inconclusive. I know they’re not going to get every single one right, but don’t have a review if you’re not going to at least have decent angles to get it,” Penguins captain Sidney Crosby said after the game.
Obviously, the NHL isn’t intentionally avoiding angles. Sometimes, you’re just not going to get the perspective you’re looking for.
From the NHL’s Situation Room:
The Situation Room supported the Referee’s call on the ice that there was no conclusive evidence to show the puck left the playing area after it struck the glass behind the Pittsburgh net. The decision was made in accordance with Rule 38.10 and Rule 85.
“Every player on the ice saw it, even their players,” Pittsburgh head coach Mike Sullivan said. “[The Situation Room] thought it was inconclusive. We felt like there was an angle that showed the puck clearly change direction. And every player on the rink saw it.”
The Athletic’s Shayna Goldman offered an interesting option: If the NHL’s Situation Room rules the video is inconclusive, don’t penalize the team for the failed challenge.
I mean I guess there are three solutions to avoid those super lengthy reviews:
– time limits
– not assessing a penalty when the challenge is inconclusive because it’s that hard to get a concrete answer
– status quo, babyyy— Shayna (@hayyyshayyy) February 10, 2024
It seems fair. If the league can prove you’re wrong in challenging the play, then you deserve the minor penalty for delay. But if they can’t figure it out either and have to defer to the call on the ice, should the team still be punished?
Not only did the goal stand, giving Minnesota a third-period lead, but the failed challenge meant that the Penguins would be shorthanded. They killed off the penalty, but weren’t able to put another puck past former Penguin Marc-Andre Fleury, tending the Wild net.
The Minnesota Wild defeated the Pittsburgh Penguins 3-2. Referees for the game were Francois St. Laurent (#8) and Tom Chmielewski (#18) with linesmen Bryan Pancich (#94) and Derek Nansen (#70).
