Should an indirect hand pass be reviewable?

[xbleed83bluex]

The biased Blues fan in me wishes it was reviewed and nullified, of course. But take this game out of it, would I feel the same way?

If this were reviewable, there's a lot of technicalities people are overlooking, here. It's not as easy as saying "it's reviewable" and then it's finished. There needs to be clear-cut criteria for determining why the goal would be overturned, and it's not an easy as saying "it's a hand pass" because the puck did not go in the net from a hand pass, but off a stick.

Let's be clear: The goals themselves and their direct source to net, are reviewable. What's not reviewable are past actions in play that led up to the goal. If the puck went in directly from a hand throwing motion, it would be reviewed and thus no goal.

Pucks hit with high sticks work the same way. If a puck goes in directly from a high stick, it's reviewable and no goal, even if the refs call it a goal in the ice. However, if a player hits a puck with a high stick, and the officials miss it, then 2-4 other players play the puck since, and score, it's non-reviewable: they can't go back in time 4 players ago and overturn the goal. It's the same when the puck hits the netting and goes out of play: sometimes refs miss that, and play resumes, and players score. It's only reviewable if the puck goes in directly from the falling from the netting, not from a stick.

In this case, it was very unfortunate for the Blues. But let's say it had been different. Say this refs missed the same hand pass, but their were 8 minutes of continuous play after, and several passes, before someone scores: could the refs go back 8 minutes in time and nullify the goal because of that one hand pass?

So there needs to be specific criteria here for nullifying a goal from a missed-call hand pass. It'd have to touch less than 3 players after, something like that.

[gaijin]

That is a good point. But my contention would be that the rules of whether or not a play is reviewable are inconsistent. For example, offsides is reviewable no matter how many players touch the puck before a goal is scored. Using the same rationale you used in your argument, the fact that so many things happened in between infraction and goal (different players touching the puck, etc.) would mean it is not reviewable. But the official rule is clearly otherwise. For offsides and goalie interference, but not hand pass evidently.

[WaukeeBlues]

The simplest way to expand it would be to include not only reviewing every goal but the actions that immediately lead up to the goal.

Now, the definition of what actions "immediately lead up to the goal" would be the hard part, but let's assume it's ~3-4 seconds (an eternity in hockey). That would include basically everything I can think of at the moment: a blatant (i.e. obvious) offside call, a hand pass to a teammate, uh... a crosscheck to the back of a defenseman's head that took them out of the play that lead to an open net... whatever you want.

The Vegas thing is a harder fix. Best suggestion I've head is to have every* penalty a referee option for a 2, 4 or a 5 with maybe explicit instructions to the refs that really the 4 is only there to evaluate if you're seriously considering a 5 and not just for a "bad 2" if that makes sense. But that leaves a lot of discretion.

[glen a richter]

In the NFL every scoring play is reviewed regardless. Not saying review every single goal but at least the overtime ones.

It's inevitable the Blues are going to get screwed 8 ways til Sunday, just like the Knights did. The Sharks shouldn't even be here.

[heff]

If this were reviewable, there's a lot of technicalities people are overlooking, here. It's not as easy as saying "it's reviewable" and then it's finished. There needs to be clear-cut criteria for determining why the goal would be overturned, and it's not an easy as saying "it's a hand pass" because the puck did not go in the net from a hand pass, but off a stick.

Let's be clear: The goals themselves and their direct source to net, are reviewable. What's not reviewable are past actions in play that led up to the goal. If the puck went in directly from a hand throwing motion, it would be reviewed and thus no goal.

That's not in the least bit true. Offsides are reviewable. A team can spend a minute in the opposition's offensive end with 20 passes in between and yet they can go back and nullify the goal based on review of offsides.

This was a hand-pass that led to a goal 2/10ths of a second later. In fact, Timo Meier got an assist for his hand-pass!

[theohall]

There is also Rule 38.4 (ix)

(ix) The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they
are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed immediately into the goal, pucks that
enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at
the end of a continuous play).

Plenty of gray area in that "but not limited to" line.

[theohall]

If you want to show penalties - we can play that game all day and all night with non-calls that went in favor of both teams. No one benefited directly from a goal other than the Sharks on an illegal play which was incorrectly not blown dead by the refs. Kind of like the Sharks getting breaks this entire playoffs with NBC and the NHL pulling out their hydraulic knee pads s***king Thornton's **** to the Cup.