Flames lose 4-3 in overtime a controversial OT winner by the Blues. 🎥: Sportsnet | NHL #Flames #stlblues
Nation Sites
The Nation Network
FlamesNation has no direct affiliation to the Calgary Flames, Calgary Sports and Entertainment, NHL, or NHLPA
Flames earn a point, but Blues win via controversial overtime goal
Photo credit: Brett Holmes-Imagn Images
The Calgary Flames and the St. Louis Blues were pretty evenly matched through 60 minutes of hockey. They entered the overtime period deadlocked at 3-3 on the scoreboard.
2:23 into overtime, Blues forward Robert Thomas fired a puck at the Flames’ net that netminder Dan Vladar stopped with his pad. What happened after that is a matter subject to a bit of interpretation.
With the puck in the crease – not covered, but sitting near Vladar’s left pad in the blue paint – Blues defender Colton Parayko and Flames forward Yegor Sharangovich clashed for the puck. Parayko ended up winning the race, and his stick propelled the puck across the goal line. Along with Vladar’s left pad.
The play was called a goal on the ice. A review was initiated automatically by the NHL’s Situation Room, per rule 38.3, under which every goal scored in the final minute of the third period and anytime in overtime is reviewed in any scenario that would otherwise be a coach’s challenge. In this case, the scenario was goaltender interference.
The goal was reviewed for six minutes. After six minutes, the goal was upheld and the Blues declared the game’s winners by a 4-3 score. (We asked the league who makes the final call on these types of reviews: “The Situation Room and officials work together on the decision with Hockey Operations having final say.”)
Here’s the explanation from the NHL’s Situation Room as to why it counted (their emphasis left in):
Video review determined that no goaltender interference infractions occurred as St. Louis’ Colton Parayko made a play on a loose puck in the crease prior to his goal. The decision was made in accordance with Rule 69.7 which states, in part, that “in a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.”
Here’s what Rule 69.7 says, in full:
69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks – In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result thereof will be allowed.In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player after making a stop, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed. If, however, in the opinion of the Referee, the attacking player was pushed or otherwise fouled by a defending player causing the goalkeeper to be pushed into the net together with the puck, the goal can be permitted.In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 63 – Delaying the Game).
There’s no disputing that Parakyo’s stick made contact with Vladar’s pad while going after a loose puck in the crease. Under league rules, some contact – “incidental contact” per the rules – is allowed while battling for a loose puck in the crease. The officials that reviewed the goal judged that Parayko’s contact was incidental and so the goal counted.
Flames blueliner MacKenzie Weegar and head coach Ryan Huska presented the rebuttal from the other perspective following the game.
“I don’t know what you guys thought about it, but I don’t think the puck goes in unless he pushes the pad,” said Weegar. “I thought it was pretty clear. You know, that’s really all I’ve got to say about that.”
“It’s frustrating to be quite honest with you,” said Huska. “If you’re going to call it that way, it’s fine. But the referees can come over and explain it. They just skate themselves right off the ice. That, to me, is the part that bothers me a little bit as to why. Why was it a good goal? So the way I see it, Danny made a save. He probably would have kept it out if his pad wasn’t pushed in. But that’s the way it is.”
Reasonable people can disagree.
For his part, Vladar was pretty concise with his post-game remarks, declining to admonish the call to the media.
“I just felt that I had to make one extra save than Binnington and I didn’t,” said Vladar.
The Flames are back in action on Sunday night when they visit the Dallas Stars.
This article is brought to you by Crystal Waters
Call Crystal Waters Plumbing and Heating today at 403-219-4100 for a complete mechanical system audit, and learn how we can partner with you to ensure your home is optimized for safety, health, and comfort. Or check them out at www.crystalclearcalgary.com
Breaking News
- Instant Reaction: Flames out-score the Wild in return home
- What’s Going On In the Pacific Division: The three Canadian teams sit at the bottom of the division
- Throwback Thursday: Looking at the Flames’ three trades with the Wild
- Flames Game Day 29: Back at home to face the Wild (7pm MT, SN1)
- The Wranglers are nearly done their mammoth road trip