Hockey Rules Questions- Goals and Whistles

[Lord Stanely 39]

Hoping somebody will KNOW the answer to this situation/question.

Overtime.

Shot on goal.

Goalie makes save- puck is lost by ref.

Whistle blows.

short time (2-3 seconds)after whistle goalie moves forward to reset and puck is behind him across goal line.

Goal? no Goal?

Where is this rule located in youth hockey?

What is the rule in the NHL.

I ALWAYS thought whistle blows- NO GOAL period. one coach says no goal the other says goal- because it was under goalie behind line after whistle (ref lost sight of puck) and once puck is now seen it is across line so GOAL!

Thoughts- more importantly- proof.

Still reminds me of the silly rule called against Detroit a while back in the playoffs- I think against Dats- No GOAL! The ref INTENDED To blow the whistle!

[Gizmo 21]

Sounds to me like you're describing the

. Chicago took the shoot and it took the officials a while to realize the puck was in the net instead of under the goalie... Game over. There was whistle a couple of seconds after the shot but there was no on-ice indication of a goal.

As for games that don't have the benefit of instant replay, then I'd say that if the ref lost sight of the puck, blew the whistle, and signaled "no goal"... then that should stand.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Gizmo

[evilzyme 769]

Doesn't count, play was called dead before the puck crossed the net. They would go to video review, determine when the whistle was blown, and call accordingly. Reminds me of the Brad May goal against Dallas

[toby91_ca 620]

The issue will be how the puck ended up across the line under the goalie. If the ref blows the whistle and calls no goal, there is no way you can end up with a goal in that situation (well, there is one way), here's why:

- go to video review, in that video, the only time you are able to see the puck over the line is when the goalie gets up (long after the play is dead. In that scenrio, there is no way of knowing how the puck got there or when, there's no conclusive evidence.

- could be a goal if on video review you see the puck go into the net then bounce back under the goalie (all before the whistle.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Doesn't count, play was called dead before the puck crossed the net. They would go to video review, determine when the whistle was blown, and call accordingly. Reminds me of the Brad May goal against Dallas

The brad may goal was embarrassing. He shoots the puck, puck goes cleanly into the net, clearly behind the goalie, ref waits a second before blowing the play dead under the assumption that the goalie had stopped the puck. And the whole time the puck was sitting in the net.

[rrasco 1,312]

You answered your own question, intent to blow. At any point the ref intends to blow the whistle the play will be deemed dead; even if that means blowing a play dead while the puck is flying through the air towards the net. See: May, Brad.

The way the video review works is this: The call on the ice is what stands, unless the guys in Toronto have 100% conclusive evidence to over rule the play. If they don't have conclusive evidence to over rule the play, or the on ice official indicates he intended to blow the whistle, the call on the ice stands.

[MidMichSteve 1,115]

It all depends. If it's the Wings' net, GOAL COUNTS.

If it's in the opponents' net, NO GOAL!

[Guest The Production Line]

Sounds to me like you're describing the

. Chicago took the shoot and it took the officials a while to realize the puck was in the net instead of under the goalie... Game over. There was whistle a couple of seconds after the shot but there was no on-ice indication of a goal.

As for games that don't have the benefit of instant replay, then I'd say that if the ref lost sight of the puck, blew the whistle, and signaled "no goal"... then that should stand.

Possibly the worst Cup clinching goal in the history of the NHL.