A controversial overtime goal has sparked debate and left the Nashville Predators feeling aggrieved. The Minnesota Wild's late winner, scored with the net off its moorings, has divided opinions and sparked a heated discussion.
On Tuesday night, Wild forward Kirill Kaprizov made a pass across the crease to his teammate, Marcus Johansson, as the Predators' goalie, Justus Annunen, pushed the net out of position. Johansson's shot hit the side of the net, and as the cage continued to move, he collected the puck and backhanded it into the goal with the net still dislodged.
Despite the Predators' protests, the referee signaled a goal, and after an NHL video review, the decision stood. Minnesota emerged victorious, 3-2, overcoming a dramatic late equalizer from Nashville's Steven Stamkos, who tied the game with just 0.3 seconds remaining in regulation.
"The explanation was that it was a goal, in the referee's opinion. I respectfully disagree, but that's the way it goes," Nashville coach Andrew Brunette commented.
Stamkos echoed Brunette's sentiments, expressing his confusion over the emphatic goal call. "It was a strange play, and I understand the confusion. However, what baffled us was the certainty with which it was called a goal. I get that the net came off, but the puck missed the net and bounced back to Johansson because the net was askew."
The NHL's Situation Room upheld the goal, citing Rule 63.7, which states that a goal can be awarded if a defending player displaces the goal post before an attacking player has an imminent scoring opportunity, and it is determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal goal posts.
Stamkos and Brunette both questioned whether Johansson's scoring chance was solely due to the net being off its moorings. Stamkos said, "I understand the net came off, but I don't think our goalie intentionally knocked it off. From where we were, it looked like the puck came back to him on the second attempt because the net was off. If not, the puck would have gone behind the net, and we'd still be playing. That's where we disagreed with the call."
Brunette added, "I don't think Annunen was trying to push the net off its moorings. The physics of the situation suggest otherwise. I thought they missed the net. If the net hadn't dislodged, the shot would have hit the net. Unfortunately, the officials saw it differently, and we have to move on."
This controversial call resulted in the Wild's second consecutive win, improving their record to 5-6-3. Meanwhile, the Predators dropped to 5-6-4, losing their second straight overtime game. Stamkos felt his team deserved better, calling it one of their best performances of the season.
And this is the part most people miss: the interpretation of rules and the judgment calls made by officials can have a significant impact on the outcome of a game. It's a fine line between a goal and a no-goal, and sometimes, it's a matter of perspective. What do you think? Should the goal have stood, or was it a case of an incorrect call? Let us know your thoughts in the comments!
