Rule 39

by joehass on Oct 17, 2008 10:21 AM CDT

If you watched last night's game, you saw a flaw in the NHL's video replay rule. It's Rule 39 in the NHL rulebook.

The rule clearly explains what to do about time, especially after a goal:

"In the event that a video replay shows a goal was scored prior to the play being stopped, the Video Goal Judge will inform the Game Timekeeper and Official Scorer of the time of goal and the amount of playing time left to be reset on the game clock."

But what it doesn't cover is what happens *after* the goal was scored. In this case, Tomas Holmstrom's tip of Pavel Datsuyk's shot hit the back support bar and bounced right out. Moments after, Brian Rafalski was called for interference. The penalty was left on the board, but pushed back to the time of the goal.

That makes no sense. In theory, since time was placed back on the clock to the point the goal was scored, what happened after the goal was scored should have disappeared as well.

I'm sure it's happened, but you could have a situation where a goal was scored but not noted, the other team could go the other way and score, and both goals could appear at the same time on the score sheet.

Tweet Comment 1 comment | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Actually...

Rule 78.6 covers that.

“Only one goal can be awarded at any stoppage of play. If the apparent goal was scored by Team A, and is subsequently confirmed as a goal by the Video Goal Judge, any goal scored by Team B during the period of time between the apparent goal By Team A and the stoppage of play (Team B’s goal), the Team B goal would not be awarded. However, if the apparent goal by Team A is deemed to have entered the goal, albeit illegally (i.e. distinct kicking motion), the goal shall be disallowed by the Video Goal Judge and since the play should have stopped for this disallowed goal, no goal can be awarded to Team B on the same play. The clock must be re-set to the time of the disallowed Team A goal and play resumed.”

It also covers penalties after a goal, explicitly saying they stand. Yeah, it’s a little silly for an obstruction penalty like a hook or interference, but it makes more sense for boarding, fighting, or a game misconduct.

by RyanV on Oct 21, 2008 12:01 AM CDT reply actions