Skip to content

Lundqvist on reviewed 3-2 goal: “Somebody wanted them back in the game”

Apr 23, 2012, 10:20 PM EDT

The New York Rangers got a decent amount of big calls in their favor* during their 3-2 win against the Ottawa Senators, but Henrik Lundqvist finished Game 6 steaming mad. He was angry about a Jason Spezza 3-2 goal that wasn’t disallowed, even floating some minor conspiracy theory material, as Ian Mendes captures.

“It’s a joke,” Lundqvist said. “Somebody wanted them back in the game.”

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!

Wow. If Lundqvist was wearing a suit and standing behind the Rangers bench, one might just expect the NHL to hand him a $10K fine for critiquing officials. Instead, I’m fairly certain he’s only going to owe the maximum $2,500 – if it comes down to that. John Tortorella wisely uttered a “no comment” on the goal, by the way.

(Stray thought: maybe Tortorella should use players as surrogates for his ref griping in future situations? Just floating it out there …)

For what it’s worth, the league’s own Situation Room blog provided this explanation for the sustained score:

At 19:21 of the third period in the Rangers/Senators game, video review was used to determine if Ottawa Senators forward Chris Neil kicked the puck into the New York net.  Video review was inconclusive in determining if Chris Neil’s left skate propelled the puck into the net. Call on the ice stands, good goal Ottawa.

Here’s video of the goal itself:

* – Just ask Spezza about a Nick Foligno penalty that opened up a 5-on-3 opportunity for the Rangers.

  1. ravenscaps48 - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

    He was PI$$ED!

    • polegojim - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM

      Well…. the 5:3 shouldn’t have been…. so he needs to be grateful

      • oconnor007 - Apr 23, 2012 at 11:14 PM

        There have been so many awful calls in this series…that’s one of the least of them for sure.

      • polegojim - Apr 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM

        Not really… the 5:3 led to the game winner. The Refs changed the outcome of the game by that awful call. Should never be that way.

      • joemac917 - Apr 24, 2012 at 10:13 AM

        If the weak call on Hagelin was goalie interference then the weak call on Foligno was as well.

      • polegojim - Apr 24, 2012 at 3:12 PM

        OK, done

      • joemac917 - Apr 24, 2012 at 10:19 AM

        correction, Kreider got the interference call, not Hagelin

  2. brian32556 - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

    Tell it like it is Henrik!!! LET’S GO RANGERS!!

  3. johart52 - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM

    Yeah I’m sure they were trying to help Ottawa to win. You’re an idiot if you think that Lundqvist.

  4. brian32556 - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:34 PM

    One of the replays from above shows the speed of the puck increasing with the kicking motion, therefore something affected it, and all the other angles show only Neil influencing it. BAD CALL!!

    • bdfools - Apr 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM

      This. The angle from behind Greening at 3:03 of the “Situation Room” video shows it about as clearly as possible. The puck is moving slowly. Neil’s skate makes the kicking motion and JUST brushes across the top of it. The puck immediately picks up some extra speed and goes into the net. Lundqvist’s stick is already on the ice next to the puck before the puck picks up speed. So unless his stick coming down created enough wind to blow the puck in, there is no other conclusion to make than that Neil’s skate touched the puck.

      The NHL is very very lucky this goal didn’t effect the outcome of the game. They’re already looking pretty bad with all these inconsistent suspensions. This would have been the icing on the cake if this a bad call like this had eliminated a team.

    • hockeyflow33 - Apr 24, 2012 at 12:51 AM

      the speed of the puck could have been influenced by Lundquist’s stick or Neil stepping on the stick and pinching the puck out. the simple viewing of a speeding puck is not conclusive evidence to prove Neil kicked the puck; you would actually have to see the kicking of the puck, which clearly no one did.

      • schockeyref - Apr 24, 2012 at 3:09 PM

        If Neil’s foot (using a kicking motion) causes Lundquist’s stick to propel the puck (which it doesn’t) it is still NO GOAL! This should be embarrassing for the league. It reminds me of the early days of the NFL replay when no one wanted to overturn a call even when it was obviously wrong.

      • hockeyflow33 - Apr 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM

        The NFL has the same standard. No assumptions can be made, there has to be actual, conclusive video evidence

  5. alexb64 - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:34 PM

    Don’t think Neil ever touched the puck, but not sure even with that it should have counted, are they still calling goaltender interference or not? Saw more of that than any kicking.

  6. polegojim - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:38 PM

    For the last 5 minutes of the 2nd and most of the 3rd…. we witnessed the Senators we all become nauseous over. Horrible hockey… no… horrendous hockey.

    They may have given Spezza the’ kicked in’ goal… but he was TERRIBLE all game.
    Turn over, turn over, turn over, hesitate, hesitate, hesitate… WOW

    • oconnor007 - Apr 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM

      You’re a Sens fan, correct? You guys have played so well for most of the series.

      Agree or disagree, Anderson does not look the same after those 3 goals? He was unreal for the 2 games before that!

      • polegojim - Apr 24, 2012 at 9:07 AM

        No,not a Sens fan. Paul MacLean was in Detroit for 6 years, so I pull for them. The whole team in front of him was playing scared after the second goal and deflated after the third. Anderson tends to be a head case…hot then not, but I saw him stay tough. But…the D in front of him made him a sacrificial lamb. They gave up and he was on an island.

  7. biffnasty - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:41 PM

    Rangers fan here…it was def a kicking motion but didn’t look like he actually touched it with his skate

  8. shortsxit - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:42 PM

    It actually looks like he missed. Probably the right call as from the angles they showed, it was inconclusive.

  9. kp20520 - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:45 PM

    Neil used his stick to pry lundquist away from the crease! That lever is also what sprung Neil forward to make this a question in the first place! Watch the replay closely and you can see Neil’s stick bending from the push.

  10. jondan9193 - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM

    When you look at the replay several times you cannot say without a doubt that neil kicked it in. If you look closley Lundquist’s paddle does graze the top of the puck.That motion along with Neil being pushed into the goal was how the puck went in.
    Also, for Lundquist to say after the game that somebody wanted them in shows his lack of maturity. I hope he does get fined for those commenst. He should have chasen his words more carefully especially since the rangers won the game.
    Really, the NHL wants Ottawa in? The NHL like any other sports wants the big market teams.

  11. bmorethansteel - Apr 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM

    HL is a crying biatch!!!

  12. washburn1000 - Apr 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM

    You Mensa candidates do realize that something had to cause the puck to accelerate right? Hank is right, the only people who can think the replay as inconclusive are crooked officials in Toronto and the fine (albeit semi-literate) citizens of Philadelphia

    • hockeyflow33 - Apr 24, 2012 at 12:52 AM

      Yes we do but in order to overturn a call on the ice there needs to be actual video proof of that

    • wicky888 - Apr 24, 2012 at 9:09 AM

      Hey hey hey, I’m a Flyers fan, and I’m totally literate. We can speculate on here all day about physic and inertia and “something hit the puck to increase its velocity blah blah blah…..”. Heres the facts, it was called a goal on the ice. While it did appear to have been kicked upon first glance (I also thought no goal), the other replay angles never show Neils skate making contact with the puck. Therefore, they had to call it a goal. Back in the days before all this “conclusive evidence” BS, that goal is disallowed all day. I also wouldnt be complaining much if I were you, the Rangers were on the power for 30% of the game.

      PS you Ranger fans are totally right about the Winter Classic, someone wanted the Flyers back in that game.

  13. sabatimus - Apr 23, 2012 at 11:14 PM

    Hey James: He didn’t criticize the refs, he criticized “Somebody”, whoever that is.

    • barkar942 - Apr 24, 2012 at 1:17 AM

      Probably meant the same NBC guys that Torts called out after the Winter Classic!

  14. Stiller43 - Apr 23, 2012 at 11:46 PM

    I was rooting for the sens and i think neil kicked it (or something that affected the motion of the puck with his kicking motion, which is also not allowed)

  15. stakex - Apr 24, 2012 at 12:15 AM

    This goal should never have counted. Even if you don’t agree that the puck was clearly kicked in (it was, several angles show conclusive proof that the puck picks up speed as Neil kicks at it), the goal should have been called off for goalie interference. These refs called the game so tight tonight you would think it was a meaningless pre-season game…. yet they didn’t wave this goal off when Lundquist was pretty much mugged on the play? What kind of sick joke is that?

  16. misterlucid - Apr 24, 2012 at 12:16 AM

    New York papers will have lots of fun with this

  17. dsd3 - Apr 24, 2012 at 12:34 AM

    NHL conspiracy theorists are hilarious. I’m sure someone at NBC is rigging it so the Ottawa Senators win so they can have better TV ratings. Oh wait …

    Surprised Lundqvist would say something so dumb. He’s usually pretty rational. I guess he was mad, but his conspiracy theory comment was moronic.

    • jimw81 - Apr 24, 2012 at 12:47 AM

      i guess King Henrik (whatever his nickname is) is going to be $10,000.00 less in his bank account.

      • hockeyflow33 - Apr 24, 2012 at 12:53 AM

        $2,500 is the cap per the cba

      • jimw81 - Apr 24, 2012 at 1:00 AM

        thanks for correction.

  18. bobhpine - Apr 24, 2012 at 1:00 AM

    FYI the NHL is against every team and is in the tank for your rival teal…duh… Grrrr

  19. mclovinhockey - Apr 24, 2012 at 3:49 AM

    Honestly it looks as if he kicks Kings stick which pushed the puck in, I think it’s the right call, then again I also would have called several things the refs missed against the rangers. There were lots of things that favored NY. Some of the calls were horrible. No need to argue. Game 7 is coming up soon.

  20. gmenfan1982 - Apr 24, 2012 at 8:05 AM

    Even if Neil didn’t end up touching the puck with his skate he still impeded lundqvist’s ability to make a save by pushing him with his stick. Goaltender interference. Just like how a player can’t push the goalie into the net to get the puck passed the line.

  21. renberg19 - Apr 24, 2012 at 8:41 AM

    The Goalie Interference call on the Sens that led to the 5 on 3 was 10x worse than this call.

    Signed,

    Flyers Fan

    • stopthemovie - Apr 24, 2012 at 8:52 AM

      Agreed, that phantom interference turned that game around, the last one only made the final score close.

    • oconnor007 - Apr 24, 2012 at 8:57 AM

      Kreider’s interference call was also less than ideal. Lest we forget Foligno also kicked Lundqvist’s skate out from under him earlier in the game.

      This entire series for both sides has been obnoxiously officiated.

    • schockeyref - Apr 24, 2012 at 3:17 PM

      Wrong. One is a subjective,at that moment call that may have been incorrect. The other was an incorrect call that was then upheld upon review. A joke and a disgrace. You may not be able to see direct contact (although if they used that “NBSee-it zoom stuff I bet you could), but the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

  22. lordstanley65 - Apr 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM

    “Pssst…Hendrik! Come here…I wrote up a little statement I want you to sock puppet for me with the press tonight! Here, check this out.”

    “Gee, I don’t know, John, I…”

    “Just do it! And don’t worry about the fine, I’ll pick up the tab on that”

    (sigh) “On it, boss”

  23. cruuuzcontrol - Apr 24, 2012 at 10:51 AM

    Foligno earned his interference call with his obnoxious conduct in the crease throughout the game. The refs told him to knock it off and took the opportunity on the push by Staal to embellish and get a shot in on Hank. The Sens strategy for the entire series has been to crash the net hard… You risk getting calls like that when you employ that strategy.

  24. elimanningbobblehead - Apr 24, 2012 at 1:01 PM

    the officiating for this was absolutely the worst I have seen ….since the last game… here is the most radical idea EVER …think about it before you sh$it on it. Remove the refs (expect the 2 linesman) from the ice. Sit 4-6 refs in the stands in boxes similar to the goal judge box so they have a better view of the action. when a penalty is called ( and I bet there would be a lot more calls made seeing from the fans eye view) they hit a designated button for each team (like blue for home team and yellow for away team) that sets off some kind of alert (like flashing light or something…like blue for home team and yellow for away team) the Linesman raises his arm like a ref would then when the team touches up and the linesman blows the whistle and sends the guy to the box. and they break up fights like they do now..

    Think about it… if you ever played hockey…at ice level it is sooooooo fast and its easy to miss something but at fans eye view you can see the whole ice and everything going on in the play… but they would probably miss something anyway… eef it let’s go gladiator style and let them play till the last man stands. GO RANGERS … Remember this game as it is the turning point of their quest to the Cup.. Neil is a bum and notice how he always wants to fight Prust and not Krupp…cause Krupp kix his ass everytime they fight…

Featured video

Detroit must exploit Boston's young D
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. T. Oshie (3903)
  2. M. Duchene (3323)
  3. B. Bishop (2699)
  4. D. Backes (2605)
  5. E. Malkin (2437)
  1. O. Palat (2401)
  2. R. Getzlaf (2366)
  3. S. Mason (2265)
  4. H. Zetterberg (2148)
  5. F. Andersen (1963)