Skip to content

Video: Why Ryan Callahan’s 3-2 goal counted

May 23, 2012, 9:48 PM EDT

The New Jersey Devils currently hold a 3-2 lead in Game 5 of the Eastern Conference finals, but the New York Rangers are very much in the game after falling behind 3-0. If New York manages to win – particularly by a goal – then Ryan Callahan‘s controversial early second period tally will be quite controversial. Take a look at the replay yourself to decide if it was – to quote the official – “a good hockey goal.”

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

NHL.com’s Situation Room blog provides the following explanation for why the goal was allowed.

At 0:32 of the second period in the Rangers/Devils game, video review upheld the referee’s call on the ice that Artem Anisimov‘s cross-ice pass deflected off Ryan Callahan’s leg and into the Devils’ net. According to rule 78.4 “if an attacking player has the puck deflect into the net, off his skate or body, in any manner, the goal shall be allowed.” Good Goal New York.

Do you agree or disagree with that interpretation?

  1. dabutcha114 - May 23, 2012 at 10:01 PM

    Hell yeah! Who wants to see the Devils in the finals.

  2. tarotsujimoto74 - May 23, 2012 at 10:03 PM

    Eh, he didn’t kick it. No real reason to overrule it.

  3. devilscup950003 - May 23, 2012 at 10:04 PM

    can nbc announcers root for the rangers any harder???definitely the rangers best game to date…lets go devils!!!!

    • daburghdabest - May 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM

      Dude I hate The Rags but you have to be kidding. Doc is inarguably a Devils’ homer.

      • entersandman42ny - May 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM

        Doc isn’t a homer, he is the only one who calls it fair; especially considering he has called both devils and rangers games. Eddie Olcyzk and Pierre McGuire are all over the rangers and ryan callahan especially. Every time Callahan makes an ordinary move or play they rave about how great he is.

    • daburghdabest - May 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM

      Doc called Devils games for 21 YEARS, they hosted a freaking Doc Emrick night!

  4. hiltonandastoria - May 23, 2012 at 10:24 PM

    Good goal, for a long time as long as the puck ended up in the net without a high stick it was good, they added the “kicking motion” for safety.
    There was no kicking.
    Count it

  5. dhillca - May 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM

    Nothing to interpret , puck went off a player. Goal

  6. daburghdabest - May 23, 2012 at 10:46 PM

    Rags can feel free to make vacation plans starting Saturday, lol. They go down for good Friday night.

  7. entersandman42ny - May 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM

    The kicking motion rule is the worst rule in hockey. It is almost impossible to tell whether a guy is turning his skate to change direction or stop or whether they are trying to kick the puck in. As a devils fan, I think it was a kicking motion, but i can see why the NHL ruled it a good goal. They need to change the rule to eliminate the subjectivity of these goals.

    • ithacamike - May 24, 2012 at 8:54 AM

      Well said. Callahan was skating parallel to the goal line and then shot his left leg toward the goal to deflect the puck in. I’d call it a kicking motion too- just an odd one. I think we can agree that there’s no way they were gonna overturn the call on the ice in MSG with the Rags down 2 goals.

    • brian32556 - May 24, 2012 at 10:26 AM

      entersandman42ny
      agreed. I’m a Ranger fan and was ready for it to be overturned. Another subjective call.

  8. kgod30 - May 24, 2012 at 12:43 PM

    Please…how was that not overturned….anyone skate lately. Seems like it shoud have been ruled a “no goal” and it seeems pretty clear…(my opinion).
    1) Who stops with their inside foot….
    2) Watch the head reaction – looks down and then toward the goal….
    3) He kicked his let leg toward the net…

    • teaspoon1731 - May 24, 2012 at 6:08 PM

      You ever seen someone snow a guy, or even a commercial where someone is stopping? They stop with both feet.

      Secondly, no one’s arguing that he didn’t do it on purpose, so it’s not shocking that he looked at his foot and then the net.

      I thought it was a redirect and thus a good goal. However, if it had been overturned for kicking I would have understood it. My definition of kicking is a full swinging motion, back to front contacting the puck at some point. I don’t see that as a kick purely because his leg stopped and angled the puck in the net. You obviously disagree with that, and that’s ok. Toronto didn’t. Game’s over, Ranger’s still lost, doesn’t matter.

      • kgod30 - May 24, 2012 at 6:37 PM

        TSpoon – I appreciate your thoughts…2 points:
        1) he was not trying to stop…so who cares about the “snowing,”
        2) he did kick his leg toward the net to direct the puck…that is how I saw it…and just becuase the guys in Toronto missed it doesn’t mean I am wrong.

      • teaspoon1731 - May 24, 2012 at 9:05 PM

        I made the comment about stopping because your first question was “who stops with their inside foot”.

        And I still didn’t see a kick. His foot moved, but I still don’t see a kick there. I already agreed to disagree.

Featured video

Are Penguins vulnerable vs. Columbus?
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. E. Malkin (4472)
  2. T. Oshie (3452)
  3. M. Duchene (3293)
  4. M. Brodeur (2847)
  5. B. Bishop (2843)