Skip to content

Video: Controversy colors Blackhawks goal, disallowed score

May 20, 2013, 10:36 PM EDT

Two wrongs don’t make a right, but sometimes they calm down angry fans.

That’s at least the thought that clouds many minds when people believe that a “makeup” call takes place. Plenty of onlookers believed that Game 3 officials made two bad goal-related calls in a short period of time in the third period of the Detroit Red Wings’ eventual 3-1 win against the Chicago Blackhawks on Monday.

First, Patrick Kane‘s goal counted even though Johan Franzen was shaken up during the play:

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

Moments later, an Andrew Shaw game-tying goal was waved off for (what many believed was a phantom) goalie interference call:

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

Pavel Datsyuk locked down the win with a 3-1 goal a little later, but that won’t stop people from critiquing the calls.

(Hey, at least Blackhawks and Red Wings fans can agree on something other than the Central Division being tough, huh?)

  1. jakreidler - May 20, 2013 at 10:42 PM

    Dirty game all around. Lots of missed calls on both sides.

    • polegojim - May 21, 2013 at 9:38 AM

      Not dirty jake…. just letting them play.

      Both sides had their share of non-calls.

      I loved the game as played.

    • drdalecharrette - May 21, 2013 at 2:19 PM

      All I know is that were enough missed calls to go around, and the team that is losing gets to complain the most, the team thats winning takes the high road. I just wish that the freakin announcers would not be so biased to the Hawks, It is just so damn obvious. My god the red wings are winning and playing great, and all they can talk about is the Hawks, and now great they are playing. Did they not look at the score, they lost 3-1 and 4-1 the other game, in my book that is losing twice in two games by a score of 7-2, hardly the muscle of a champion. Just call the game neutral and quit being such homers. It is obvious that NBC has told them to support the Hawks, and say nothing about the Red Wings, I find that I would rather listen to the water in my backyard than those jokers on NBC call a game. They are terrible. They should just be neutral and call the game as it happens , not as they want it to be.

  2. Stiller43 - May 20, 2013 at 10:43 PM

    Hey…your videos STILL DONT WORK on my iphone. Wtf

    • andrewproughcfe - May 21, 2013 at 12:41 AM

      iPhones still suck, eh? Samsung will take care of that for you.

      • bensawesomeness - May 21, 2013 at 1:02 AM

        The videos don’t load on my Galaxy s3 either

      • eastcoastwingette - May 21, 2013 at 1:23 AM

        Dude, I have a Toshiba and I can’t see it. Also,you should know better. Stop complaining. They’ll eventually broadcast the play-by-play. The rest of us who couldn’t watch the game due to whatever but actually CARE listened to it via radio. All hail Paul Woods!!

    • therealjr - May 21, 2013 at 1:22 AM

      They won’t work on any newer iOS/Android devices until they are ready to transition to HTML5 video. The question is, when they do so, will it still be in 8-bit resolution?

  3. cspuck7 - May 20, 2013 at 10:45 PM

    If that was a legit no-call on Franzen and he was hurt, then I have no problem with the refs not blowing the whistle. However, that is a 2:00 boarding penalty in any sense of the game, so the whistle should’ve been blown, and the disallowed goal seemed like a make-up call…big turn of events

    • sabatimus - May 21, 2013 at 10:47 AM

      Franzen turned toward the boards as the hit was being delivered, so I agree with the no-boarding call. However, the goaltender interference wave-off was at best an extremely ticky-tack call–there was VERY light contact initially, but Howard had time to reset (which he did).

      • greenmtnboy31 - May 21, 2013 at 1:42 PM

        sabatimus obviously knows of what he speaks, because Franzen created that unfortunate situation. Waiving off an obvious goal just confirms that these refs are in over their heads and probably shouldn’t be officiating post season games.

  4. kiopta1 - May 20, 2013 at 10:47 PM

    Go Wings!

  5. LampyB - May 20, 2013 at 10:51 PM

    What’s it going to take to FIX YOUR VIDEOS???

    • therealjr - May 20, 2013 at 11:14 PM

      Seriously, these games are in HD, why are the NBC clips in Commodore 64 resolution?

      • sabatimus - May 21, 2013 at 10:48 AM

        It would be nice to at least be able to choose the resolution you want to view it at; the footage right now makes 240p look nice.

  6. joeyg88 - May 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM

    Howard>Crawford. A lot of missed calls but hawks didn’t wake up til 3rd period. Need to play physical for 3 periods not just one

  7. valoisjoeybfeld69 - May 20, 2013 at 10:53 PM

    give it a rest with the refs. you all sound like a bunch of whiners.

  8. kendog1 - May 20, 2013 at 10:53 PM

    I don’t see what the controversy is. He went into the blue paint on his own and prevented the goalie from making the play. That’s what the rule states. The Franzen hit from behind no-call was ridiculous. Have they not been calling that all season as boarding?

    • hockeyflow33 - May 21, 2013 at 2:51 AM

      You’re actually allowed to stand in the crease so long as you do not impede the goalies movements. I thought it was a pretty bad call and I’m a goalie

      • imleftcoast - May 21, 2013 at 3:11 PM

        Weak call on the goal. The Franzen hit almost an automatic 2 minutes. Trading those off is not satisfactory, but the Hawks don’t deserve both calls. Officiating sucks again this playoff.

  9. kendog1 - May 20, 2013 at 10:55 PM

    I don’t see what the controversy is. He went into the blue paint on his own and prevented the goalie from making the play. That’s what the rule states. The Franzen hit from behind no-call was ridiculous.

    • andrewproughcfe - May 21, 2013 at 12:43 AM

      I agree. I’ve got no dog in the hunt, but he stood right where he’s not allowed to. And that ref had no doubt in his mind he was waving it off immediately.

      • hockeyflow33 - May 21, 2013 at 2:51 AM

        The rule has been changed so that is not accurate.

    • greenmtnboy31 - May 21, 2013 at 1:46 PM

      Players are and have been allowed in the blue paint essentially since the last time the refs blew a big call like this and allowed Brett Hull’s goal to stand when it was clearly against the rule at the time. The fact is that Kindl initiated contact with Shaw which is what put Shaw further in the paint until he then came back out a bit without ever interfereing with the keepers movement and by rule should have been a goal that stood. But, the NHL has these amateurs out on the ice in stripes that are just ruining the post season this year. The refs should not be the ones to determine the outcome of a game and they clearly did that last night. It’s shameful, but this is Bettman’s league to ruin.

  10. sonofsamiam - May 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM

    I’ve given up trying to watch videos via the mobile app. That doesn’t mean NBC shouldn’t be embarrassed they can’t get it right though, because it is bush league!

  11. csilojohnson - May 21, 2013 at 6:41 AM

    Videos don’t work on mobile app..
    Very bush league

  12. greatwhiteape - May 21, 2013 at 8:06 AM

    There have been worse “goaltender interference” calls that have killed a series…

    • kirkmcleansbaby - May 21, 2013 at 1:16 PM

      “What the FUN TIME!” – Awesome! lol

  13. dearyxd - May 21, 2013 at 9:04 AM

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=415Rdmbg2Qc?feature=player_detailpage&w=640&h=360%5D

  14. steelers4385 - May 21, 2013 at 9:24 AM

    I havent said one thing about the refs cause i like dirty play. To an extent. But the no call on franzen was just down right disrespectfull.

  15. buffalomafia - May 21, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    Yeah whats up with that bad call!

  16. feedmetherock - May 21, 2013 at 9:48 AM

    Franzen turned into it and braced for impact. These hits have been going on all series. Abdelkader smoked Seabrook in the first on a similar play. Franzen tried to sell that it was worse than it was. I think it was a good no call. The refs have set the bar for the series.

    The goalie interference was BS. A. Shaw was bumped further into the crease by Nyquist B. as the play developed Howard’s job was the hug the post, not come out to the top of the crease and challenge the shooter. The way the play developed Shaw did not interfere with Howard’s ability to make that save. The rule has been changed, you can be in the crease without goaltender interference. Funny how most wing fans forget their beloved Holmstrom made his living in the crease and interfering with goalies. But as soon as someone gives them a taste of their own medicine it is a massive uproar and overreaction. It is quite comical to say the least.

    • themediaisdumberthandirt - May 21, 2013 at 10:36 AM

      Yes and how many disallowed goals did the Wings have that way? Plenty. Holmstrom was masterful at screening the goalie and knowing when to tip and when to move, but plenty of goals were disallowed. The Shaw play was goalie interference regardless of how you feel about the Wings and the Franzen play was boarding. Funny how the only goal the Hawks could score was by cheating

    • jeffchadwick - May 21, 2013 at 5:25 PM

      Go watch the youtube video on Holmstrom posted above and find the legitimately disallowed goal in the bunch. It’s a challenge.

    • mikeinindy - May 22, 2013 at 7:35 AM

      Why wasn’t Franzen taken of for ‘embelishing’? That was not a bad hit, and I don’t believe that he was really hurt that bad — didn’t even miss a shift.

      No goal call was a total joke. Somebody at league offices must have money on the soviets (sorry, wings)!

      Cleary is a thug, plain and simple.

  17. ctochester12 - May 21, 2013 at 9:59 AM

    BS call on the “goaltender” interference. No contact, and he did not stop Howard from making a play on the puck.

    • hockeydon10 - May 21, 2013 at 10:25 AM

      Look around the 0:13 mark, when Shaw’s leg knocks into Howard’s stick, which in turn moves Howard’s blocker.

      • ctochester12 - May 21, 2013 at 10:55 AM

        That is a good view, and it makes it even more of a good goal, as the Detroit player actually pushes Shaw into Howard. I guess that can be the new way to prevent a goal, just push the player into the goalie and get the goal waved off.

      • thencredwing - May 21, 2013 at 12:07 PM

        While the contact from Kindl may have caused the first contact with Howard’s stick the second contact was all Shaw as he spun to his left kicking the stick all by himself. So that argument fails as well.

      • ctochester12 - May 21, 2013 at 1:02 PM

        If Shaw had not been pushed in the first place where would he have been when he spun, if he had spun at all?

      • hockeydon10 - May 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM

        Kindl pushing Shaw into Howard is irrelevant except when determining whether it’s a penalty or not. The ref clearly did not call a penalty, so he took this into account.

        Thanks for admitting that this view shows Shaw bumping Howard and therefore affecting his ability to make the play within his crease. This, and this alone, determines whether the goal should be waved off or not. Because Kindl was pushed into Shaw, who was then pushed into Howard simply means Shaw did not deserve a penalty.

        Good call; no goal.

  18. yilnfic - May 21, 2013 at 10:05 AM

    There is all this controversy about goaltender interference and I am pretty sure that isn’t why the goal was disallowed. The puck appears to go in off Shaw’s glove (the overhead cam shows this the best).

  19. benrob99 - May 21, 2013 at 10:35 AM

    It IS ridiculous to compare toews to Crosby…. He isn’t half the player Sidney is.

  20. hosewater2 - May 21, 2013 at 11:51 AM

    So it’s a controversial goal, I’d be upset if I was a Chicago fan.

    But bottom line is Crawford let in a couple softies, can’t win in the playoffs doing that. Didn’t we read this script last year?

    Don’t care about Jennings Trophy, it’s a team game and you guys brought Crawford/Emery to the Dance.

  21. thencredwing - May 21, 2013 at 12:04 PM

    Everyone needs to read more of the rules before just spewing “no contact” repeatedly. You need to read more than 1 rule in this case because in 69.3 the 4th and 5th paragraphs read
    “If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.”
    and
    “For this purpose, a player ‘establishes a significant position within
    the crease’ when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.”
    By this portion of the rules the call while subjective, does not require contact for the imposition of this rule and the call was a valid one by the official and therefore proper. It also establishes that while by 69.1 it may not be against the rules for a player to be in the crease, if he is in the crease then by 69.3 what his effect by being there is can be deemed illegal. Further Shaw was in the crease for more than ‘an instantaneous period of time.’

    • greenmtnboy31 - May 21, 2013 at 1:50 PM

      Actually no, Kindl pushing Shaw further into the crease is the only conceivable problem on this play, but even that did not have an impact on Howard’s ability to not make the save.

    • greenmtnboy31 - May 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM

      Having a tough time with big words like “significant” or “substantial” eh?!?

      Shaw is at the top of the crease when Kindl hits him and then Kindl hits the butt end of Howard’s stick and that is the contact with the keeper. Shaw didn’t even make any contact, which was initiated by the contact from Kindl, until after the puck hit Howard.

      • thencredwing - May 22, 2013 at 9:37 AM

        Not as tough as you seem to be having with the words. The terminology is ‘substantial portion.’ Substantial is a subjective word and but portion is not. Considering that he is not outside of the crease, a portion of his body is in the crease and was deemed by the offical to be obstructing Howard’s sight-line and available area of movement within the crease by being there at all even before the contact with Kindl, he is guilty of the infraction by rule 69.3. I also point out once again that in those portions of the rule contact is not mentioned as being a required element to be deemed interference if the goalie does not have room to defend his goal. The official on the ice determined in his opinion that was the case and waived off the goal. It is not subject to video review and therefore the call on the ice must stand. Now if the official had the benefit of the straight overhead view, which of course he doesn’t maybe he called it differently but that is how it goes with subjective calls. Just like the non-call on Hjalmarsson, replays certainly make it look like it should have been called but same thing, not reviewable by video and the refs don’t have all the angles we get in replays.

  22. skarfacci - May 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM

    Chicago will choke. They just can’t beat Detrojt when it counts. A great season down the tubes. Detroit may win SC.

  23. shoobiedoobin - May 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM

    Franzen was boarded. From behind. The hitter saw his back for about 5-8 feet or so. That’s minimum 2 minutes and it lead directly to the goal against Detroit. And yeah it was a phantom goalie interference and it’s pretty obvious it was a makeup call. This is one of the rare times it balances out. Only thing it hurt was Howard’s shutout.

    What irks me is that charging/boarding goon MONSTROSITY that went down with 2 minutes left when Chicago activated cry-baby mode. Guy takes about 6 strides directly into a guy and boards him. No one even noticed it and it should be 2-6 games worth of SUSPENSION time. Chicago showed their true colors last night. Bunch of babies.

  24. drpompanoduke - May 21, 2013 at 1:22 PM

    Thx wing for looking up the rule. Guy camped out in crease, they lost the goal. Happened tons to Holmstrom in his career. Hawks like penguins, want every call every game & then act like babies when it goes against them. Go red wings!!

  25. jsutan - May 21, 2013 at 1:24 PM

    I don’t know why you guys are calling it goaltender interference, that’s not why the goal was waived off. It was waved off because Shaw was in the crease and you can’t be in the crease because it prevents the goaltenders mobility. His entire body was in the crease for the entire play and well before — it’s a good call.

  26. jpat2424 - May 21, 2013 at 1:24 PM

    Wasn’t boarding on Franzen. I can prove it. Know how? It wasn’t called , so no boarding. Also. NHL can’t have it both ways. It’s either a goal or goalie interference. So good goal or Two minutes in the box. Make a decision NHL

    • hockeydon10 - May 21, 2013 at 1:35 PM

      Except this either/or hypothesis you’re spouting has never been the case. There have been countless instances of contact with the goalie resulting in a waived goal and no penalty.

  27. icedog97 - May 21, 2013 at 2:04 PM

    The Franzen hit was not a penalty. Franzen protected himself…then tried to draw a call by lying on the ice. Exactly how was he hurt and immobilized by that hit? HE WASN”T!!! But he sure did lay there like he was. Did anybody ask him? He seemed pretty healthy on the goal by Datsyuk where he picked up an assist only a few minutes later.

    The interference call was bogus…plain and simple.

    He was pushed in and didn’t stay there…he was moving away from the goalie at the time of the goal.

  28. jpat2424 - May 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM

    Shut up

  29. drdalecharrette - May 21, 2013 at 2:30 PM

    Bring on game 4. Cleary said it all after the game. He was asked what game 4 was going to be like, He said just like tonight only more. Smiled and said, “W cant wait.” We are going to back down. The Red Wings know they have a formula now, and they know they have frustrated the coach, the players, and the entire City of Chicago, as all three thought after game one they were just going to sweep us. You forgot, this is the Red Wings, this is the playoffs, and like it or not, NBC announcers, and any other group that just simply wants the red wings fail. We are not going away, we are just getting started.

    I think the red wings, feel like they are the better team now, the more disciplined, the more composed team, and they know that they have a formula that works, and is frustrating the Hawks. I think the Hawks looked past the Red Wings after game one thinking they were just going to be able to skill themselves into the finals. We are showing them, that you have to get past us first. Not an easy task.

    Just my opinion

    • titansrbeast - May 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM

      I don’t think any one person that’s a part of Chicago’s organization would have expected to sweep Detroit, so that comment is pretty off. Another thing is it takes 4 games to win and it’ll be tough to beat the Hawks (even though I AM rooting for the wings and was one of the very few people that said the Wings will get the upset), but if Chicago drops another one at the Joe this series is done. I think it will go to 7 games but something tells me the Wings will pull it out. Good luck to both teams, and I hope to see you in the final vs the SHARKS!

Featured video

Detroit must exploit Boston's young D
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. E. Malkin (4472)
  2. T. Oshie (4344)
  3. M. Duchene (3875)
  4. B. Bishop (3368)
  5. H. Zetterberg (3089)
  1. V. Tarasenko (2909)
  2. P. Bergeron (2876)
  3. O. Palat (2817)
  4. D. Backes (2775)
  5. M. Brodeur (2590)