Skip to content

Tortorella, Henrik Sedin dispute costly no-goal call

Nov 18, 2013, 9:13 AM EST

The Dallas Stars won their third straight game last night, beating the Vancouver Canucks 2-1. Kari Lehtonen was fantastic, stopping 43 of 44 shots, but as far as the Canucks are concerned, he got a little help.

Henrik Sedin appeared to score what would have been a critical goal at 6:48 of the second period, but it was called off based on the belief that Daniel Sedin interfered with the play by making contact with Lehtonen.

You can watch Henrik’s overruled goal below:

As you just saw, Canucks coach John Tortorella was livid.

“It was a big play in the game,” Tortorella said after the game, according to the Calgary Sun. “I think we need to get the call right. … It was the wrong call.”

Henrik Sedin matched his bench boss’ conviction.

“It was a goal,” he said. “It was a goal. That’s the bottom line.”

Even Lehtonen admitted that he was surprised by the call. Of course, while it’s natural to wonder what might have been if a different decision had been made, it shouldn’t detract from the fact that Lehtonen had a good game and certainly did his part last night.

On top of that, Vancouver’s offense has been a recurring problem lately. They have recorded just one goal in each of their last four games and have consequently lost all of those matches.

  1. packerswin96 - Nov 18, 2013 at 9:17 AM

    These fricken’ refs are getting worse all the time! Do something about this crap NHL, they are absolutely ruining the game.

    • ibieiniid - Nov 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM

      nah dude. the only reason you think that is because you have 3000 views of super-HD puck closeups to judge the refs on now. they’ve always made mistakes.

    • sunderlanding - Nov 18, 2013 at 2:17 PM

      Grow up. Mistakes are made. Players make them all the time, and they get paid more. So the refs messed up a call? Now all the internet clowns watch it in slow motion from ten different angles, and think that this is unacceptable, or that they would’ve done better. These refs are the best in the world, and yes, sometimes they make mistakes. Deal with it. It’s a game. This isn’t going to be the reason the Canucks don’t win the cup.

    • tdrusher225 - Nov 18, 2013 at 5:52 PM

      Do you understand how hard it is to be a referee in the NHL? I can’t comprehend they get as many calls right as they do. I could never do what these guys do, trying to make split-second calls at this speed. It’s easy to sit there and say that with instant, slow-motion replays on your HDTV dude.

    • arlingtonrob - Nov 18, 2013 at 6:08 PM

      Yeah…on review it was a poor call, but it was close in real time.

      Mistakes are made be all, and at full speed perfection is impossible for both players and officials.

      But the Nucks only scored one…

      Get over it, and move on…and put the puck in the net more than once.

      Dallas is hardly a defensive powerhouse.

  2. hockey412 - Nov 18, 2013 at 9:19 AM

    Eh. No one’s ever lost a game in the second period. Suck it up, Torts.

    • davebabychreturns - Nov 18, 2013 at 2:36 PM

      I don’t disagree with the tone of your post.

      That being said in tight games where you are seeing 5-6 goals scored in total (4 in this case) calling a good goal back or allowing a bad one absolutely can decide the outcome.

      Anyway, I don’t expect perfect or even good officiating, just consistently awful calls and if that means that somewhere down the line the Canucks benefit from something like this then fine.

      • hockey412 - Nov 18, 2013 at 2:56 PM

        I don’t disagree…and didn’t see the play (can’t play the video, either)…just dislike Torts. Just common trolling, really.

    • arlingtonrob - Nov 18, 2013 at 6:13 PM

      I have no problem with Torts going a bit nutz…he’s standing up for his club. But calls like this happen, always have and always will…

      …it was period 2, so get over it and win the damn game.

      At home against the Stars? C’mon…one damn goal otherwise…really?

  3. stroknows - Nov 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM

    The refs have been terrible this year. What’s becoming entirely too frustrating is the amount of goals/turnovers from the refs on the sideboards getting in the way of clear attempts.

    Since when did we need this many refs? With all those eyes out there you would at least think that they could get calls right.

    • sunderlanding - Nov 18, 2013 at 2:19 PM

      Maybe that means it’s really hard to ref an NHL game. They make mistakes. Guess what? So do the players. The refs are part of the game as well. Deal with it.

  4. 2qswing - Nov 18, 2013 at 9:40 AM

    you would think he’d ask for help. I’m no Canucks fan but that was a horrible, game changing call. Who hold these guys accountable for this crap? 4 officials on the ice getting in the way but cant get this right?

  5. sabatimus - Nov 18, 2013 at 9:47 AM

    That call was, at best, beyond ticky-tack, if he even made contact with Lehtonen at all.

  6. blue21c - Nov 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM

    Torts is the Mike Ditka of hockey. I love it when he gets all wound up!!

  7. jb8588 - Nov 18, 2013 at 9:57 AM

    Wow…what a terrible call. Sedin never even touched Lehtonen! I agree that the NHL refs are awful, and never seem to improve in any way over the years. Though Shanaban is just as bad as times (aka not suspending Kadri for his second hit in the Wild game last week that got him tossed).

    • sunderlanding - Nov 18, 2013 at 2:21 PM

      NHL refs are the best in the world. If you expect them to never miss a call. Watch NHL ’14 on your XBox. The refs are part of the game, and, just like the players, make mistakes from time to time. Remember you have the benifit of a thousand angles and slow motion.

    • sunderlanding - Nov 18, 2013 at 2:22 PM

      …also the second Kadri hit was not suspendable according to the headshot rule. Go read it if you don’t believe me.

  8. ibieiniid - Nov 18, 2013 at 10:05 AM

    it’d still be really close to decide this one (takes more than trying to pause the Youtube at the exact time), but why did they do away with crease violations? did I answer my own question when i said “it’d still be really close to decide this one” or is it more about trying to delay games less?

    • ibieiniid - Nov 18, 2013 at 12:33 PM

      there’s nothing dumber than a commenter that thumbs down questions. does anybody know the answer? I can’t find it on the googletube.

      ::cue “funny” guys thumbs downing my re-question::

  9. gbfb88 - Nov 18, 2013 at 10:34 AM

    This is one of those times when I’m not upset it got called, and I wouldn’t be upset if it wasn’t. There is a grey area on a lot of this stuff. It’s not that the refs are that bad, it’s that a lot of calls are judgement calls. In this particular case, I’ll side with the refs, and their call, because Torts is a jack@$$.

    • ibieiniid - Nov 18, 2013 at 10:51 AM

      or you could look at the actual evidence and side with who’s actually right. it wasn’t an interference.

      • elvispocomo - Nov 18, 2013 at 11:26 AM

        I think he just likes to read headlines and make random comments…

      • sunderlanding - Nov 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM

        True, but goaltender interferance isn’t reviewable. The refs did what they thought was right, which is all you can ask for. Mistakes will be made.

    • cofran2004 - Nov 18, 2013 at 1:22 PM

      “You know, all the evidence supports that Jim Bob didn’t commit the double murder of his wife and child. He was in Japan on business at the time, and there’s just no way he could have done it. But the way he conducts himself on tv during interviews makes me dislike him. GUILTY!”

      Thats what you just did. Sounds kinda dumb, doesn’t it?

  10. lightning69 - Nov 18, 2013 at 10:52 AM

    Torts can be beyond obnoxious (putting it nicely) but wow, that was a pretty bad call. Don’t care for either team, BTW.

    I get that you have to have confidence in your on ice officials, but I was suprised to learn that on ice crews can over rule Toronto’s HQ in reviews. Really?!

    Happened to Tampa Vs Montreal last week and nearly changed the outcome. (kind of did with Montreal getting a point after SO loss). A worse call than this game also. That the Bolts ring one off the camera and Ref didn’t even know . Then waves it off with minimal contact after HQ phones in. Later allows Briere the tie goal late in 3rd with much more contact and Briere almost to the goal line behind Bishop?!

    Kudos to the crew though for calling blatant penalties on Montreal in the last min even in the face of the Bell Centre maniacs. You could really see them sweating those calls.

  11. columbiannecktie - Nov 18, 2013 at 10:56 AM

    It’s a trivially easy fix, just bring in the coach’s challenge like they’ve been debating for years. For the life of me, I just can’t understand why they cannot come to a consensus on it.

    • ibieiniid - Nov 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM

      have they been debating that on goalie interferences though? I don’t think this play would be covered by a coach challenge.

    • sunderlanding - Nov 18, 2013 at 2:27 PM

      They don’t want to slow down the game. That’s why. You know coaches will use it at some point in basically every game. That means two more stoppages with, possible, lengthy review. I’m not saying I’m not for it, but that’s why they don’t want it.

      • nothanksimdriving123 - Nov 18, 2013 at 6:48 PM

        Coaches who use it for a timeout and then don’t have it for an actual bad call (like this one) will soon stop misusing it.

      • sunderlanding - Nov 19, 2013 at 2:01 AM

        I’m sure eventually something like that will come into place. Just like I’m sure they’re going to add “goalie interference” as reviewable matterial. I was just explaining why the league is hesitant. It would be bad if we starting reviewing more and more things based on principal of “getting the call right”. Once that ball gets rolling it could be difficult to stop. Mistakes are made, and at some point we need to accept that.

  12. pizzaman77 - Nov 18, 2013 at 11:18 AM

    The Stars involved with a controversial goal? Say it ain’t so (’99 Cup Finals)

    • darksidecowboy - Nov 18, 2013 at 1:27 PM

      move on much….plus the whole game was ticky tack calls for both teams

  13. shortsxit34 - Nov 18, 2013 at 11:46 AM

    I can’t see the video on my phone, only a picture from the other article.

    So having said that, what made the referee’s call wrong?

    • ibieiniid - Nov 18, 2013 at 12:12 PM

      the guy was in his face, but if he touched him at all, he barely even made contact with Lehtonen. the screen was what caused Lehtonen to be out of position more than any sort of contact was.

  14. gbatap - Nov 18, 2013 at 11:53 AM

    As a Stars fan even I would say that was a goal but the problem I have is this type of play has happened a lot this year. Guys are “interfering” with the goalie and goals are waived off but then there’s no penalty? Doesn’t make sense. Either it’s a goal or it’s a penalty.

    • sonvar - Nov 18, 2013 at 1:17 PM

      That’s the problem I’ve had with calls like this. Either it’s a good goal or the goal doesn’t count along with a player penalized for interference. I don’t understand this middle ground of it not being a good goal and no penalty coming from interference.
      Seeing the replay the goal looks good. However that being said it was in the second period and the Canuck did have time to deal with the bad call.

    • darksidecowboy - Nov 18, 2013 at 1:30 PM

      And before this call players from both teams were literally crashing the nets, I think the refs decided after the first period that they’ll just call anything close to interference.

  15. pmonte3122 - Nov 18, 2013 at 12:37 PM

    He has every right to be angry that call was borderline pathetic the ref wasn’t even in a good position to make the call in the first place.

    • sunderlanding - Nov 18, 2013 at 2:29 PM

      That’s probably why he got the call wrong Mr. Detective. He made the call he thought was right, but at full speed and from that angel it was tough. The only thing pathetic is you thinking every call should be perfect. People make mistakes, players, refs, GMs, even you making a stupid comment.

  16. muckleflugga - Nov 18, 2013 at 5:05 PM

    big deal…no goal!

    sedin was in the space constituting the crease, and what is allowed outside the crease is not allowed inside the crease. he interfered with the goalie’s ability to play the puck, fouling the goalie in the process

    the ongoing argument from the league indicates the crease exists in three dimensions, rising in space as a cylinder from the outer perimeter of the crease

    sedin clearly entered that space

  17. tdrusher225 - Nov 18, 2013 at 5:56 PM

    It’s one thing to get the call wrong initially, that’s fine. But to get the refs together after the fact and reinforce that garbage call is awful.

  18. hockeydon10 - Nov 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM

    I have a hard time getting upset at this. After watching this happen again and again to the Wings when Holmstrom was parked in front of the crease, it’s really not that surprising to see it happen here.

  19. truthseeker25 - Nov 19, 2013 at 2:07 AM

    The Zebras got it right. Sedin was in the crease and his right skate pinned the left pad of Lehtonen preventing him from getting to his right.

    I’m assuming Sedin got a minor. Tortorella should have received a bench minor on top of it for abose of officials or delay of game.

  20. sporkov - Nov 20, 2013 at 11:48 PM

    As someone who cannot stand the Canucks, Sedins or Torts, what I cannot stand worse is bad officiating and that was just unbelievable. I have been a goalie since I was 7 and think that goalies need to be better protected and more of the interference calls need to be made (just for a face off, no penalty), but that was horrible. Allowing them to make the call on the ice and review it after. Need to get those right.

Featured video

Coaches in and out of the hot seat

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. V. Hedman (2887)
  2. P. Sharp (2664)
  3. P. Datsyuk (2604)
  4. S. Crosby (2118)
  5. B. Marchand (2057)
  1. P. Dupuis (2046)
  2. D. Krejci (1894)
  3. B. Dubinsky (1862)
  4. Z. Chara (1852)
  5. J. Harding (1785)