Skip to content

Kronwall: My goal shouldn’t have counted

Jan 19, 2014, 12:28 AM EDT

Niklas Kronwall Getty Images

The Red Wings caught a huge break when defenseman Niklas Kronwall was credited with the game-tying goal with just 26.1 remaining in the third period after the puck appeared to go out of play. That led to Detroit earning a 3-2 shootout victory over Los Angeles.

After the contest Kings coach Darryl Sutter used the word “embarrassing” five times while describing the good goal call.

It looks like even Kronwall himself isn’t in the mood to defend it.

“It shouldn’t have counted,” Kronwall admitted to the Detroit Free Press, although he also said that it was a break that he’ll take as Detroit tries to claw its way back into a Wild Card spot.

You can judge the play for yourself below:

That prevented the Red Wings’ losing streak from extending to a third game, which has to come as a big relief for them given that their next two opponents are the st. Louis Blues and Chicago Blackhawks.

  1. oquintero99 - Jan 19, 2014 at 12:34 AM

    Why was the goal a”non-reviewable goal”?

    • charlieconway96 - Jan 19, 2014 at 1:09 AM

      Because the NHL loves being the smelly little brother with food on his shirt who eats his own boogers of all other professional sports leagues. Unfortunately.

      • charlieconway96 - Jan 19, 2014 at 2:33 AM

        Just stumbled across this- http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=25333&navid=nhl:topheads

        So you’re telling me that the review people in Toronto knew what the call was but had to sit back and watch as the refs clearly made the wrong one? Nice, real nice NHL.

      • puckhead19 - Jan 19, 2014 at 4:53 AM

        Have you ever watched a pro football, baseball, basketball or even soccer game? There are nonreviewable calls in all of those sports. NFL replay has gotten bashedbin the media this year…#blinders_on

    • stakex - Jan 19, 2014 at 2:20 AM

      From NHL rule 85.1

      “Should the puck strike the spectator netting at the ends and the corners of the arena, play shall be stopped and the ensuing face-off shall be determined as if the puck went outside the playing area. However, if the puck striking the spectator netting goes unnoticed by the on-ice officials, play shall continue as normal and resulting play with the puck shall be deemed a legitimate play. Players must not stop playing the game until they hear the whistle to do so.”

      —————————————

      As such, once the refs missed the puck hitting the netting the rules clearly state the game is to continue as though nothing happened. If the rules say its a legitimate play if the refs miss the puck hitting the netting, obviously the goal can’t be overturned.

      A dumb rule perhaps…. but the call tonight was the absolute correct call going by the rulebook.

      • dmkou - Jan 19, 2014 at 2:34 AM

        The reason why NHL fails to learn. It’s rulings needs to be updated. It’s happened before.

      • hockeyflow33 - Jan 19, 2014 at 1:24 PM

        @dmkou
        Have you ever looked at an NHL rulebook? It’s massive and quite comprehensive. They also have the competition committee review potential issues as they arise so the NHL is actually the leading professional league when it comes to adapting to change.

      • aldog83 - Jan 19, 2014 at 1:45 PM

        Sounds like TUCK RULE.

        A rule by definition…..

        But as common sense goes…

        A play that comprimised the spirit of the game.

      • wtfkwp - Jan 20, 2014 at 9:39 AM

        @ aldog83 Yet, look how long it took to reverse the Tuck Rule. How sick!

  2. aldog83 - Jan 19, 2014 at 12:44 AM

    This should Never happen.
    But since it did….
    The NHL should adopt the same rule the NFL has….
    ALL scoring plays should be reviewed.
    What the hell do we have all these cameras
    And technology for if we cant fix an obvious
    Mistake like this!
    Imagine had the Stanley Cup had been decided
    On this goal!
    Fix it. Idiots!

    • stakex - Jan 19, 2014 at 2:23 AM

      Fun fact most people don’t seem to get: All goals in the NHL actually are reviewed. The situation room takes a peak at every goal, and can decide to call for a review if they deem it necessary.

      The problem wasn’t the protocol…. its that the call tonight was absolutely correct according to the rules.

      • wtfkwp - Jan 20, 2014 at 9:42 AM

        …according to asinine rules that make no sense…at some point, when you have a facility like the one in Toronto, they should be able to reverse such idiocy that’s obviously not in the spirit of the rules. Everyone except the officials knew it hit the net, and the only reason THEY didn’t was willful ignorance demanded by a stupid rule. How about fixing that rule?

    • screwitday - Jan 19, 2014 at 1:21 PM

      How would you suggest reviewing a scoring play in hockey? It’s not like football or baseball where plays have a definitive start and end point.

      Would you review plays from the last player to touch it? That goal counts because it hit Quick last.

      From the last offensive player to touch it? Doesn’t help if it bounces of the net and a player taps it in.

      From the last stoppage of play? In some circumstances that could be 5-10 minutes of footage to review.

      From where the puck crossed the red line? Again, possibly minutes of footage to review.

      There is no way to make it fair and not require 20 minutes of review after each goal.

      That’s why the NHL only reviews whether or not the goal crossed the goal line.

      • cofran2004 - Jan 21, 2014 at 8:31 AM

        …really?

        If you’re a hockey fan, and you cant tell what is and isn’t the “scoring play,” I have some bad news for you…

    • hockeyflow33 - Jan 19, 2014 at 1:22 PM

      If only they reviewed all goals……oh wait…

  3. Stiller43 - Jan 19, 2014 at 12:48 AM

    “Judge the play for yourself?”

    Theres no judging. Its a fact the puck was out of play.

    • shortsxit34 - Jan 19, 2014 at 1:13 AM

      You beat me to it, I was about to quote the same line from the article. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact.

      Who’s the troll that actually gave this a downvote?

    • hockeydon10 - Jan 21, 2014 at 8:41 AM

      The puck is only counted out of play when the refs see it go out of play and blow the whistle. Directly from the rule book we can read that if the refs don’t see it go out of play it’s still considered in play.

      It may not be a rule you like. It may not be a rule I like either. However, two random people on the internet disliking a rule doesn’t change the rule.

  4. endusersolutions2013 - Jan 19, 2014 at 1:03 AM

    And it may well have been a 1st. Refs missed the weird occurrence. They’ll review the video and learn. Novel occurrences happen. Not a fan or hater of either team.

    Kings had a real tough break (the good news is that Quick looks like he’s back to himself, which is GREAT news for Team USA). Wings got a big break.

    Still lots of games to play.

    • dmkou - Jan 19, 2014 at 1:16 AM

      A mistake the NHL league made that they will never learn from until they fix it. Embarrassing NHL just embarrassing….somehow NFL and MLB can get it right

      • puckhead19 - Jan 19, 2014 at 4:31 AM

        MLB gets it right? You’ve lost any and all credibility with that statement. The issues with MLB’s lack of video review are well documented. They are finally giving managers an opportunity to challenge calls starting this year, but to say they’ve gotten it right is premature…and if you’ve ever watched an NFL game in your life, you will have seen many game changing calls that just aren’t reviewable.

      • cofran2004 - Jan 21, 2014 at 8:49 AM

        Are you kidding? They miss one goal call, and they don’t learn? I usually don’t outright call people names unless they start it, but you’re are 100% an idiot. They NHL is on the forefront of video-replay. They review every scoring play. And they actually followed the letter of the law here. No official saw it hit the net… they actually made the right call based on that. It’s a non-reviewable play. Now is that a problem that should be fixed? Absolutely. But it’s not embarassing. Your inability to comprehend this, however….

      • cofran2004 - Jan 21, 2014 at 8:49 AM

        Are you kidding? They miss one goal call, and they don’t learn? I usually don’t outright call people names unless they start it, but you’re are 100% an idiot. The NHL is on the forefront of video-replay. They review every scoring play. And they actually followed the letter of the law here. No official saw it hit the net… they actually made the right call based on that. It’s a non-reviewable play. Now is that a problem that should be fixed? Absolutely. But it’s not embarassing. Your inability to comprehend this, however….

    • jmacphee9 - Jan 19, 2014 at 1:16 AM

      @endusersolutions2013 quick looked just as good as jimmy tonight and they have the same save percentage this season yet quick plays with a much better defense. this is still irrelevant in terms of team USAs starting goaltending as ryan miller has that locked up barring a disaster.

    • goal29 - Jan 19, 2014 at 2:15 AM

      As a referee myself, sometimes we learn from doing (or not doing). Point is – the referees are human, and all the technology in the world will not replace the “judgement” part of officiating sports.

      Yes – this goal should have been disallowed because of hitting the netting, and deemed out of play with the faceoff outside the zone, but (good or bad….) the officials lost sight of the shot. At the speeds these hockey players shoot, it is a wonder anyone can watch the entire shot and trajectory that the puck will take without getting whiplash. You are correct, each official is given video feedback immediately following the game so that they can improve themselves – no it won’t change the outcome of the game, but the officials are human and will make mistakes from time to time, but no less have the opportunity and responsibility to learn from them.

      Sure….it sucks for the Kings, but the goal is non reviewable because the officials lost sight of the puck and in the process of blowing the whistle (yes that whole intent to blow the whistle versus actually blowing the whistle is a debate on its own) saw that the puck was in the net and that no one interfered with Quick’s ability to stop the puck, so the logical on-ice conclusion was that somehow (no..as officials we don’t always have to have an explanation for how the puck got in the net so long as the play was legal and the goalie wasn’t in a position to not make a save….and Quick could’ve made the save on a shot coming from in front of him….so no goaltender interference type thing) the goal crossed the line and the game moves along.

      Yes, I’d like to see the officials get the calls correct 100% of the time, regardless of what level they are working whether it be youth or professional – but we get a phenomenal 3-dimensional view of the ice and play….the refs have pile-ups, players, and equipment which can obstruct their viewpoint == AKA….crap happens, and gets missed. The best thing now is to pick up and prepare for the next game.

      • micasa81 - Jan 19, 2014 at 2:33 AM

        Yabut we wants to rant please.

      • dmkou - Jan 19, 2014 at 2:38 AM

        It is not the refs fault but the leagues fault to modify the rulings. The league needs to learn from the past because this is not the first time

      • patthehockeyfan - Jan 19, 2014 at 12:08 PM

        You wrote twice, “the officials lost sight of the shot / puck.” As someone wrote on another thread, isn’t “losing sight of the puck” why the officials should blow the whistle?

        And, you write, “Quick could’ve made the save on the shot coming from in front of him.” No doubt he could have. But, this shot bounced off the net and came in behind him, hitting him on his back and going into the goal. I do agree, though, that there was no goalie interference.

        Quick just needs to grow eyes on top and in the back of his head. Considering his many, many talents, it wouldn’t surprise me.

      • hockeyflow33 - Jan 19, 2014 at 1:27 PM

        Whenever you officiate in these rinks, once the puck starts to get above the boards and above the glass it gets hard to track with not only the darkness of the stands/people but the lights have an odd glare.

      • wtfkwp - Jan 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM

        Because “crap happens” and stuff “gets missed” is why replay EXISTS. It should be USED when the humans on the ice miss something.

        There should be someone in Toronto watching each game, and that person should be able to fix an obvious error. Here’s a list:

        • Scoring plays that didn’t.
        • Missed scoring plays.
        • Diving, where someone is called for a penalty that obviously didn’t happen (like a stick foul where a player goes down as though contacted.)
        • Diving, where someone is CALLED for it and official was clearly wrong (less common because they don’t call it much.)
        • Unsportsmanlike conduct so grievous it can’t go without being addressed, even though it wasn’t seen by the officials (supplemental discipline, but not necessarily DPS stuff.) I’m thinking of when Ryan Clowe played the puck from the bench and wasn’t called for it, as an example.

        I’m sure there are other situations that merit. At a minimum, someone in Toronto should be able to interrupt the game for a review in this type of situation, unless it’s something to address with only supplemental discipline (like the sucker punch I watched someone throw to the back of someone’s neck a couple games back.).

  5. ryanprzy - Jan 19, 2014 at 2:46 AM

    I know it’s not an easy job, but officiating in the NHL has to be better.

    A month or two ago, the Wings were playing a game against Pittsburgh, and there was a battle for the puck on the boards. A Penguin got hit in the face by a stick and the refs signaled a penalty immediately (from the reaction of the inflicted Pen). It was another Pen (I think Crosby) who hit his teammate. The refs gathered and discussed the incident for a moment, but since they had already acknowledged the infraction, they sent a Wing to the box regardless. Terrible call, and that sort of thing happens too often.

    This one went in the Wings’ favor, as Kronwall candidly mentioned. As a Wings’ fan, I’m still not too happy about it. A good Kings team was screwed out of two points tonight.

    • wtfkwp - Jan 20, 2014 at 9:52 AM

      Props. No one likes it when something like this happens to them, and some are so horrifying, you want to believe it can’t happen.

      The big issue seems to be that the fans get a better look at the game, with instant replay, than the officials do. If you don’t allow some method of giving the officials equal access to replays (which means having someone watching the game on TV) you’ll never have any perception that the game is officiated “fairly.”

      As we’ve seen in the NFL, they can (and do, amazingly often) even screw THAT up. Something that’s blatantly obvious, however, would be overturned.

      • magyud - Jan 20, 2014 at 5:10 PM

        You make some good points. And as for someone saying it should be reviewed in Toronto, it’s already been established here that they do that.

        It seems apparent that the NHL officials in Toronto felt they couldn’t overturn the decision.

        I’ve scored many a goal like that in Table Hockey. It’s a treat to see the expression on your opponent’s face when it happens.

    • wtfkwp - Jan 20, 2014 at 9:54 AM

      When I refer to the NFL screwing that up, I’m referring to the flag system, when they’re invited to review their own call, and still seem to screw it up too frequently. My point, though, was that it’s still a lot better than what we’re discussing happening.

  6. juansy - Jan 19, 2014 at 8:58 AM

    five years ago my wife took me to a Wings vs San Jose game for my 40th. In OT puck went into netting, Osgood relaxed and started skating away from goal, puck fell from netting next to goal and SJ put it in. Refs said goal and skated off the ice. I waited five years for payback.

    In all honestly, it was embarrassing then it’s still embarrassing now. I thought when it happened the first time they would change the rules so that it would never happen again. That’s the worst part. That it’s happened before, and that it could still happen again. How hard is it to change a rule? Isn’t it like editing a word document. Come NHL, stop embarrassing yourself.

    Signed

    wings fan who benefited from embarrassing call

  7. chibimike - Jan 19, 2014 at 10:28 AM

    Real easy solution: just change the rule so that a puck off the netting is still in play. Having referees trying to tell if a black puck, traveling up to 100 mph, hit a black net up to 100 feet away is silly. Puck goes into stands or bench, play stops, puck comes back on the ice, keep going.

    • wtfkwp - Jan 20, 2014 at 9:55 AM

      Honestly, you think if it had bounced off the net and off YOUR goaltender’s back, with under half a minute left, keeping a regulation win from occurring, you’d be good with it?

  8. paperkid96 - Jan 19, 2014 at 11:21 AM

    I’m in a minority but I think the rule that should be changed is that the puck is out of play when it hits the netting. I think when the puck hits the netting and lands back on the ice the play should just continue. The bounces aren’t predictable enough that teams would develop strategy to use it consistently. It would really keep the game moving. In most cases the puck hits the netting because of a defensive deflection and regularly stifles offensive momentum.

  9. dontbsuchapuss - Jan 19, 2014 at 2:12 PM

    I hate the kings but that was crap should have never counted

  10. joey4id - Jan 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM

    White protective nets are easy to see when they are struck by a flying object such as a puck, which frequently happens. Unfortunately, the NHL refuse to make the change. Now they need to make this a reviewable play, and perhaps will incite them to change the color of the netting.

  11. hypefree10 - Jan 19, 2014 at 5:13 PM

    Black nets are used to help with the view for the upper Bowl attendees. White nets are way harder to see through.

    • magyud - Jan 20, 2014 at 5:13 PM

      You beat me to it; quite true. It’s all about fan enjoyment of the game. If they can’t see well through white netting (they can’t), black netting is the way to go.

  12. wtfkwp - Jan 20, 2014 at 9:35 AM

    “Huge break?”

    It was two free points.

  13. wtfkwp - Jan 20, 2014 at 9:58 AM

    How much you wanna bet you could put a sensor on the net that would sound a horn if it was struck with significant force? It couldn’t be that hard to design and maintain today. 20 years ago, car alarms were available for pocket money with the necessary technology.

    • cofran2004 - Jan 21, 2014 at 8:54 AM

      problem with this is that players get hit into the net all the time. Sometimes, the puck will hit the outside of the net. The goalie puts his water bottle on top of the net. When players skate behind the net, sometimes they make contact with it. It’s a good idea in theory, but i can see lots of things other than pucks hitting the net and causing the goal horn to go off.

  14. 1971titan - Jan 21, 2014 at 7:06 PM

    This says a lot about the character of Kronwall, he probably knew when it happened that the puck went off of the net, rendering it out of bounds and it should not have counted. He only comes out now and says that his goal should not have counted, after the game is in the bag. What creep! In addition, if the NHL does not change this sort of crap, they will always be the ugly little kid next door, compared to the other sports. Why is every other goal reviewable, but this one isn’t?

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. C. Price (1727)
  2. J. Harding (1687)
  3. M. Staal (1554)
  4. J. Giguere (1489)
  5. J. Thornton (1447)
  1. A. Semin (1263)
  2. J. Spezza (1259)
  3. C. MacArthur (1240)
  4. A. Ekblad (1219)
  5. B. Bishop (1090)