Skip to content

Video: Neal’s second-period goal helps Penguins force OT, but was it a Malkin high stick?

May 2, 2014, 9:51 PM EDT

Game 1 of the Pittsburgh Penguins-New York Rangers second-round series is going to overtime, following a controversial goal in the second period.

James Neal was credited for Pittsburgh’s second goal of the evening, although the Rangers protested that Evgeni Malkin, positioned in front of the New York net, knocked the puck out of the air with a high stick and into the net.

From the NHL’s Situation Room Blog:

At 13:28 of the second period in the Rangers/Penguins game, video review determined that James Neal’s shot crossed the New York goal line in a legal fashion, never touching Evgeni Malkin’s stick. Good goal Pittsburgh.

The Penguins evened the score after falling behind New York by two goals in the first period (the Rangers’ second goal came after a ‘questionable’ offside call, and their opening goal came on just the third shot of the game).

  1. elmerbrownelmerbrown - May 2, 2014 at 9:55 PM

    NO

  2. killerpgh - May 2, 2014 at 9:59 PM

    http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26557

    4. BATTLE FOR LOOSE PUCK WITH THE GOALKEEPER WHILE THE GOALKEEPER IS IN OR OUT OF THE GOAL CREASE.

    A. An attacking player makes incidental contact with the goalkeeper while both are attempting to play a loose puck at the time a goal is scored. Goal is allowed.
    ———————————————–

    Straight from the NHL rulebook

    Lundy isn’t even playing the puck. He has no clue were the puck even is and is making a play on Malkin’s stick. Smart move on his part. Sometime the ref will see it differently and waive it off for goal tender interference and it wouldn’t be reviewable.

    • broadstreetbeatdown - May 2, 2014 at 10:11 PM

      69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease – If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

      Try to read the whole rule not just the section that benefits your team. Not that it matters. Rags win.

    • stakex - May 2, 2014 at 10:12 PM

      Well, its irrelevant now…. but you are cherry picking part of the rule book and taking liberties with the meaning of incidental contact. I would argue (and the analyst between periods agree btw) that its not incidental contact, but rather contact that prevents Lundqvist from making a play on the puck. As such, part B from that section would apply:

      B. An attacking player makes other than incidental contact with the goalkeeper while both are attempting to play a loose puck at the time a goal is scored.

      ——————————-

      Even if he doesn’t see the puck at the time, you still can’t obstruct him from attempting to make a play on it… which is what Malkin did.

      • arrow43050 - May 2, 2014 at 10:53 PM

        The rule (69.3) says “If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or OTHERWISE, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.”

        Doesn’t matter if you, the morons on the NBCSC Hockey desk (as a Ranger fan I am contractually obligated to hate Mike Milbury and Keith Jones in addition to the fact that they ever offer little real insight) or anyone else think that the contact was not incidental. If the contact is “incidental or OTHERWISE” the goal is disallowed. Clearly the attacking player, Malkin, was not forced into the contact by a Ranger, so by definition he initiated the contact, then the goal should have been disallowed. I don’t see where there is any room for argument or interpretation, unless you think that somehow Malkin didn’t initiate the contact or you think there was no contact. Anyone with functioning eyes can see there was contact and that Malkin was not forced into it by a defending Ranger.

  3. 7mantel - May 2, 2014 at 10:03 PM

    RANGERS WIN

  4. billiam55 - May 2, 2014 at 10:07 PM

    No. it was goaltender interference. i thiougbt that that was some bad officiating in this game, calls on both teams. rangers got the win though.

  5. flyerspsu - May 2, 2014 at 10:07 PM

    Good goal, tough break for lundqvist

  6. hockeyflow33 - May 2, 2014 at 10:07 PM

    Ummm, Malkin clearly never touched the puck. Make a case for interference if you must but there was clearly no interference

  7. bleedrangerblue - May 2, 2014 at 10:11 PM

    RANGERS WIN!

  8. actuary17 - May 2, 2014 at 10:14 PM

    Honestly, I hate the Penguins, but that was the correct non-call on goalie interference. I don’t think Lundqvist would have been able to find it/stop it even if his arm was free. Fortunately for the Rangers, it didn’t cost them in the end.

  9. blueshirtsfaithful - May 2, 2014 at 10:15 PM

    Doesn’t matter anymore RANGERS WIN!!! End of story.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. D. Alfredsson (1375)
  2. D. Kuemper (1303)
  3. S. Bennett (1303)
  4. P. Rinne (1265)
  5. K. Timonen (1227)