Skip to content

Video: Milbury explains why that Chicago goal was disallowed (Update)

May 18, 2014, 4:43 PM EDT

Update: Perhaps the most straightforward and accessible explanation for the process of disallowing that would-be 2-0 Chicago goal came from Mike Milbury, who explains why it didn’t count in this video from the second intermission:

Ah, OK, that sort of works. Maybe?


There are plenty of big momentum swings in playoff series and many individual games, but those shifts can be that much tougher to stomach when a controversial call happens. Chicago Blackhawks head coach Joel Quenneville was livid when a Jonathan Toews goal was disallowed because of a late goalie interference call in Game 1 on Sunday.

Moments later, the Los Angeles Kings scored to make what look like a 2-0 lead evaporate into a 1-1 tie in the second period. Here is the full sequence:

Goalie interference isn’t supposed to be reviewed by video – at least not until next season, if some tweaks are made – yet it certainly seemed like that happened.

Here’s the league’s … interesting explanation:

At 3:22 of the second period in the Los Angeles Kings/Chicago Blackhawks game, the referee consulted video review to see if Jonathan Toews’ initial shot entered the Los Angeles net. It was determined Toews’ initial shot did not enter the net. The referee’s original call on the ice was “good goal” but a discussion between the on-ice officials resulted in a “no goal” decision because Toews made incidental contact with Kings goaltender Jonathan Quick before the puck crossed the goal line. This is not a reviewable play therefore the decision on the ice stands – no goal and no penalty.

The Twitter community was almost as confused as Quenneville was livid on the bench:

The Blackhawks just scored a 2-1 goal moments ago, so maybe the bounces are going Chicago’s way now?

  1. esracerx46 - May 18, 2014 at 4:45 PM

    • patthehockeyfan - May 18, 2014 at 4:54 PM

      I understand your “BOO,” and I’m a Kings’ fan.

      Toews did run into/over Quick, and it doesn’t look like he was pushed. The puck did go in off of Voynov’s skate.

      Not sure about the rules; so, not sure about the call. But, if I were a Hawks’ fan, I’d be p!ssed. As a Kings’ fan, though, all I gotta say is, “Phew!”

      • comeonnowguys - May 18, 2014 at 5:01 PM

        But he was pushed. Well, knocked into Quick. He was about to take an arched path around the crease when he was knocked into a much flatter path.

      • esracerx46 - May 18, 2014 at 5:02 PM

        If it was called on the ice I have no problem with it being disallowed. Since it wasn’t, that’s where my beef is. The referee was hesitant to call it a goal. Not sure if he didn’t see the puck go in right away, or if he was paying more attention to the contact. Regardless, he called it a good goal. I don’t agree with the second shot argument the NHL came up with. That’s weak.

      • chicagobtech - May 18, 2014 at 5:21 PM

        I agree with esracerx46. My issue is not with the call, it’s with how the call was handled.

    • joey4id - May 18, 2014 at 4:54 PM

      Right call. Rule 69.1 was enforced.

  2. dontbsuchapuss - May 18, 2014 at 4:53 PM

    Total bs you cannot review a goalie interference only the goal with no call on the ice it should have counted like it or not

    • joey4id - May 18, 2014 at 4:57 PM

      Referee who indicated it was a goal was over ruled by other ref who indicated there was contact with the goalie. Video was needed to ascertain if the book went in before contact with quick.

      • chiadam - May 18, 2014 at 5:02 PM

        I’m going to have to ignore anything written by a guy that refers to a puck as a book.

  3. rgledz - May 18, 2014 at 4:59 PM

    I’m so shocked that Fraser is siding with the officials! Never saw that coming!! If they conferenced and made the change then why didn’t they wave it off before they went to video review??? Toews was rushing the net and his momentum carried him in. Chicken bleep reversal by the refs, should have been an own goal and 3-1 Hawks. The officiating has been beyond embarrassing in these playoffs.

    • esracerx46 - May 18, 2014 at 5:07 PM

      This has nothing to do with Fraser’s comments here. Ever since he got a voice with tsn I find myself not being able to tolerate his commentary. He comes off as a dick to me, and that’s a shame because having someone who’s been in stripes would be a terrific guy to get commentary from. I just don’t care for his.

  4. patthehockeyfan - May 18, 2014 at 5:00 PM

    Gotta give props to Coach Q on that call. Complain as he did, his hands stayed above his waist. 😉

  5. blackhawksdynasty - May 18, 2014 at 5:03 PM

    Pretty sure the color guy for nbc (the one with the hard on for l.a.) was pointing a gun at the zebras to make them rethink the original call sneezecoughbullsh!t

    • dannymac17 - May 18, 2014 at 5:16 PM

      wow if there is a commentator that is giving LA props, where the hell was he the last 2 rounds? this is first im hearing about a pro LA talking head. I know its not bob or job, but stop crying.

      • blackhawksdynasty - May 18, 2014 at 8:06 PM

        Piss off, son. Your opinion means absolutely dick.

  6. billvb27 - May 18, 2014 at 5:07 PM

    This is why I stopped watch NBA years ago. Officials take the game away. Toews was clearly pushed into Quick and in fact he did attempt to leap over him. Also Milbury and Jones need to get some brains. When your center of gravity is directly over you back skate during a dead puck my 3 year old grandson could push A player over. They must just get talking points without watching the video themselves…..they must be getting their makeup put on instead of looking at the video.

    • dannymac17 - May 18, 2014 at 5:13 PM

      he was clearly pushed? no. he tried to stop himself from running into quick and fell into him. be quiet.

      • blackhawksdynasty - May 18, 2014 at 8:03 PM

        You need to be quiet, son. Just go away. Permanently.

  7. wjarvis - May 18, 2014 at 5:17 PM

    Well I think both teams certainly have some ammunition to complain about the officials in this game. The LA penalty was one of the softest I’ve seen called, but the Hawks did have to convert to be able to take advantage of it. The disallowed goal, I don’t have a problem with them calling goalie interference as it seemed like a good example of the non-penalty form to disallow a goal. My problem is that if that was the call, then the video review was not necessary. Whether the puck went in or not isn’t relevant if goalie interference was called.

    • hrudey - May 19, 2014 at 12:26 PM

      They didn’t call interference, which would have been a two minute penalty. They called incidental contact, which was the correct call. The referee near the play saw the puck go in and signaled goal, and then in the conference they made the determination that there was contact on Quick. If the contact had happened after the puck crossed the line, it would have been a good goal, but since Quick was in position and then the contact pushed him out of the way prior to the puck getting there, it’s the right call. And I agree that it shouldn’t have been a penalty, either – I don’t think there was a great effort made to avoid Quick but he was making a hockey play and did get nudged by Martinez, so they got it right in the end (though, as usual, they need to announce what their decision is before going to Toronto for confirmation/reversal).

      • wjarvis - May 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM

        They did actually call goalie interference. Incidental contact is not a different call, but a degree of goalie interference, which doesn’t result in a penalty.

        Yes if the contact happens after the goal then it is not interference, but that was never really a question in this case. There was clearly contact well before the puck went in, and without the contact the puck may not have gone in.

        I fully agree that if they announced what the call was initially they could have avoided all of the controversy.

  8. krebsy34 - May 18, 2014 at 5:21 PM

    Either way, Towes should know that if he runs into Quick then any puck that goes in is probably not going to count.

    Also the fact that from above you see Quicks leg in position to stop the puck and he doesn’t move until Towes contacts him and then his foot slides out of the way of the puck.

    Rules are Rules. Unless it’s the cup finals triple overtime and then there is a questionable call, I don’t think you have anything to complain about.

    • bhawksrule - May 18, 2014 at 6:02 PM


  9. rgledz - May 18, 2014 at 5:22 PM

    Hey dannymac, then the ref should have had the balls to call goaltender interference as it happened but he didn’t. Ruling on the ice was a good goal, then the chicken bleep refs backpedaled and made a reversal on an unreviewable play. Puck went in off a Kings skate, Toews tried to avoid contact and didn’t barrel over anybody. Try being objective and please be quiet.

    • dannymac17 - May 18, 2014 at 5:57 PM

      he ran into him before the puck even touched his skate. pipe down junior.

      • blackhawksdynasty - May 18, 2014 at 7:59 PM

        Pipe down yourself tool. Try coming up with your own thoughts and ideas rather than only replying to others with your bs.

      • avscup - May 18, 2014 at 9:44 PM

        Except it is ok if his momentum carries him into the goalie as he is trying to avoid contact. Voynov pushed him even if it was ever so slightly. Pretty marginal call. Glad it didn’t effect the game because the ref that was right there called it a good goal.

  10. billiam55 - May 18, 2014 at 5:38 PM

    remember that goal Malkin scored on Lundqvist in game 1? that was def goalie interference yet refs said play was unreviewable. so y was this goal reviewed?

    inconsistent rules.

  11. billvb27 - May 18, 2014 at 5:44 PM

    Again. Commentator speaks before he he sees what clearly was a trip on Saad.

  12. tripps3 - May 18, 2014 at 5:49 PM

    Seriously? And the league wonders why fans call BS all the time

  13. jpat2424 - May 18, 2014 at 6:13 PM

    It’s should be a goal or goalie inference penalty. You can’t have in both ways NHL.

    • wjarvis - May 18, 2014 at 6:20 PM

      Except for the rule that allows them to call goalie interference to disallow a goal without it being a penalty. The end call was probably correct, but the way they got there was not.

  14. barkar942 - May 18, 2014 at 9:23 PM

    There are two things that need to be reviewable-
    1) On goalie interference, was the opposing player pushed into the goalie? If so no penalty and if a goal was scored it counts. If not, penalty and no goal.
    2) High sticking that draws blood- always review to be sure that the player was not hit by his own stick or that of a teammate, and review any play where a player says he was hit and cut by a stick and there is no on ice call (see Chris Drury being severely cut that should have been a 4 minute PP for the Rangers that turned into an opponent goal). They can review goals quickly in Toronto, they would have no problem seeing stick fouls.

  15. dschrode2013 - May 18, 2014 at 9:51 PM

    I think that one official called it a good goal initially. Then it seems the officials got together and decided that there was contact with the goalie. At that point they decided to go to the video to see if the puck had crossed the goal line before or after the contact with the goalie. I am not saying it was the right or wrong way to come to the ultimate conclusion reached, just seems that was the sequence of events. I can see how each side could feel that their argument is the correct argument. I just don’t understand what is incidental goalie interference(no penalty) and what is non incidental(penalty).

    • wjarvis - May 18, 2014 at 10:36 PM

      Intentional or deliberate contact with the goalie whether they are in or out of the crease is a penalty.

      Goals are not disallowed if incidental contact that is initiated outside the crease takes place.

      If contact is initiated inside the crease, incidental or otherwise any goal scored will be disallowed.

      It’s fair to disallow the goal based on goalie interference in this case, but it was not fair to use video to determine goalie interference. I hope that the chain of events was as you say, that the officials decided that goalie interference took place and were trying to see if the goal happened prior to the interference by video. The following link explains the different types of goalie interference. In this case I believe Toews was attempting to avoid contact with Quick (as you could see him try to jump when he first entered the crease), but could not, hence he initiated contact in the crease (this disallows the goal), but it was not intentional contact (no penalty).

  16. rgledz - May 18, 2014 at 9:53 PM

    Damn right avscup, can’t believe that I’m agreeing with you, but it is what it is.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (1941)
  2. P. Kessel (1618)
  3. M. Richards (1379)
  4. N. Backstrom (1197)
  5. M. Giordano (1170)