Tuesday night, the Sharks scored a goal that should've beaten the Buffalo Sabres (considering that it was the Sabres, they should've scored a bunch more, but that's San Jose's fault).
Here’s the video. That’s a goal.
But when is a goal not a goal? In the moments between a referee's visual observation and the act of forcing air into a whistle and creating a sound. That can often take several seconds (It cannot).
So, we have this: "The referee was in the act of blowing the whistle to stop play. The action is not reviewable," according to David Pollak of the San Jose Mercury News.
It's not referee Mike Leggo's fault, really. Missed calls happen. More than anything, this is a failure of rule application and the league's video review process.
Leggo probably shouldn't have blown the whistle at all, and beyond that, it's tough to argue that much time could elapse between the decision to blow a whistle and actually blowing it. Most importantly, he blew the whistle after the puck crossed the line. While the puck was in the net, his whistle wasn't at his lips. Watch (and listen to) the video again. Doesn't seem to be much intent there.
The "intent to blow" rule is debatable, at best, when applied correctly. At its worst, it's a catch-all for referee error. If you're going to fall back on something as nebulous as intent, as the league has, at least make it arguable.
The other, more correctable issue, is that the video review process tanked, too. From Barry Petchesky at Deadspin:
The Sharks didn’t protest. San Jose’s TV feed didn’t show a definitive replay until minutes later. Buffalo’s broadcast didn’t show it at all. Since the officials didn’t realize there was anything worth reviewing, they didn’t consult Toronto.
This can’t happen. There’s a video goal judge in each arena, and while he and the War Room are usually dependent on TV broadcasts, the NHL owns and controls the overhead camera that in this case showed a clear goal. It should have been flagged, reviewed, and the goal and game awarded to the Sharks.
The biggest question of all: Why can't the game still be awarded to the Sharks? The concept of intent to blow shouldn't come up at all; it's farcical. So what's stopping the league from saying, "Yep, Tommy Wingels scored, and the Sharks won"?
Forget the slippery slope argument—this specific concept would come up in exactly one instance: when the league clearly blows a goal call in overtime. The rest of the game, under correct circumstances, wouldn't exist; there are no other variables to consider. There would be if it happened in the second period, but it didn't.
Strike the rest of the overtime stats from the record. Give San Jose another point. The end.
MR. HUMILITY
Ah, Erik Karlsson—ever humble.
First the Ottawa Senators defenseman pointed out that he, in fact, is not an "(expletive) god." Now this, tweeted by Sens play-by-play announcer Nicolas St-Pierre: "Karlsson sur Subban: je ne peux pas détester quelqu'un qui est meilleur que moi..." That translates to, "I cannot hate someone who is better than me."
St-Pierre changed the translated wording a little in a subsequent tweet to this: "I don't hold a grudge against somebody who's playing better than me."
Either way, P.K. Subban won the Norris Trophy last season while Karlsson, who won it in 2012, sat with a severed Achilles' tendon. If anyone is capable of matching Karlsson offensively, it's Subban, and he's a better defensive player by virtually any measure.
Someone should pass Karlsson's quote—either version, really—along to Montreal Canadiens coach Michel Therrien, who's taken heat over the last several days for potentially damaging Subban's Olympic hopes; Therrien, see, doesn't play Subban much on the penalty kill, and has taken to benching him in favor of Douglas Murray in the last few minutes of games.
On whether Subban is a world-class player, Therrien said last week: “Whether I see him that way or not, my opinion doesn’t change anything.”
It's odd to think that Therrien's issues, real or not, with Subban could have any material effect on Team Canada's perception of him; the fact that Subban actually may get left off the team at all is ridiculous enough.
The bigger problem for Therrien—and, by extension, his team and its fans—is that he thinks Murray is a better choice than Subban at any time for any reason. He is not, as Andrew Berkshire wrote at Habs Eyes on The Prize in an open letter to Therrien:
Murray has been the most sheltered player you’ve used this season, yet he’s also produced the worst results. He starts 44.7% of his shifts in the offensive zone, and 57.8% of non-neutral zone starts there (I’m guessing most of his defensive zone starts are due to icings, but because I don’t have that data off hand I’ll leave this to speculation). While Murray is on the ice, the Canadiens have a 32.1% share of all shot attempts at even strength.
Well he blocks a lot of shots, so that might not tell the whole story, so let’s look at unblocked shots. Oh that’s weird, his Fenwick percentage is 30.9%, which is even worse. Well maybe his big body presence pushes shots wide. Oh… The Canadiens are even worse from that perspective while he’s on, getting just 30.4% of the shots.
So there's that. Hopefully Karlsson thinks he's better than Murray. He's got 17 points in 15 games now—two more than (of course) Subban.
Contributor: Sean Gentille
