November 23, 2010
The Kings already saw one goal waived off when Wayne Simmonds'(notes) apparent late first-period tally didn't count because the net was off its moorings ... courtesy of the Sens' Matt Carkner(notes), who may have deliberately pulled it loose.
Then, late in the third period, a Jack Johnson(notes) point shot was redirected by Ryan Smyth(notes) past goalie Pascal Leclaire(notes) with three seconds left in regulation ... only referee Eric Furlatt waived it off, claiming Smyth hit the puck with a high stick.
Take a look at the play and the replays; the on-ice officials saw it as a no-goal; what say you?
Helene Elliott of the L.A. Times got Colin Campbell on the record about why the goal wasn't counted:
"It was very close. And we took a lot of time hoping for more replays but none came." [...]
"When these calls are made regarding high-sticked goals or allowed goals that may have seemed like a high stick we need conclusive [100%] to overturn these calls. We did not have enough video evidence to do this on this review."
"Well, when I tipped it I brought my stick back down, so I think it was pretty close," said Smyth, who had given the Kings a 2-1 lead with a second-period goal. "I thought it was a good goal. ... It would have been great. Three seconds left. It would have been a nice turning point, for sure."
The consensus after the game seemed to be that the play was close, and that video-review officials likely would have upheld the on-ice call, whether it was ruled a goal or a non-goal.
"That happens sometimes, and you've got to fight through that and overcome those types of things,'' Smyth said. "It's frustrating when they are pretty obvious. That's what they were saying, that our video coaches were saying, that it was a good goal. So it's frustrating, but we've got to overcome those type things."
Having seen the replay a few times on NHL Network, it looked like Smyth's stick was below the crossbar, but it's not an evaluation made without a shadow of a doubt. What this points to, of course, is yet another constant inadequacy in the video review system, in which cameras placed at an angle above the ice are used to determine the height of a stick making contact with the puck. But that's the system we've got; and it's better than no system at all, we suppose.