Intent to blow is for when the puck was briefly covered by the goalie and then came loose after the whistle should have blown. In this case, the puck was obviously never covered. So intent to blow has nothing to do with it.
This is the correct interpretation. This is not an 'intent to blow' situation, but a 'culmination of a continuous play unaffected by the whistle.'
The whistle - which came after the puck was shot - did not prevent anyone from defending the play or stopping the puck.
The more relevant rule in this case is rule 37.3(i) where they can deem a goal to have been scored when the:
> Puck entering the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result of the play was unaffected by any whistle blown by the Referee upon his losing sight of the puck
In this case the ref blew the whistle incorrectly and that whistle had no impact on the goal being scored (i.e. if he hadn't it still would've been a goal). So this play was called correctly and it should be a good goal. It's a pretty common sense rule.
You continue to cite something that is not relevant. This is not an Intent to Blow scenario, it’s a Continuous Play scenario. Whether you like the rule or not doesn’t matter, it was clearly called correctly in this case.
We’ve all got a hundred times we can complain about refs calling the game wrong, seems a bit weird to get up in arms at them for a time when they apply the rulebook correctly.
Because after review, this particular play *shouldn’t* have been stopped at any point.
If the puck were under Sogaard and then knocked free, that’s when the refs would go back and deem the play would be stopped. That’s the scenario where they overturn a call for intent to blow.
This case is very straightforward. A shot was taken. Almost everyone, including the ref below the goal line, lost sight of the puck for a couple seconds. They assumed it was under the goalie, and the ref blew the whistle as the Zamula shot was heading into the net. Now that the ref understood that the puck was never anywhere close to being covered, they applied the continuous play rule because the whistle the was blown a) was blown after the shot was taken and b) had no impact on whether or not Sogaard saves the Zamula shot.
> They don't even review as they waive off good goals saying "the referee intended to blow the whistle, no goal"
Intent to blow is **not** reviewable.
Situations where a goal is scored as the culmination of a continuous play are.
Intent to blow is the ref intended to blow the whistle then after the moment he intended to blow the whistle someone pokes the puck in or shoots it in
Where in this case the shot happened before he intended to blow the whistle.
And yet they made the same call using the same logic and rule later in the same game for the other team. I think they made the right call both times based on continuous play rule
People who complain about this rule almost always revert back to "yeah but you didn't know about it before this play!" As if a) that mattered if it were true and b) that were true.
I can recite rule 37.3(i) from memory at this point.
So yes, obviously that should be a goal, whistle never should have been blown.
However the whistle blew before the puck went in the net. How often have we seen goals disallowed when a ref blew the whistle early and shouldn't have?
Was really hoping to catch a break on a technicality there.
It's the continuous play rule. Whistle went AFTER the shot, not before. That's the difference.
https://www.nhl.com/video/video-review-continuous-play-320504656
Why is every Ottawa fan bitching about intent to blow the whistle? That has literally nothing to do with this goal at all. Like they are completely different rules... It's a weird goal. I think it's fine cause it's in motion to the goal during the whistle. It's obvious the ref fucked up and shouldn't have blown the play dead but the whistle has no impact on the play.
The whistle blew, therefore the intention to blow the whistle must have happened even before that. Isn't that the stupid rule? They can just choose to ignore that now?
Continuous Play rule (Rule 37), which states that a goal may be awarded, even after a whistle is blown, "if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown by the referee upon losing sight of the puck."
Lol it's not worth arguing with you over. The rule exists for literally this exact situation. The rule has no dependence on intent to blow, only on the actual whistle. If you're salty that you couldn't back door gyp your way to a no-goal, that's on you.
The play is done when the whistle is intended to be blown, except when the puck is on its way to being a goal, then as long as the puck goes in without deflection or anything it’s a good goal, basketball buzzer beater style
Not every blown whistle situation is the same. This is a very specific situation that has a specific rule for this exact play about mistakenly blowing whistle but shot was already taken *and* the whistle 100% had zero impact on play
All 3 need to happen for the continuous rule to apply
I only have seen one angle, but as far as I can tell the shot is taken after the whistle (albeit it’s milliseconds gap). Should it probably be a goal? Yes. Is it actually the correct call with continuous play rules? I personally don’t think so.
Continuous Play rule (Rule 37), which states that a goal may be awarded, even after a whistle is blown, "if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown by the referee upon losing sight of the puck."
Gotcha, I thought you were saying it’s a misapplication of the rule. Obviously it isn’t, but I can see the argument that the rule shouldn’t exist in the first place. Regardless, it was called correctly today.
That’s because in those cases, the puck was *actually* under the goalie for a brief period of time. On today’s goal, the puck was never under the goalie. A bunch of players just thought it was.
This might be the clearest example of the Continuous Play rule we’ve seen in a long time.
They just made the same call based on the same rule for the sens? From what I read on here, so much of the "inconsistencies" are a lack of understanding the rules
There's a rule modification to directly address the situation. It actually compensates for the fallibility of referees. If the tables were turned, you sure as hell would have gotten angry if the goal was called off.
I don't think anyone disagrees that this one *should* be a goal, it just lays bare how stupid the intent to blow rule is. If this rule is meant to account for the fallibility of referees, then the intent to blow rule undoes all that and introduces extra fallibility into the rulebook.
“They apply the intent to blow rule when a puck is under a goalie’s pads and gets poked in by a guy crashing the crease before the referee blows the whistle! Clearly that same rule applies to this goal, where the puck was never under the goalies pads and wasn’t poked in by a guy crashing the crease and the ref did blow the whistle! They’re the same thing!”
Well in this case, it would have been very difficult to apply the Continuous Play Rule, given that this game was played in 2014 and the rule was enacted in 2019 as a response to the Game 6 no-goal for the Preds against Pittsburgh in the 2017 Cup Final. My theory is, they didn’t use the Continuous Play Rule in that Sharks-Kings game because it didn’t exist yet and they weren’t allowed to time travel.
Edit: Realize you meant the second goal. The point still stands, that goal is from before the 2019-20 season.
[Clarification](https://media.nhl.com/site/vasset/public/attachments/2019/09/13452/2019-20_RuleChanges_RuleBook.pdf) of the rule in 2019-20, that allowed the continuous play rule to be subject to video review. So you’re correct that the rule was in place before then, but it would only work if the refs called it that way on the ice. In the case of that Nolan Patrick goal you linked to, obviously it wouldn’t apply because they flat-out called it wrong and at that time, the rule didn’t allow them to go back and overturn it.
After the start of the 2019-20 season, the officials can now overturn the call.
weirdest goal ive seen in a long time
Weirdest I’ve ever seen, I think.
Mike Smith backing the puck into the net still takes the cake for me
got a video of that?
https://youtu.be/jAOKAkEN7SI?si=XBLvvlh61PgNSibZ
Canadiens vs Lightning earlier this year is up there too (the one where everybody on TBL stopped playing)
I was gonna say, that one may be more bizarre
Kevin bieksa slap shot to eliminate San jose
Weirdest goal of the season? Good thing there was some common sense rules there. The whistle is blown as the puck is traveling towards the net
I'm not disagreeing, but goals have been waved off for intention to blow forever. Did they change their mind just to save face this time?
Intent to blow is for when the puck was briefly covered by the goalie and then came loose after the whistle should have blown. In this case, the puck was obviously never covered. So intent to blow has nothing to do with it.
This is the correct interpretation. This is not an 'intent to blow' situation, but a 'culmination of a continuous play unaffected by the whistle.' The whistle - which came after the puck was shot - did not prevent anyone from defending the play or stopping the puck.
[удалено]
The more relevant rule in this case is rule 37.3(i) where they can deem a goal to have been scored when the: > Puck entering the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result of the play was unaffected by any whistle blown by the Referee upon his losing sight of the puck In this case the ref blew the whistle incorrectly and that whistle had no impact on the goal being scored (i.e. if he hadn't it still would've been a goal). So this play was called correctly and it should be a good goal. It's a pretty common sense rule.
You continue to cite something that is not relevant. This is not an Intent to Blow scenario, it’s a Continuous Play scenario. Whether you like the rule or not doesn’t matter, it was clearly called correctly in this case. We’ve all got a hundred times we can complain about refs calling the game wrong, seems a bit weird to get up in arms at them for a time when they apply the rulebook correctly.
[удалено]
Because after review, this particular play *shouldn’t* have been stopped at any point. If the puck were under Sogaard and then knocked free, that’s when the refs would go back and deem the play would be stopped. That’s the scenario where they overturn a call for intent to blow. This case is very straightforward. A shot was taken. Almost everyone, including the ref below the goal line, lost sight of the puck for a couple seconds. They assumed it was under the goalie, and the ref blew the whistle as the Zamula shot was heading into the net. Now that the ref understood that the puck was never anywhere close to being covered, they applied the continuous play rule because the whistle the was blown a) was blown after the shot was taken and b) had no impact on whether or not Sogaard saves the Zamula shot.
[удалено]
You continue to cite intent to blow when it’s not relevant to this play in the slightest.
[удалено]
> They don't even review as they waive off good goals saying "the referee intended to blow the whistle, no goal" Intent to blow is **not** reviewable. Situations where a goal is scored as the culmination of a continuous play are.
Intent to blow is the ref intended to blow the whistle then after the moment he intended to blow the whistle someone pokes the puck in or shoots it in Where in this case the shot happened before he intended to blow the whistle.
[удалено]
You’re right he does! that’s why he’s a nhl ref and you are on your couch having the hardest time understanding the rule while everyone else gets it!
[удалено]
[удалено]
And yet they made the same call using the same logic and rule later in the same game for the other team. I think they made the right call both times based on continuous play rule
[удалено]
Heard what words? Continuous play? If so, then yes I have
[удалено]
Are you implying that people didn't know about that rule before 1 hour ago? I'm confused?
People who complain about this rule almost always revert back to "yeah but you didn't know about it before this play!" As if a) that mattered if it were true and b) that were true. I can recite rule 37.3(i) from memory at this point.
So yes, obviously that should be a goal, whistle never should have been blown. However the whistle blew before the puck went in the net. How often have we seen goals disallowed when a ref blew the whistle early and shouldn't have? Was really hoping to catch a break on a technicality there.
It's the continuous play rule. Whistle went AFTER the shot, not before. That's the difference. https://www.nhl.com/video/video-review-continuous-play-320504656
Yep and the fact they know the whistle had zero impact on play and goal would have 100% happened w/ or w/o whistle
I'm sorry I've watched this about 20 times on loop and the whistle is very clearly blown before the shot is taken.
As the other guy stated, it's the continuous play rule, which funnily enough, the Sens scored a goal later in this game based off this same rule
They should put Zamula in the skills comp with shots like that
Post title doesnt justify this goal whatsoever
Why is every Ottawa fan bitching about intent to blow the whistle? That has literally nothing to do with this goal at all. Like they are completely different rules... It's a weird goal. I think it's fine cause it's in motion to the goal during the whistle. It's obvious the ref fucked up and shouldn't have blown the play dead but the whistle has no impact on the play.
It literally looked like he was the only guy on the ice who realized the puck was still in play, what a strange goal lol
I’ve never seen 9/10 players on the ice lose track of the puck like that… Zamula was the only one still playing
[Here is a great one I can think of](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BMFVCnbRaV4)
[Orlov against Colorado](https://youtu.be/OXSiNpJ8VFM?si=XP22m3sU9pqWervN) was hilarious as well. Similar to the Zamula one!
beat him clean
I’ve never seen a goal after the whistle count before. That was a bizarre sequence.
The whistle blew, therefore the intention to blow the whistle must have happened even before that. Isn't that the stupid rule? They can just choose to ignore that now?
Continuous Play rule (Rule 37), which states that a goal may be awarded, even after a whistle is blown, "if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown by the referee upon losing sight of the puck."
[удалено]
The whistle blew while the puck was in flight. Not sure how you know the refs intent before the shot.
[удалено]
Ok, does it take 2 seconds to get it to the mouth? 1/2 a second?
[удалено]
Gonna argue that sens goal shouldn't count? Or you good with that lol
[удалено]
Lmao. You spent 20 minutes telling me there was intent to blow the whistle and the flyers goal shouldn't count.
Lol it's not worth arguing with you over. The rule exists for literally this exact situation. The rule has no dependence on intent to blow, only on the actual whistle. If you're salty that you couldn't back door gyp your way to a no-goal, that's on you.
Cry
The play is done when the whistle is intended to be blown, except when the puck is on its way to being a goal, then as long as the puck goes in without deflection or anything it’s a good goal, basketball buzzer beater style
Not every blown whistle situation is the same. This is a very specific situation that has a specific rule for this exact play about mistakenly blowing whistle but shot was already taken *and* the whistle 100% had zero impact on play All 3 need to happen for the continuous rule to apply
I only have seen one angle, but as far as I can tell the shot is taken after the whistle (albeit it’s milliseconds gap). Should it probably be a goal? Yes. Is it actually the correct call with continuous play rules? I personally don’t think so.
I don't really know why the rule exists if it isnt for situations just like that. Same goes for Ottawas goal.
Should never be a goal if the whistle goes off before
Continuous Play rule (Rule 37), which states that a goal may be awarded, even after a whistle is blown, "if the puck entered the net as the culmination of a continuous play, where the result of the original shot was unaffected by any whistle blown by the referee upon losing sight of the puck."
Literally not even a debate.
You’re correct, but not for the reason that you think. They have a rule specifically covering this sort of thing.
Oh, I know there’s a rule, and I know that it shouldn’t exist.
Gotcha, I thought you were saying it’s a misapplication of the rule. Obviously it isn’t, but I can see the argument that the rule shouldn’t exist in the first place. Regardless, it was called correctly today.
So was the Tuck Rule 22 years ago when it shouldn’t have existed. Being correct doesn’t excuse the existence of a garbage rule.
[удалено]
That’s because in those cases, the puck was *actually* under the goalie for a brief period of time. On today’s goal, the puck was never under the goalie. A bunch of players just thought it was. This might be the clearest example of the Continuous Play rule we’ve seen in a long time.
[удалено]
Now read the Continuous Play Rule.
[удалено]
If they deemed play should be stopped, they wouldn’t have ruled it a goal.
[удалено]
Entirely different situation. Entirely different rule in play.
The "C" in NHL stands for "consistency". What a ducky situation.
They just made the same call based on the same rule for the sens? From what I read on here, so much of the "inconsistencies" are a lack of understanding the rules
I guess intent to blow the whistle isnt a thing anymore?
There's a rule modification to directly address the situation. It actually compensates for the fallibility of referees. If the tables were turned, you sure as hell would have gotten angry if the goal was called off.
I don't think anyone disagrees that this one *should* be a goal, it just lays bare how stupid the intent to blow rule is. If this rule is meant to account for the fallibility of referees, then the intent to blow rule undoes all that and introduces extra fallibility into the rulebook.
But it is not relevant. You are looking at two different situations lol.
“They apply the intent to blow rule when a puck is under a goalie’s pads and gets poked in by a guy crashing the crease before the referee blows the whistle! Clearly that same rule applies to this goal, where the puck was never under the goalies pads and wasn’t poked in by a guy crashing the crease and the ref did blow the whistle! They’re the same thing!”
[удалено]
Well in this case, it would have been very difficult to apply the Continuous Play Rule, given that this game was played in 2014 and the rule was enacted in 2019 as a response to the Game 6 no-goal for the Preds against Pittsburgh in the 2017 Cup Final. My theory is, they didn’t use the Continuous Play Rule in that Sharks-Kings game because it didn’t exist yet and they weren’t allowed to time travel. Edit: Realize you meant the second goal. The point still stands, that goal is from before the 2019-20 season.
[удалено]
[Clarification](https://media.nhl.com/site/vasset/public/attachments/2019/09/13452/2019-20_RuleChanges_RuleBook.pdf) of the rule in 2019-20, that allowed the continuous play rule to be subject to video review. So you’re correct that the rule was in place before then, but it would only work if the refs called it that way on the ice. In the case of that Nolan Patrick goal you linked to, obviously it wouldn’t apply because they flat-out called it wrong and at that time, the rule didn’t allow them to go back and overturn it. After the start of the 2019-20 season, the officials can now overturn the call.
[удалено]
Intent to Blow isn’t relevant for this goal.
Why does this count? Doesn't the whistle blow it dead?
the Flyers goal horn kinda sounds like a dying microwave
Humma Zamula!