Official NHL Explanation of Kunitz Goal Review

NHL Sr. VP of Hockey Operations Mike Murphy explains War Room decision

Official explanation of the NHL's review of the goal by Pittsburgh’s Chris Kunitz at 9:19 of the third period on Friday night, from Mike Murphy, Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations for the National Hockey League:

"Greg Kimmerly, the referee, initiated the review. He asked us if the puck entered the net in a legal fashion. There was no kick, and there was no glove. I can’t apply anything about blowing a whistle, unless it is clearly well after the whistle. The only thing I can determine is whether the puck crossed the goal line legally – in a proper fashion. After that, it is simply the referee’s call on the ice.

over 1 year ago Carolyn Christians 9 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Bull. That is all.

"What Carolina really has going for them is Brandon Sutter. When that kid first showed up, he looked like a skinny little thing that wouldn’t last two weeks. But he’s turned into a real star."

by caniacgirl on Nov 20, 2010 11:04 AM EST reply actions

Correct! There was no kick, and there was no glove!
BUT THERE WAS A WHISTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by MoeTilden on Nov 20, 2010 11:07 AM EST reply actions

So I would suggest that every player now should start to shoot pucks after the whistle….if it’s in it’s in…

by MoeTilden on Nov 20, 2010 11:09 AM EST reply actions

Hmmm

I thought the intention of having the review process was to get the play right. Maybe I am too stupid to understand the complexities of when the f$&@ing puck crosses the line with respect to the whistle.

Right is right, wrong is right? I have been living my whole life with the wrong assumptions. I will be sure to change that.

Everyone repeat after me….. Right is right and right is wrong. East is west and left is right… Welcome to Bazaro world.

by KenRab on Nov 20, 2010 11:10 AM EST via mobile reply actions

Sounds like

Ten lawyers locked in a room for 12 hours come up with this garbage. Real nice.

by KenRab on Nov 20, 2010 11:13 AM EST via mobile reply actions

Well that was a lame explanation. I thought the review was to check whether the the whistle had stopped play before the puck crossed the goal line. Welcome to hockey officiating 101.

by phiz50 on Nov 20, 2010 11:14 AM EST reply actions

Methinks

The operative word in the entire explanation is SIMPLE.

by KenRab on Nov 20, 2010 11:15 AM EST via mobile reply actions

IF Mike Murphy Chose or can’t take into consideration the whistle had indeed been blown then there was no reason for Mike Murphy to even have to rule on the call from the ice…Now my question is and would remain is this…when the “weeniefied war room” reviews a call can or are the able to hear the audio from the ice as well ? If not nor have they even been able to…there in lies the problem…but IF and again i say IF the war room can hear the audio portion of the video clip the question is and will forever remain…and AD also had a captured clip/shot that clealry shows the ref with the whistle in his mouth the play should have been called dead and done…it wasn’t until who ever cried foul to the referee after he got to the back of the net was there a call to "review a none reviewable play/call…After how many times in the last 2 seasons has the canes had a no goal call go on them because the ref was either in the act or had blown the whistle …and last but not least how much time has that particular offical been around as compared to an older more experenced offical…as i don’t reconzie half of the zebras out there any more on the ice and where did this class of Zebras come from…KHL ?? or from the city leagues doing pee wees and bantams ??

The moment you write off the Hurricanes,
they make you look bad !!

by CaniacSteve on Nov 20, 2010 12:12 PM EST reply actions