Octopus Thrower Overtime: Buffalo Sabres 3, Detroit Red Wings 2 (SO)

After last night’s disappointing 3-2 loss to Buffalo in a shootout, the Detroit Red Wings were victimized again by a no-goal call that would have notched an additional point in the standings. Instead, they skated to an overtime tie and an eventual SO loss. But then NHL.com posted this little gem in their wrap:

"“I was talking to the ref a couple times during the game and he said, he told me, ‘I know he’s standing in the crease so whenever they’re going to score a goal I’m going to disallow it,'” Neuvirth said. “I was glad he actually did it.”"

My brother is the one that alerted me to this. So I removed my tin foil cap (because we Wing fans all own one, right?), read it several times within the context of the story, and then watched the replay. Referees have a difficult job, and there’s no doubt that they have to react in split seconds without the benefit of multiple replays.

The referee who waived off the goal was Graham Skilliter. Skilliter is a recent call up to the NHL level, serving as an AHL ref for the past three years. Here’s a nice little write up about him.  The rule he cited falls under Rule 69: Interference on the Goaltender. This particular situation (which we all know well thanks to one Tomas Holmstrom) falls under 69.3:

"69.3 Contact Inside the Goal Crease – If an attacking player initiates contact with a goalkeeper, incidental or otherwise, while the goalkeeper is in his goal crease, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.If a goalkeeper, in the act of establishing his position within his goal crease, initiates contact with an attacking player who is in the goal crease, and this results in an impairment of the goalkeeper’s ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.If, after any contact by a goalkeeper who is attempting to establish position in his goal crease, the attacking player does not immediately vacate his current position in the goal crease (i.e. give ground to the goalkeeper), and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed. In all such cases, whether or not a goal is scored, the attacking player will receive a minor penalty for goalkeeper interference.If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.For this purpose, a player “establishes a significant position within the crease” when, in the Referee’s judgment, his body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time."

Neuvirth makes the first contact, his glove on Franzen’s back. When the shot is released, Franzen’s skates are in the paint, therefore installing the “in the crease” element of Rule 69.3. As the shot barrels through, there is contact between both Neuvirth and Franzen. From the overhead angle (which the referee would not have been able to see from his position in the corner of the glass), Franzen’s rear makes contact with Neuvirth’s shoulder, therefore fulfilling the “contact” principle of the rule. So with all intents and purposes, it’s the correct call.

Here’s the problem.

We’re under the assumption that it was Skilliter who made the comment to Neuvirth based on what happened. If that’s the case, he was waiving that goal off no matter what. Therein lies the problem. Regardless if it were Tomas Holmstrom, Johan Franzen, or Steve Yzerman parked in front of the net, he was declaring it a no-goal. This is a serious problem, especially when games are being decided by tighter and tighter margins. It is ridiculous, and especially disingenuous, to make a comment like that to an opposing goaltender. Worse, it plays into the claim that there is an actual bias out there against Red Wings near the net.

I don’t that Skilliter has an anti-Detroit Red Wings bias. I don’t think he hates Franzen or any other member of the organization. But I do think he’s trying to make a name for himself and provide a no nonsense reputation. In his own words:

"“You have to be confident. There are a lot of people (that will) tell you you’re wrong when you know that you’re right.”"

We can all admire that confidence. But you were dead wrong in your intent last night, Mr. Skilliter. We can live with the call by the definition of the rule, but we can’t live with your insistence on making a call. That is a troubling way to begin your NHL career.