Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Video- Did The Blues Get A Break?

Sometimes there is no conclusive video evidence to reverse the on-ice call.

from Tom Gulitti of Fire & Ice,

Hedberg said he stood up on the Polak shot because it appeared to be going high.

“It’s deflected and it goes in and my initial reaction was that I thought it was a high stick, but I guess it wasn’t,” Hedberg said.

The officials on the ice called it a good goal, which meant that when it went to the video review in the NHL Situation Room in Toronto, there had to be conclusive video evidence that Berglund deflected the puck above the cross bar for the goal to be disallowed.

The official ruling from the NHL Situation Room was that there was no such clear video evidence of a high stick.


Filed in: NHL Teams, New Jersey Devils, St. Louis Blues, | KK Hockey | Permalink



His stick is upwards from his shoulder… Theres absolutly no way this is NOT a high stick…
That should not be a goal

Posted by Zqto from Brazil on 02/10/12 at 08:27 AM ET

Nathan's avatar

Too close to call it back. The shoulder isn’t the rule, it is the crossbar, correct? Or has this changed yet again? It doesn’t look like the puck hits his stick till he jerks it downwards, and when they to the freeze frame about halfway through the video that shows the apparent point of contact, it looks even from that angle.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 02/10/12 at 11:28 AM ET


His stick is almost above his HEAD! This is a ridiculous, chicken-shit cop out. What’s the point of instant replay if the off ice official doesn’t have the guts to make the right call.

Posted by From The Hockey Wastelands from Cleveland on 02/10/12 at 11:33 AM ET

Ducksworth's avatar

Bad call, should have been no goal for sure. How they missed this one is beyond me…

Posted by Ducksworth from Brownstown, MI on 02/10/12 at 12:19 PM ET


Sorry Nathan, didnt want to missinform you
It’s still the crossbar

But seriously, how is it not clear that his shoulder is above de corssbar (he’s not crouching or something similar, and I doubt his height is around 5’6”), and his stick is above his shoulder, therefore his stick is way above the crossbar

Posted by Zqto from Brazil on 02/10/12 at 12:33 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I was listening to Darren Pang describe why the play was a good one. In it, he mentions that Patrik Berglund is 6’4”.  He also mentions that the net is six feet (without clarifying that’s the net’s WIDTH).

Blues homers also said something dumb along the lines of “Look how the stick as at his knees by the time he’s done swinging it!”

No idea how they got this one so wrong.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 02/10/12 at 12:45 PM ET

mrfluffy's avatar

And we’ve been complaining saying Toronto should be more involved. If they’re getting this crap wrong…what’s the point of the War Room?

Posted by mrfluffy from A wide spot on I-90 in Montana on 02/10/12 at 12:59 PM ET


Bad call—don’t pay attention to the stick, pay attention to the puck. The net is four feet high—that puck was definitely more than four feet high.

Posted by Dave on 02/10/12 at 02:23 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

I’m not seeing “definitive” evidence in that video. From one angle, the puck appears to have hit the shaft of his stick as he makes the downward pull. Because the defender’s head is in the way, you can’t really see how high the puck is.

From another angle, the puck appears to be too high as it comes across the blade of the stick, but it isn’t clear if the puck hits the blade, or goes past the blade and hits the shaft after it lowers—the puck already appears to be a bit of a tumbling knuckler.

From the third angle, you can’t just the height as well, but you get a look at the puck coming across the area the blade and shaft are in. It still isn’t clear to me (at least on on this smaller-sized internet video) where the puck hits.

FWIW, all indications based on the height of the puck is that yes, it was too high. But the rule is what it is, and definitive/indisputable evidence is needed to overturn the call. I don’t see how you can consider this (again, only as the video above shows it, as I haven’t see others) indisputable evidence.

By all means, if you have a freeze frame that you believe is definitive and shows it should’ve been overturned with zero doubt, post it. I’d love any reason to rag on the Blues. :p

If the argument is the rule of “definitive” or “indisputable” is wrong, and the rule should allow for common sense to take over regardless of the call on the ice, then you’ll get no argument from me. The rule should be more about common sense, in which case, this wouldn’t be a goal.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 02/10/12 at 03:45 PM ET


Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 02/10/12 at 01:45 PM ET

  Hey Nathan you’re not a lawyer are you?

Posted by From The Hockey Wastelands from Cleveland on 02/10/12 at 08:49 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.


Notify me of follow-up comments?


Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com


Recommended Sportsbook