New York Islanders: Lack of Consistency With Officiating Is Wild

The officials were quick to call back a New York Islanders goal that should have stood, but took their time to award a double-minor. A wild inconsistency.

Mathew Barzal looked to have scored his first career NHL playoff goal in the second period of game one for the New York Islanders. Goalie Petr Mrazek wasn’t anywhere near the puck and Barzal just put it in the empty net.

Elation. The Barclay’s Center went nuts. The Islanders were the better team and were on the board thanks to their efforts. Or at least that’s what everyone thought.

The referees called the goal back almost immediately. They believed that the goal was scored thanks to goaltender interference. Not only was the goal called back, but Anders Lee went to the penalty box for the alleged interference.

Looking at the play again, there was clear contact, but it wasn’t initiated by Anders Lee. Based on the rulebook, that means the goal should have stood rather than being taken off the board. If the officials had taken time to get the call right they would have seen that.

The Rule

If you haven’t seen the play, or want to see it again here’s a GiF from Twitter.

Now that you’ve seen the play, here’s how I believe Wes McCauley and his crew saw and ultimately interpreted what happened. Looking at the NHL rule book, they clearly thought that Lee didn’t do enough to avoid contact:

"The contact by the attacking player with the goalkeeper is other than incidental and the attacking player, in the judgment of the Referee, did not make a reasonable effort to avoid such contact at the time a goal is scored. -Table 16, Situation 3, Point C (Page 154)"

The rule book states that in the event of Situation 3, Point C, the refs are to give a minor (or major) penalty to the player who interfered with the goalie and the goal is to be disallowed.

Looking at the play in question it’s clear that Carolina’s Lucas Wallmark gives Lee no option but to run into Mrazek. Watch how he shepherds Lee into the path of the goalie. Contact is made, Mrazek goes down, and then Barzal scores.

I’d argue that the only way for Lee to avoid contact was to go around Mrazek. Watch Lee’s leading leg. It turns away from Mrzaek. Lee was trying to get out of the way, but with the way Wallmark was leaning into Lee, that wasn’t possible. Contact was unavoidable and so contact was not Lee’s fault.

That’s my argument. There was, in my mind, a reasonable effort from Lee to avoid contact. With that understanding in mind and going back to the same section of the rule book, the outcome should have been very different.

Table 16, Situation 3, Point A is:

"The attacking player, after having made a reasonable effort to avoid contact, makes contact with the goalkeeper at the time a goal is scored."

The outcome in that scenario is to award the goal.

No Conference

The referees called no goal on the ice and awarded a penalty to Lee immediately. They didn’t review the call, they didn’t huddle to make sure they got it right, nothing.

But later in the game, when Trevor van Riemsdyk received a high stick from Cal Clutterbuck the referees took their time to get the call right. At first, they didn’t award a penalty, but after it became clear that van Riemsdyk was bleeding Clutterbuck was given a double-minor.

The call was the right one to make based on the situation. But the lack of consistency in deliberating a call is infuriating.

If the referees had taken the same care and effort to assess if a goal was scored as they did for a high sticking call, the Islanders would have been up 1-0 in the second period.

Who knows if that goal stands as the game-winner, or serves to just open the game up. But the officials have to make sure they get the right call. They did so for a high-sticking penalty, why couldn’t they do the same for a goal? There’s no reason and that’s absolutely wild.