Alex Ovechkin made some magic late in the third period against the Nashville Predators, Saturday.
After taking a backhand sauce pass from John Carlson, Ovechkin fired a shot past a screened Yaroslav Askarov to give the Washington Capitals a thrilling 3-2 lead. The Capitals had a six-on-five man advantage due to a delayed penalty call on Luke Schenn.
Watching live, the goal looked good, but as the clock overran to 59.5 seconds, the referees in DC got a call from Toronto requesting a review for goaltender interference. And that’s when one of the most electric moments of the Capitals’ 2023-24 season went awry.
#ALLCAPS Ovechkin scores but they overturned it, im unaliving pic.twitter.com/kBW2EfWkyK
— Capitals Replays (@capsreplays) December 31, 2023
Upon review, there was a single overhead shot that showed Nic Dowd initiate contact and bump Askarov ever so slightly on the right shoulder as he skated into position with his back turned to the net.
A late Alex Ovechkin goal is taken away due to goaltender interference…
Right call?
pic.twitter.com/iA7XRRQIOG
— Gino Hard (@GinoHard_) December 31, 2023
After several minutes of video review, the officials in Washington deemed it to be goaltender interference and washed away Ovechkin’s tally.
This is the full explanation posted by the NHL’s situation room.
Challenge Initiated By: Situation Room
Type of Challenge: Goaltender Interference
Result: Call on the ice is overturned – No Goal Washington
Explanation: Video review determined Washington’s Nic Dowd impaired Yaroslav Askarov’s ability to play his position in the crease prior to Alex Ovechkin’s goal. According to Rule 69.3, “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.”
NOTE: In the final minute of play in the third period and at any point in overtime (regular season and playoffs), Hockey Operations will initiate the review of any scenario that would otherwise be subject to a Coach’s Challenge.
NHL Rule 69.3 can be read in full below:
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 (refer to Rule 69.7 for an exception).
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.
It’s worth noting that because the goal was scored officially at the 19:01 mark of the third period, Predators head coach Andrew Brunette did not have to issue a challenge himself, which would have risked Nashville going down a man if officials ruled it a good goal. Neither Askarov or the Predators head coach seemed to be perturbed by the call on the ice when it happened live. Dowd appeared to be partially in the crease as he skated by, but was outside of it as the puck crossed the goal line. Regardless of where he was, if the goalie is in the crease and he initiates contact, it can be ruled goalie interference.
Because the goal was overturned, the Capitals ended up getting a power play at the tail end of regulation (5-on-4) and in overtime (4-on-3). They did not score during the opportunity, eventually surrendering the game in the shootout.
Postgame, Spencer Carbery was asked about the call and was nimble in his response.
“I would have liked that to have counted,” Carbery said. “But my opinion on it, from going through tons of reviews and doing a study on it, or a project on it. My personal take is there’s not enough there to overturn — especially to overturn because that’s where it, if it’s ruling, that’s where it gets tricky is when it’s called a goal on the ice, it needs to be very, very evident to overturn. That’s the way that it’s been described to us from the league. And so in that situation, given that, is there enough there? It’s tight. So for me, that goal should stand, but that’s the situation.”
Carbery was also pained about when the clock stopped thus allowing the NHL situation room to get involved.
“We just looked at it, so [the puck] goes in at 1:00.8 or something,” Carbery said. “So if it stops, technically, when the puck goes in the net, if the score clock, then they can’t review it in Toronto unless it gets challenged. And to your point now, you’ve got a choice to make of, do you try to go six-on-five? Or do you risk challenging and now it’s tough to come back from. He’d be in a real tough spot if he challenged it and failed it.”
As for Beck Malenstyn, he admitted that having a potential victory snatched away them was frustrating for the team.
“You want those to go in, you celebrate and you feel like you got it and it gets swept away from you,” he said. “But their job is to make those decisions and you don’t always have to agree with them.”
Screenshot: Monumental Sports Network