ridly greig opened the scoring for the Senators when he buried a puck in the slot after a deflection off a teammate’s glove, a goal that was reviewed and ultimately upheld following a Coach’s Challenge.
What Happens When Ridly Greig’s Goal Is Reviewed?
The on-ice officials allowed the play to stand after a video review of the sequence in which the puck deflected from a point shot to Shane Pinto’s glove and then to Ridly Greig, who finished the play. The Situation Room supported the referee’s on-ice decision that the puck deflected off Shane Pinto’s glove, and was therefore not deemed a hand pass prior to ridly greig’s goal.
The challenge was processed under the Coach’s Challenge framework for a missed game stoppage — hand pass. Rule 38. 1 was applied in the review, which states that the original call on the ice will be overturned only if “a conclusive and irrefutable determination can be made on the basis of video evidence that the original call on the ice was clearly not correct. ” If any doubt remains, the original call is confirmed. The outcome of this review: original call confirmed, goal Ottawa. The unsuccessful challenge carried a 2: 00 minor penalty for delay of game.
What If the NHL’s Hand Pass Rule Remains Inconsistent?
The decision to uphold the Ridly Greig goal sits within a pattern of mixed outcomes when similar plays are reviewed. The rule framing these determinations, Rule 79. 1, states in part that “If, in the opinion of the on-ice officials, the puck has deflected off a player’s hand, and no advantage has been gained by the team, it will not constitute a violation for the purpose of this rule. ” That phrasing makes the ruling dependent on officials’ judgments about direction and advantage.
- One earlier play this season resulted in a goal being taken off the board after a puck deflected off the glass and struck a player’s hand before a subsequent scorer finished the play; officials ruled the puck had been “directed, ” resulting in a hand pass reversal.
- Another review led to a goal being called back after a shot rebounded off a goaltender, hit a player in the hand and then reached a teammate who scored; officials again concluded the puck had been directed by the offending team.
- In contrast, a separate instance saw a goal count despite a puck deflecting off a player’s glove along the boards before a teammate finished the play; officials ruled that the deflection did not constitute a hand pass.
Those three outcomes—goal reversed, goal reversed, goal allowed—demonstrate the variation that can arise when reviews hinge on whether a puck was “directed” or merely “deflected, ” and whether an advantage was gained.
The Ridly Greig review applied the same standards. The Situation Room and the on-ice officials concluded the deflection off Shane Pinto’s glove did not meet the threshold for a hand pass under Rule 79. 1, and Rule 38. 1’s requirement for conclusive video evidence was not satisfied for an overturn.
That interpretation leaves open questions for teams and coaches who must decide whether to deploy a challenge and risk the two-minute penalty for an unsuccessful attempt. The line officials and video review personnel continue to be the decisive arbiters when the difference between a hand pass and a non-penalizable deflection is a matter of inches and instantaneous trajectory.
What readers should take away: this play underscores how closely the hand-pass rule is tied to judgment calls about deflection versus direction and advantage. The coach’s challenge framework preserves the original call unless video evidence is conclusive, and in this instance the goal by Ridly Greig stood.
