Imagine this: the clock is ticking down in overtime, the tension is palpable, and then—chaos. A goal is scored, but the net is off its moorings. Is it a legitimate goal, or a controversial call that changes the game’s outcome? This is exactly what happened in a recent matchup between the Minnesota Wild and the Nashville Predators, leaving fans and players alike scratching their heads. But here’s where it gets controversial: the goal was allowed to stand, sparking a heated debate that’s still raging.
On a fateful Tuesday night, Wild forward Kirill Kaprizov executed a slick pass across the crease to his teammate Marcus Johansson. Simultaneously, Predators goalie Justus Annunen inadvertently pushed the net off its moorings. Johansson’s initial shot hit the side of the dislodged net, but he quickly recovered the puck and backhanded it over the goal line. The referee immediately signaled a goal at 3:38 of overtime, and after a video review, the call was upheld. The Wild secured a 3-2 victory, adding insult to injury for the Predators, who had just tied the game with a dramatic goal by Steven Stamkos with only 0.3 seconds left in regulation.
But here’s the kicker: the NHL’s Situation Room justified the goal by citing Rule 63.7, which states that if a defending player displaces the goal post before an imminent scoring opportunity, a goal may be awarded if the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goalposts. The league determined that Annunen’s actions caused the net to dislodge before Johansson’s scoring chance, making the goal valid. However, this interpretation didn’t sit well with the Predators.
Nashville coach Andrew Brunette expressed his disagreement, stating, ‘The explanation was that, in [the referee’s] opinion, it was a goal. I disagree with his opinion, but that’s the way it is.’ Stamkos echoed this sentiment, pointing out the unusual nature of the play. ‘The confusing part for us was why it was so emphatically called [a goal],’ he said. ‘If the net hadn’t come off, the puck would’ve gone behind the net, and we’d still be in the game.’
And this is the part most people miss: Stamkos argued that Johansson’s goal was only possible because the net was dislodged, allowing the puck to bounce back to him. Brunette also defended his goalie, insisting there was no intent to dislodge the net. ‘Unfortunately, they didn’t see it the same way. And you move on,’ he added, though the frustration was evident.
The Wild’s win marked their second consecutive victory, improving their season record to 5-6-3, while the Predators fell to 5-6-4 after their second straight overtime loss. ‘We deserved a lot better,’ Stamkos said, reflecting on what he called one of their best games of the season.
Here’s the burning question: Was the NHL’s decision fair, or did the Predators get a raw deal? Rule 63.7 is clear, but its application in this case has left room for debate. Did Annunen’s actions truly create an imminent scoring opportunity, or was Johansson’s goal a direct result of the dislodged net? Weigh in below—do you think the goal should have counted, or was this a call that missed the mark?
