The Bruins should not have lost that game last night. This is the 4th time in 15 games that a goal has been overturned due to a Coach’s Challenge. This is just ridiculous. Both regulation games they have been victims of some pretty spotty reversed calls. Last night in Montreal, the Bruins had seemed to have taken their first lead of the night thanks to Charlie Coyle and the newly formed 3rd line of Anders Bjork, and Zack Senyshyn. However, upon further review, it was determined that Coyle entered the zone “offsides” therefore disallowing the goal. Section 10 Rule 83.1 of the NHL Rulebook states that “However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side, provided he
had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.” Here is the spot the NHL “War Room” used to determine the call:
“However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the line ahead of the puck shall not be considered ‘off-side’, provided he had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the blue line.”NHL Rulebook 2019-2020 Section 10 Rule 83.1
Coyle has full possession of the puck, with his skates, before he enters the zone. As the rule states, the player is allowed to be “offsides” if he has possession of the puck prior to crossing the blue line fully. Therefore was onside, according to this rule. The goal should’ve been upheld, and the Bruins should have been up in that game. Is there a chance that Montreal still scores and wins after the fact? Absolutely. That definitely was not a great game by the B’s by any means. But it was a substantial play that completely changed the flow of the game. The Bruins would have scored 3 unanswered goals, and had momentum on their side. Instead, the goal is overturned, and Montreal scores about a minute later to take the lead for good. So, if by the ruling of Situation Room in Toronto, what is possession then? Coyle clearly had control of the puck, with his skates. Not only that, there are no players in direct contact with Coyle to dispute that he had full control over the puck. I think this call specifically will have a long lasting impact on this years’ reviews.
As I’ve mentioned above, this wasn’t the first time the Bruins have had a goal overturned by the Coach’s Challenge. On October 10th, the Bruins had not one, but TWO goals overturned. The would have been up 4-2 as a result, but lost that game 4-2 in regulation. Now, I think that they got one of the calls right. However, the other call was so egregious that it spoiled the game. The first call of the game came against David Krejci. The Bruins entered the zone cleanly, and Jake Debrusk sent out a pass to Karson Khulman, who buried it glove side past Philipp Grubauer. However when the goal was challenged, it was determined that Krejci had interfered just enough with Grubauer to warrant an overturn of the call on the ice. This call was just absolutely ridiculous. Krejci was barely in the paint as the puck was sent towards the net. Not to mention that Krejci was pushed towards Colorado’s net-minder. This goal should have stood. The next goal that was taken away from the Bruins came in the 3rd period when David Pastrnak entered the zone offsides. He was not the puck carrier, and was definitely over the line before the puck, so this goal was disallowed, which is a correct call.
I’m not here to bitch and moan about how the Bruins get piped when it comes to Coach’s Challenges. (Maybe just a bit. I mean come on, 4 GOALS in the first 15 GAMES? Thats asinine.) I just think there needs to be something to control the usage of the Coach’s Challenge. I also think the NHL needs to clear up the debate of what is full possession of the puck. Clearly how Charlie Coyle had the puck is not considered full possession. So then, what is? I guess we will have to wait and find out from the League itself.