Wherever the San Jose Sharks end up in the standings—maybe they win the Western Conference, maybe they squeak into the playoffs—the NHL should cross its fingers and hope they wouldn't be helped by another point.
Tuesday night, the Sharks scored a goal that should've beaten the Buffalo Sabres (considering that it was the Sabres, they should've scored a bunch more, but that's San Jose's fault).
That's a goal.
Oh man, that's *really* a goal.
But when is a goal not a goal? In the moments between a referee's visual observation and the act of forcing air into a whistle and creating a sound. That can often take several seconds (It cannot).
So, we have this: "The referee was in the act of blowing the whistle to stop play. The action is not reviewable," according to David Pollak of the San Jose Mercury News.
It's not referee Mike Leggo's fault, really. Missed calls happen. More than anything, this is a failure of rule application and the league's video review process.
Leggo probably shouldn't have blown the whistle at all, and beyond that, it's tough to argue that much time could elapse between the decision to blow a whistle and actually blowing it. Most importantly, he blew the whistle after the puck crossed the line. While the puck was in the net, his whistle wasn't at his lips. Watch (and listen to) the video again. Doesn't seem to be much intent there.
The "intent to blow" rule is debatable, at best, when applied correctly. At its worst, it's a catch-all for referee error. If you're going to fall back on something as nebulous as intent, as the league has, at least make it arguable.
The other, more correctable issue, is that the video review process tanked, too. From Barry Petchesky at Deadspin:
The Sharks didn't protest. San Jose's TV feed didn't show a definitive replay until minutes later. Buffalo's broadcast didn't show it at all. Since the officials didn't realize there was anything worth reviewing, they didn't consult Toronto.
This can't happen. There's a video goal judge in each arena, and while he and the War Room are usually dependent on TV broadcasts, the NHL owns and controls the overhead camera that in this case showed a clear goal. It should have been flagged, reviewed, and the goal and game awarded to the Sharks.
The biggest question of all: Why can't the game still be awarded to the Sharks? The concept of intent to blow shouldn't come up at all; it's farcical. So what's stopping the league from saying, "Yep, Tommy Wingels scored, and the Sharks won"?
Forget the slippery slope argument—this specific concept would come up in exactly one instance: when the league clearly blows a goal call in overtime. The rest of the game, under correct circumstances, wouldn't exist; there are no other variables to consider. There would be if it happened in the second period, but it didn't.
Strike the rest of the overtime stats from the record. Give San Jose another point. The end.