The Edmonton Oil Kings have won their first game of the tourney against host team Shawinigan Cataractes by a score of 4-3. There was some controversy in this one.
With the score 3-1, the Cataractes jammed a puck under goaltender Laurent Brossoit. The referee, positioned behind the net, blew the play dead (no goal). The puck slid into the net moments after the whistle (very, very close). The ref discussed the play with a linesman and they decided to go upstairs for a review.
Strangely (to me), the CHL allows the TV broadcast to tap into the conversation between referees and the goal reviewers. I don’t have the exact transcript, but it went something like this.
Ref: “I blew the play dead. I didn’t see the puck cross the line. I just want to know if it went in the net.”
Reviewer: “The puck did cross the line, the only question is when you blew your whistle” (which if true, is different than the NHL)
Ref again reiterates a couple times that he didn’t see the puck going in before blowing the whistle.
Reviewer: “The puck did cross the line.”
Ref: “So it’s a good goal?”
Reviewer: “It depends on when you blew the whistle. But the puck did cross the line.”
Reviewer: “The call on the ice stands.” (the call on the ice was NO GOAL)
Ref: “So it’s a good goal then?”
Reviewer: “I’m saying the call on the ice stands.”
Ref: “Good goal!” *points to center ice*
Again, that is the paraphrase of the conversation, and not word for word.. but take my word for it, the real conversation wasn’t very much different at all. What a shit show. But luckily the hockey gods sorted this one out, and the Oil Kings won in spite of that bad call. I think the whistle was blown too early, but really, the correct call there was no goal, based on all of the “evidence”.