Almost an Awarded Goal in Colorado

Everyone keeps quoting Rule 78.4 which essentially states that the net has to be at least on the moorings and the moorings have to be in the holes (though they can be bent) for a goal to be scored. While true, this situation is more unique in that the net was displaced by the defense and the puck clearly would have been a good goal except for the net coming off. Rule 78 is generally used when there is a scrum in front of the net and the puck goes in around the time the net comes off. I think everyone is forgetting another rule that actually makes better sense in this case.

This could have been an example of Rule 63.6 and the goal might have been awarded (though it was not actually ruled that way). The officials were looking at whether or not the goal was dislodged (the 78 rule) by the net coming off its moorings before the puck crossed the goal line. Even if the net was up, but still on the posts, it is considered "in place". I wish it had been ruled to have been dislodged, because then we would have likely seen an ellusive "awarded goal" in the NHL.

Rule 63.6 essentially states that if the defending players intentionally or accidently displace the net after the puck is shot and the puck would have gone into the net, the goal can be awarded (and probably should be).

For the record, there was no call on the ice that we can see in the video. The signal for goal is pointing to the net. The signal for no goal is waving ones hands out. The signal to stop play is holdings one's hands up in front of the chest (like the official did). Don't get dupped into thinking the original call on the ice was no goal based solely on that video. We didn't see in the video any call regarding a goal versus no-goal.

It can be confusing here and one might be thinking that the call on the ice was no goal and the official or situation room misspoke in saying the original call was "goal". It probably was "goal", we just didn't see it in that video. But even it was a call of "no goal" originally, the official and Situation Room Blog may have just misspoke. It's okay to overturn the original call. That's the point of replay.

My point is this: either way, that should be a goal. Either it should have been awarded or it was legit and crossed before the net dislodged. For the record, the Situation Room said the puck crossed the line BEFORE dislodge.

Apparently it was a lengthy review, which doesn't make sense to me because, like I said, either way it's a goal. Just make a call and then give the Avalanche the goal. I suppose they still wanted to get the call right, even if the results would be the same, which is good policy.