Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: dcsportsbog and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Ovechkin checks puck into net

The Caps lost. The win streak ended. And Alex Ovechkin's bizarre goal of the night--checking massive defenseman Hal Gill, goalie Carey Price, the puck, six medicine balls and several tons of concrete slabs into the net--was waved off by officials.

Whatever. Don't care. In the last week, the guy has scored with one hand. He's scored by breaking his stick, scurrying to get another, and then one-timing his first look. He's busted a goal cam en route to a hat trick. And against Montreal, he checked like 470 pounds of Canadien into the net. Which led to this call on TSN, from the much-blogged-about Pierre McGuire:

"This guy is an android. He's not human....Oh my goodness....This is his thing. This guy is legitimately 235 pounds, and this is just a nuclear eruption from Alexander Ovechkin....Here comes 8 in white. WHAM....Oh my goodness. Oh my goodness."

By Dan Steinberg  |  February 10, 2010; 11:16 PM ET
Categories:  Caps  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Leonsis: "I want immortality for the players"
Next: Caps on their Olympic hockey rooting interests





Posted by: CalleJoFan | February 10, 2010 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Why was it waived off?

Posted by: Tony-Tony-Tony | February 10, 2010 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Why was it waived off?

Posted by: Tony-Tony-Tony | February 10, 2010 11:47 PM

Because the refs are morons.

Posted by: Poopy_McPoop | February 11, 2010 12:35 AM | Report abuse

I could sweat it, but I'm not going to. Tonight was an amazing comeback (again), it was a sweet HT that will not get its due and for now we can just bask in the glow of 14 straight! ZOMG!

Posted by: rmontcal | February 11, 2010 12:41 AM | Report abuse

In the end the disallowed goal probably didn't matter because if it was allowed the Caps don't pull their goalie and the game still goes into overtime but I still would love to hear an explanation.

Posted by: ouvan59 | February 11, 2010 1:38 AM | Report abuse

This is one of the most bizarre goals, or non-goals, you'll ever see. It's a really tough call for the refs to make. Usually if the goalie is clearly hit directly or hit due to the actions of another player, and a goal is scored as a result, it is no goal. In this case, the hit was 5 feet away from the crease and the puck wasn't touched by a Caps player. It probably should have been a goal, but the play looks so odd that it's not surprising that it was called back. Again, it was a tough call for the refs and it's too bad it went against the Caps. There's no way to know how it might have affected the game if the call remained.

Posted by: washcaps | February 11, 2010 3:06 AM | Report abuse

The ref told Boudreau that the goal wouldn't count because "Carrie Price didn't have a chance to make the save". Which makes no sense since Huet obviously didn't have a chance to make a save two years ago in game 7.

Posted by: jeadpt | February 11, 2010 3:06 AM | Report abuse


to be the man, ya got to beat the man.

float like a butterfly - sting like a bee

simply the best there is - he is so much fun to watch.

Posted by: outrbnksm | February 11, 2010 6:53 AM | Report abuse

nothing more then a hard check by OV the goalie never controled the puck and that was clear by the puck entering the net. Good goal , bad call by refs . Same crew from 2 years ago game 7

Posted by: terryreece | February 11, 2010 7:23 AM | Report abuse

hey Ovi, that was Sick! that was definately one of my favorite Ovi goals!(non goal) its a horsesh!* call! i was wathing with friends and told them here comes that Mack Truck and Whamo, Hal Gill was wondering if anyone got the Tag # Price told him 8! Lets Go CAPS!!!! and nice trick Brooksie!!!!!!!

Posted by: bigBinMd | February 11, 2010 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Caps lose and still put more distance between them and San Jose...

Posted by: jhorstma | February 11, 2010 8:58 AM | Report abuse

To me, the Caps scored 6 times in regulation. The Canadiens scored 5. And we lost. Retarded refs!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: rachel216 | February 11, 2010 9:00 AM | Report abuse

What a shame the Caps lost...BUT...THAT was as entertaining a hockey game there is...great puck movement -- and the bizarre non-goal call on this outrageous play by Ovechkin. For the record...THIS wonderful play is one Crosby never even attempts. Ovie is the most complete player in this league's history.

Posted by: LostOak | February 11, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

That no goal call was horse hockey.

Posted by: irockthered | February 11, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

something tells me if that play had happending in atlanta the goal would have counted without further review.

Posted by: dcsportsfan1 | February 11, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure if that happened the other way around... like if one of the Canadiens knocked our player into Theodore, it would've counted. It would've been a "home" call. Either way, it's a goal and it should've counted.

Posted by: rachel216 | February 11, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Ovi is like a "Bull in a China Shop" and that was a GOAL! Like the phantom slash against Shultz in the pens game, these refs are human, but you have to wonder - is it something else with the NHL and the CAPITALS???

Posted by: noreaster1 | February 11, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

Per the league, the goal was waived off because Ovechkin pushed Gill into Carey Price (MTL's goaltender), which created an interference situation.

Because Ovechkin did not interfere with the goaltender directly, no penalty was called. In other words, if Ovechkin has directly made contact with Price in the blue paint they would have called a penalty.

Posted by: jcurrin | February 11, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

How about playing some defense? The Caps will have to get much tougher on D in order to win the Cup. The last several games have been nail biters due to them not playing on both ends of the ice.

Posted by: terpmitch | February 11, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

I just hope the NHL clarifies this rule, since it's been enforced two different ways in Caps games over the last couple years. As mentioned above, in the 2008 playoffs, the Flyers scored a goal on very similar circumstances, and the goal wasn't even reviewed. A few weeks before that, in a regular season game, the Caps had a goal disallowed on a similar play. And then last night, Ovie's goal was disallowed. (And to be honest, I can't remember what game it was, but I think the Caps had a goal count in a similar situation sometime in the past couple months.)

I don't really care which way the league goes on this--I can see the argument why, since the goaltender was not "given the chance to play the puck," it should be disallowed--but just pick one way and stick with it, don't have it fluctuate from game to game.

Posted by: TheFingerman | February 11, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

The funny thing is that it's happened against us at Verizon Center and the refs called it a goal.

Posted by: MNMNT | February 11, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Yeah jcurrin, you are correct. That is what happened. The big problem is this is the explanation they had after the game 7 vs. the Flyers:

"Explanation on Philadelphia’s second goal at 9:47 of the second period – Washington’s Shaone Morrisonn plays the puck and Philadelphia’s Patrick Thoresen lays a legal body check on Morrisonn. No Philadelphia player makes contact with Washington goaltender Huet (Rule 69). This play is not reviewable."

This is the same exact thing you just stated. So why did the goal in game 7 count and last night's goal did not??? Shaone Morrisonn was pushed into Cristobal Huet. Patrick Thoresen never made contact with Huet. It absolutely doesn't make ANY sense. Refs should be fired for this. They need to come out and say they made the wrong call.

Posted by: rachel216 | February 11, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

"The funny thing is that it's happened against us at Verizon Center and the refs called it a goal."

Yes, see Flyers/Caps playoff series 2008.

Posted by: cirrus_nine | February 11, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

TheFingerman: Exactly. If they wiped out the goal in the game 7, then we would not be having this conversation. And BB's right, if they had called it no goal initially, I would've been fine with it. But the fact is they initially called it a good goal, that is why this is frustrating.

Posted by: rachel216 | February 11, 2010 10:50 AM | Report abuse

No Redskin ever threw a better block than Ovechkin's and that includes the Hogs. Having said that, I don't want to hear any more about the "streak". This season is about the playoffs and the Cup. If Leonsis and McPhee are sitting around congratulating themselves about the streak, they're missing the big picture.

Posted by: poguesmahone | February 11, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

does anyone else think that if this goal was against the Caps it would have counted? just the man trying to keep us down

Posted by: heathdog1119 | February 11, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Even Pierre agreed it was a goal. Complete BS.

Posted by: MyPostIDisAfake | February 11, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I think the NHL can show extreme stupidity when they continue to employ referees who either are incapable of following a game that they make stupid calls like the alleged non-goal yesterday and the phantom slash against ShaMo (?) in the Penguins game. Last I checked, you fail to do your job properly, you're likely to be shown the door. Please, Bettman, explain to me why you continue to employ incompetent a$$hats as referees. Idiot.

Posted by: LeftCoastCapsFan | February 11, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

MyPostIDisAfake: Exactly. All the TSN guys calling the game were shocked when they wiped the goal out. When the TSN guys are saying it's a goal, then you know it's a goal, because when else are they ever on our side? Stupid refs totally stole the game from us.

Posted by: rachel216 | February 11, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Melrose defended the call last night on Sportscenter.
In my view the only way that goal can be washed out is if you call Ovechkin for goaltender interference for shoving Hal Gill into Carey Price. Otherwise its a nonsense call.

Posted by: templetontherat1978 | February 11, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Melrose defended it how??

There is no need to try to justify the call because the inconsistency is right there. We all saw it in the game 7 vs. the Flyers. Tell me how that situation and last night's situation was any different. It was the same thing with different calls.

Obviously it was not because of goalie interference because then there would be a penalty on Ovechkin, and there was not a penalty called. Geez, clueless referees. I hope they give us an explanation. They probably won't because they don't even have one.

Posted by: rachel216 | February 11, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

I was at Game 7 vs. Philly in 08.

1. The puck in this case was directly underneath Hal Gil and that was clearly a legal body check.

2. If I'm not mistaken, ShaMo had already played the puck and the hit on him was late. I would argue it wasn't even a check, but a deliberate attempt to send ShaMo into Huet.

Oh well. I'm biased, but I have no idea why Ovy's goal was waived off.

Screw the refs.

Posted by: CF11555 | February 11, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Most of Rule 69 seems to suggest the goal should have been allowed, since the "attacking player" (Ovechkin) did not impede the goaltender's ability to play the puck.

However, there's this, in 69.1:

"The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within his goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player."

In this case, "the actions of an attacking player" appears to mean Ovechking checking Gill, which hindered Price's ability to move freely within his goal crease.

I agree with the cries for consistency. But just because a similiar call was blown in 2008 doesn't mean it should be blown here. If you think it should've been a no-goal against Philly, you should hold yourself to the same standard of consistency you're accusing the officating crews of lacking.

I generally think the league doesn't do enough to protect the goaltender's ability to make saves in his own crease, especially in the playoffs.

I loved the play, though. Just when you thought you'd seen it all from Ovi.

Posted by: JohninMpls | February 11, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Another horrible call from last night was on the Canadiens 4th was CLEARLY offsides!

Metropolit goal was good tho. He didnt lift his skate at all.

But still the Caps got one taken back from them and one generously awarded to the other team. Hard to win when the refs sport a 2 goal differential thru the game like that.

That not even nearly as bad as the Thoreson hit on Morrison in game 7 vs the Flyers a couple years ago! The NHL made it VERY clear that it was the correct call...guess they changed their minds.

Would love to hear what the director of officiating says and how he spins it this time...

Posted by: asharifi10 | February 11, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Love this team and love Red Jesus. Even the loss last night was amazing. Ovie just wills the whole team to pick up there play. McGuires right, he isn't human.

Posted by: lavar609 | February 11, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The Capitals are the best team in the NHL. With the goal tending clicking, and the offense this powerful, they are NEVER out of a game. Ovie was robbed by the Refs in Quebec...the Canadian Hockey establishment hates Ovie, but screw that noise. Ovechkin flattens Gill=AWESOME!!!

Posted by: hatchlaw | February 11, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I have read many of the comments on here refering to Ovechkin's goal (or lack there of). In 2008, when it happended to Huet, the league went back and reviewed the tape and said that the correct call was made on the ice. Therefore, this was the same kind of call, so how come the refs made the incorrect call. I believe the league should review this and make some kind of clarification to the rule. Also, do referees get any punishment for making a bad call that potentially impacts the game?

Posted by: VTCapsFan | February 11, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

In my opinion, the flyers goal vs. us in the playoffs was much much worse than this goal. Carey Price was still covering the entire bottom of the goal and could have stopped it if he realized what was going on -- the puck went right under him.

During the Flyers goal, Huet was cleared out of the goal all the way to the boards.

I guess the NHL just hates the Caps

Posted by: remain | February 11, 2010 12:54 PM | Report abuse

VTCapsFan: Just goes to show that the NHL doesn't even understand it's own rule book...Really though they just didn't want to make their refs look bad.

JohninMpls: I'll say it again, Price could have made the stop in this case, the puck actually went through him to get to the back of the net.

Additionally another point: no Cap actually shot the puck, it went in off of Gill. In that case shouldn't Semin's goal have been waved off? I know it's different because he didn't get hit into neuvy, but we're talking like he had to make a save, when in reality it was more of a pass gone awry. Its not like ovie would have gotten credit for the goal anyway.

Posted by: remain | February 11, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone else kind of glad the streak is over?

I felt like the sooner it could end the better, gotta save some of that fire and adrenaline for the post season. I was just afraid if they got to 20 in a row, the mental stress and all would get to them.

Posted by: trousers | February 11, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

I completely forgot why I was going to comment..

Ovi has brought to this town what Sean Taylor would have if he were still around, and for that, we are all in his debt.

Posted by: trousers | February 11, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The referees thought differently, I guess.

I agree with Boudreau, though; a video review should have been initiated if they were going to overturn the call. Then they could at least get another look at the aspect of the play they found questionable.

Then they would've been expected to provide an explanation, too.


JohninMpls: I'll say it again, Price could have made the stop in this case, the puck actually went through him to get to the back of the net.

Posted by: JohninMpls | February 11, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

I have done nothing but searching/reading on the internet in RE: to that goal being disallowed last night. I am really upset about it.

It really does seem like there are these ambiguous, grey area rulings that come down with no rhyme or reason sometimes and that is very frustrating.

Perhaps the NHL should institute a "coaches challenge" similar to what the NFL has. ie...BB could challenge the disallowance of the goal and have it reviewed by Toronto. If the challenge fails, then you lose your timeout.

I am just peeved cause not only did it cost us a goal in this close game with the win streak on the line, but it also wiped out, what I think is one of Ovie's top 5 goals ever.

Shame on you NHL for your consistent inconsistency!!!

Posted by: SkinsFanInNYC | February 11, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

The refs' explanation makes no sense. Ovie's hit was clean because Gill was in a position to either play the puck or protect himself from a hit, yet he did neither. It was not Ovie's action, but Gills inaction, that resulted in Price and the puck being swept over the line by the Ovie shock wave.

I'm pretty sure the refs were thinking, "hey, nobody gets a goal by hitting a guy!" But the hit was extremely difficult to execute cleanly, and Ovie did it just right -- which is what the refs can't get their minds around. By their logic, merely screening the goalie should result in a disallowed goal, because the screening player "prevented the goalie from making the play." Give me a break.

Posted by: ruminant | February 11, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

The wave off of that goal comes as no real surprise to me, a convenient way to preserve pansy Crosby and the Sequins win streak record. Of course it was good but this is Ovie the Animal we're talking about not the NHL's Poster Boy Crosby. Ovie is the best player in the game right now, PERIOD!

Posted by: franklinone | February 11, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for posting the clip from TSN and offering a place to try to understand what was the reason for disallowing the goal, after the fact and without a replay. Watching it live I almost knocked the table over with excitement -- truly one amazing (non)goal that still belongs in the highlight reel.

I hope the NHL provides a better explanation and either owns up with an apology or clarifies the rule and why.

Posted by: mo_dc | February 11, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

As a coach, I will keep this clip and show it to my kids. This is how you play hockey. If someone is foolish enough to have his head down in the slot and NOT play the puck....blast him through the net and take not prisoners! Way to go Ovie - that is how it's done!

It's just so unfortunate that we are the last audience to enjoy this non-goal. Had it been a legitimate goal, it'd be on highlight reels everywhere.

Posted by: langwayRULES | February 11, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

SI has an article called "They were Robbed"

Posted by: theAnswerIs42 | February 12, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company