Does anybody know their NHL Rules well?

[mblax10]

In the second period of tonight's Blackhawks-Sharks game, with about 16 minutes left, Matthew Barnaby shoots the puck past the Sharks goalie, but the Sharks defender inadvertintly lifts the net up, so the puck goes in and than underneath the back of the net. Both refs and the goal judge missed this so the teams play on for about 5 minutes till their's a whistle and the play can be reviewed.

The next whistle comes at the 11 minute mark when Chicago commits a penalty. Barnaby's shot is reviewed and ruled a goal. The clock is reset to 16 minutes, however the Blackhawks are short handed due to the penalty. I was under the impression since the shot was ruled a goal, everything that happened afterwords is washed off. If the Sharks would've scored between Barnaby's goal and the next whistle would that goal have counted?

[1337 skills]

No.

[mblax10]

[ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your detailed response. Problem solved, eh?. I don't know if I could've functioned without your post.

[Punker]

I cannot say for sure, but I think the goal would count. The penalty rule is obviously there for a reason; assume you scored a goal and were 100% confident that it would be confirmed by video review; you can't give that team a freeroll to maim and kill until the next whistle.

[B00T]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot say for sure, but I think the goal would count. The penalty rule is obviously there for a reason; assume you scored a goal and were 100% confident that it would be confirmed by video review; you can't give that team a freeroll to maim and kill until the next whistle.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

It is as if subsiquent action never existed. If the next stoppage occurs due to an apparent goal, the first goal (the missed one) would count, but the second one (the cause of the stoppage) would not.

The penalty carries over. It keeps a player who may know that a goal was missed from taking the opportunity to run amuck.

[fyodor]

[ QUOTE ]
It keeps a player who may know that a goal was missed from taking the opportunity to run amuck.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love it when they run amuck.

btw I was listening to the Blackhawk annoucers for this one and they had no idea what the ruling was. They admitted they had never seen such a situation before. Holy fock! Have they never watched hockey before? It's a fairly common situation.

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
It is as if subsiquent action never existed. If the next stoppage occurs due to an apparent goal, the first goal (the missed one) would count, but the second one (the cause of the stoppage) would not.

The penalty carries over. It keeps a player who may know that a goal was missed from taking the opportunity to run amuck.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the correct answer. A penalty is a penalty, and it count as long as it occurred after the goal was scored.

Think of it this way -- if a "normal" goal was scored (ie. one where it is ruled a goal immediately), and then once play stops a player punches another player in the face, there is no question that this is a roughing penalty. The scenario the OP described is basically the same.