ridly greig opened the scoring when a point shot deflected off teammate Shane Pinto’s glove and into the net, a play that survived a coach’s challenge and has reignited questions about how hand-pass rules are applied.
How Ridly Greig’s Goal Survived a Coach’s Challenge
The on-ice officials initially allowed the goal after the puck deflected off Shane Pinto’s glove and reached Ridly Greig, who scored in the slot past Vancouver Canucks goaltender Kevin Lankinen. The Canucks challenged the play under the coach’s challenge for a missed stoppage — hand pass. The review followed Rule 38. 1: “In all Coach’s Challenge situations, the original call on the ice will be overturned if, and only if, a conclusive and irrefutable determination can be made on the basis of video evidence that the original call on the ice was clearly not correct. If a review is not conclusive and/or there is any doubt whatsoever as to whether the call on the ice was correct, the original call on the ice will be confirmed. ”
The Situation Room supported the referee’s on-ice decision that the puck deflected off Shane Pinto’s glove, and the original call — goal Ottawa — was confirmed. The unsuccessful challenge drew a 2: 00 minor penalty for Delay of Game.
What the Rulebook and the Situation Room Said
The NHL’s explanation leaned on Rule 79. 1, Hand Pass, which states in part that “If, in the opinion of the on-ice officials, the puck has deflected off a player’s hand, and no advantage has been gained by the team, it will not constitute a violation for the purpose of this rule. ” League review personnel, identified in the explanation as the Situation Room, endorsed the referee’s view that the sequence did not meet the threshold for a hand pass violation because the puck deflected off Pinto’s glove rather than being deliberately directed by the player.
Why Similar Plays Have Produced Opposite Outcomes
The Ridly Greig sequence sits alongside at least three other differing rulings from earlier in the season. On one occasion, a goal was taken off the board after a puck deflected off the glass and struck Brandon Hagel in the hand before Nikita Kucherov scored; the league ruled the puck had been “directed” by the offending team, resulting in a hand pass. In another instance, a goal was called back after a shot rebounded off goaltender Stuart Skinner, hit Alex Tuch in the hand and then reached Tage Thompson, with the NHL again concluding the puck had been directed by the offending team. By contrast, a play that involved a deflection off Brad Marchand’s glove along the boards before Carter Verhaeghe scored was ruled not to be a hand pass, with the league stating the puck “deflected off Marchand’s glove prior to Verhaeghe’s goal, and, therefore, it was not deemed to be a hand pass. ”
These outcomes were reached using the same rulebook language and the coach’s challenge standard specified in Rule 38. 1, yet produced different results when applied to visually similar sequences. The Situation Room’s endorsement of the referee’s on-ice call in the Ridly Greig case demonstrates the operational reliance on the combination of on-ice judgment and video review’s demand for conclusive evidence to overturn an initial call.
What This Means and What Should Change
Verified fact: the NHL’s review process confirmed the Ridly Greig goal on the basis that the puck deflected off Shane Pinto’s glove and therefore was not deemed a hand pass under Rule 79. 1, and Rule 38. 1 requires conclusive, irrefutable video to overturn on-ice calls. Informed analysis: when those two standards interact, similar deflections have produced both upheld and overturned goals depending on whether reviewers judged the puck to have been “directed” by a player. The discrepancy is not explained by additional facts available in the review record published by the league for this play.
Accountability demands clearer, consistent application of the hand-pass standard and greater transparency about what specific visual evidence meets the “conclusive and irrefutable” threshold. The league’s own rulings in the Hagel, Tuch and Marchand sequences show that identically framed language can produce divergent outcomes. A practical step grounded in the existing framework would be publication of the precise video frames or criteria relied upon by the Situation Room when affirming or overturning on-ice calls so players, teams, and fans can understand why one deflection is a hand pass and another is not.
Until that transparency is provided, the Ridly Greig goal will stand as an explicit instance where the letter of the rules and their applied interpretation diverge in practice — and where stakeholders are left to reconcile identical rule text with contrasting results for identically described plays involving deflections off a player’s hand.
