Connect with us

Published

on

DALLAS — Winnipeg Jets coach Scott Arniel believes the game-winning goal should not have counted in their 5-2 loss to the Dallas Stars in Game 3 on Sunday night that put them down 2-1 in their Western Conference playoff series.

“That is no goal,” Arniel said.

It took eight minutes for the on-ice officials and the NHL Situation Room to allow Dallas defenseman Alexander Petrovic‘s third-period tiebreaking goal, which he directed toward the net with his skate. Referee Graham Skilliter announced that “after video review, the Winnipeg goalie puts the puck into his own net after a kick” and that it was a “good goal.”

Jets goaltender Connor Hellebuyck had saved the puck directly to Petrovic, who angled it off his skate toward the crease 3:51 into the period. The puck appeared to be headed through the Winnipeg goal crease when Hellebuyck put his stick on the ice, the puck deflecting off the blade and into the net.

The NHL Situation Room signaled to the on-ice officials that it was reviewing the play.

“The Situation Room initiated a video review to further examine if Alexander Petrovic kicked the puck into the Winnipeg net. Video was then used to determine if the puck made contact with Petrovic’s stick prior to it entering the net,” the NHL said in a statement. “After looking at all available replays, video review supported the Referee’s call on the ice that Connor Hellebuyck propelled the puck into his own net.”

The NHL rulebook defines a distinct kicking motion, for the purposes of video review, as a play in which an attacking player “has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of his foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net.” A player can direct a puck into the net with his skate as long as he doesn’t kick it.”

With the referee announcing that Petrovic kicked the puck, the fact that it deflected off Hellebuyck’s stick into the net made the review complicated because of a carveout for goalies in the kicked-puck rule. Rule 49 states that “a kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the goalkeeper’s stick) shall be ruled a good goal.”

Based on that rule, and what the on-ice officials told him about the play, Arniel believes the goal should not have counted.

“The rule states that if a puck gets kicked, it hits a body or a stick of anybody else other than a goaltender, it counts as a goal. It hit our goaltender’s stick and went in the net. That is no goal. So, they said that Helly propelled the puck in. I haven’t seen the word ‘propel’ in the rulebook,” Arniel said.

Dallas coach Pete DeBoer disagreed with Arniel’s assessment. “I believe the rule reads that if [Hellebuyck is] making a play on the puck, that it’s a goal. So, that’s the difference. Does it just deflect it off him or is he trying to make a play with the puck? I think they got it right,” he said.

Rule 78.4 states that “a goal shall be scored if the puck is shot into the goal by a player of the defending side. The player of the attacking side who last touched the puck shall be credited with the goal but no assist shall be awarded. A goal shall be scored if the puck is put into the goal in any other manner by a player of the defending side.”

So, perhaps the interpretation that Hellebuyck played the puck into his own goal after the kick — rather than having it deflect off his stick and in — is the determining factor for it being allowed in Game 3.

Petrovic’s goal sparked the Dallas offense. Mikko Rantanen scored 49 seconds later, his playoff-leading ninth, to make it 4-2.

Winnipeg players were frustrated by the decision.

“Obviously, a big momentum-changer. They were able to get that one and they scored on the next shift there,” winger Kyle Connor said. “Obviously, momentum swings happen in a game, and we try to turn more of them into our favor. But they were able to gain chances off that.”

“I would have liked to see it come off the board, obviously,” forward Morgan Barron said.

The Jets face a critical Game 4 in Dallas on Tuesday. It’s also a critical game for Hellebuyck, who dropped to 0-4 on the road in the playoffs and has lost eight of his past nine road games in the postseason.

Dallas took a 1-0 lead on a power-play goal by Roope Hintz just 2:27 into the game, a deflection that fluttered past Hellebuyck. The Stars took the lead again with less than five minutes remaining in the first and the score tied 1-1. Mikael Granlund was tripped behind the Winnipeg net, resulting in a delayed penalty. While on the ice, Granlund sent a pass to the slot that defenseman Thomas Harley snapped behind Hellebuyck to make it 2-1.

Hellebuyck, who had a shutout win in Game 2, has a .772 save percentage and a 6.65 goals-against average on the road in this postseason. The winner of the Vezina Trophy as the league’s best goaltender last season, he’s a finalist for that award again this year as well as the Hart Trophy for NHL MVP.

“We’re going to be judged, not just Connor, by what happens on the road,” Arniel said. “We’ve got to win. They came into our building and took home ice away from us. We’ve got to win here. And so everything that we have is going to be pushed into Game 4 here to get this thing evened up going back into our building.”

Continue Reading

Sports

Briscoe wins third straight pole at Michigan

Published

on

By

Briscoe wins third straight pole at Michigan

BROOKLYN, Mich. — Chase Briscoe won his third straight pole and NASCAR -high fourth this year at Michigan International Speedway on Saturday.

Briscoe, driving the No. 19 Toyota for Joe Gibbs Racing, turned a lap of 195.514 mph in qualifying on the 2-mile oval in the fastest pole in the Cup Series since Ryan Blaney went 200-plus mph at Texas in 2018.

He is aiming for his first win this year after five top-five finishes, and the third victory of his career.

“It will be nice starting up front and we’ve been able to do that now three weeks in a row but haven’t been able to execute with it,” Briscoe said. “So, hopefully third time is a charm.”

Kyle Busch, in the No. 8 Chevrolet, will start second Sunday in the FireKeepers Casino 400.

Denny Hamlin, in the No. 11 Toyota, qualified third and points leader William Byron, in the No. 24 Chevrolet, was fourth.

Defending race champion Tyler Reddick, in the No. 45 Toyota, will start 12th and for 23XI Racing, which is suing NASCAR.

Continue Reading

Sports

Hamlin undeterred by ruling siding with NASCAR

Published

on

By

Hamlin undeterred by ruling siding with NASCAR

BROOKLYN, Mich. — Denny Hamlin is unfazed that a three-judge federal appellate panel vacated an injunction that required NASCAR to recognize 23XI, which he owns with Michael Jordan, and Front Row as chartered teams as part of an antitrust lawsuit.

“That’s just such a small part of the entire litigation,” Hamlin said Saturday, a day ahead of the FireKeepers Casino 400. “I’m not deterred at all. We’re in good shape.”

Hamlin said Jordan feels the same way.

“He just remains very confident, just like I do,” Hamiln said.

NASCAR has not commented on the latest ruling.

23XI and Front Row sued NASCAR late last year after refusing to sign new agreements on charter renewals. They asked for a temporary injunction that would recognize them as chartered teams for this season, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, on Thursday ruled in NASCAR’s favor.

“We’re looking at all options right now,” Hamlin said.

The teams, each winless this year, said they needed the injunction because the current charter agreement prohibits them from suing NASCAR. 23XI also argued it would be harmed because Tyler Reddick’s contract would have made him a free agent if the team could not guarantee him a charter-protected car.

Hamlin insisted he’s not worried about losing drivers because of the uncertainty.

“I’m not focused on that particularly right this second,” he said.

Reddick, who was last year’s regular-season champion and competed for the Cup title in November, enters the race Sunday at Michigan ranked sixth in the Cup Series standings.

The charter system is similar to franchises in other sports, but the charters are revocable by NASCAR and have expiration dates.

The six teams may have to compete as “open” cars and would have to qualify on speed each week to make the race and would receive a fraction of the money.

Without a charter, Hamlin said it would cost the teams “tens of millions,” to run three cars.

“We’re committed to run this season open if we have to,” he said. “We’re going to race and fulfill all of our commitments no matter what. We’re here to race. Our team is going to be here for the long haul and we’re confident of that.”

The antitrust case isn’t scheduled to be heard until December.

NASCAR has not said what it would do with the six charters held by the two organizations if they are returned to the sanctioning body. There are 36 chartered cars for a 40-car field.

“We feel like facts were on our side,” Hamlin said. “I think if you listen to the judges, even they mentioned that we might be in pretty good shape.”

Continue Reading

Sports

Appellate judges rule for NASCAR in charter fight

Published

on

By

Appellate judges rule for NASCAR in charter fight

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A three-judge federal appellate panel ruled Thursday in favor of NASCAR in the antitrust lawsuit filed by two teams, one owned by Michael Jordan, and vacated an injunction that required 23XI and Front Row be recognized as chartered teams as their case snakes through the legal system.

Both race teams sued NASCAR late last year after refusing to sign new agreements on charter renewals.

The charter system is similar to franchises in other sports, but the charters are revocable by NASCAR and have expiration dates. 23XI, which is owned by Jordan and three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin, joined Front Row in suing NASCAR after 13 other organizations signed the renewals and those two organizations refused.

“We are disappointed by today’s ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and are reviewing the decision to determine our next steps,” said Jeffery Kessler, attorney for 23XI and Front Row. “This ruling is based on a very narrow consideration of whether a release of claims in the charter agreements is anti-competitive and does not impact our chances of winning at trial scheduled for Dec. 1.

“We remain confident in our case and committed to racing for the entirety of this season as we continue our fight to create a fair and just economic system for stock car racing that is free of anticompetitive, monopolistic conduct.”

The two teams sued and asked for a temporary injunction that would recognize them as chartered teams for this season. The antitrust case isn’t scheduled to be heard until December.

23XI and Front Row have 14 days to appeal to the full court, and the injunction has no bearings on the merits of the antitrust case.

The earliest NASCAR can treat the teams as unchartered — a charter guarantees their organizations a starting spot each week and prize money — is one week after the deadline to appeal, provided there is no pending appeal.

NASCAR has not said what it would do with the six charters held by the two organizations if they are returned to the sanctioning body. There are only 36 chartered cars for a 40-car field. If the teams do not appeal, the six entries would have to compete as “open” cars — which means they’d have to qualify on speed each week to make the race and they would receive a fraction of the money.

The teams said they needed the injunction because the current charter agreement prohibits them from suing NASCAR. 23XI also argued it would be harmed because Tyler Reddick‘s contract would have made him a free agent if the team could not guarantee him a charter-protected car.

It’s not clear what would happen to Reddick’s contract. Last year’s regular-season champion goes to Michigan this weekend ranked sixth in the Cup Series standings. Both organizations are still seeking a win this season — Hamlin’s three victories are with Joe Gibbs Racing, the team he drives for.

The original judge ruled that NASCAR’s charter agreement likely violated antitrust law in granting the injunction. But when they heard arguments last month, the three judges at the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, indicated they were skeptical of that decision.

The judges said in Thursday’s ruling they were not aware of any case that supports the lower court’s theory of antitrust law, so they vacated the injunction.

“In short, because we have found no support for the proposition that a business entity or person violates the antitrust laws by requiring a prospective participant to give a release for past conduct as a condition for doing business, we cannot conclude that the plaintiffs made a clear showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits of that theory,” the court said. “And without satisfaction of the likelihood-of-success element, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction.”

Continue Reading

Trending