KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Denny Hamlin said Saturday that he remains “pretty confident” in the case brought by his 23XI Racing, co-owned by the veteran driver and retired NBA great Michael Jordan, and Front Row Motorsports against NASCAR alleging antitrust violations.

Hamlin spoke one day after a three-judge federal appellate panel indicated it might overturn an injunction that allows 23XI and Front Row to race as chartered teams, even as their lawsuit against the stock car series plays out in court.

“You know, they’re telling me kind of what’s going on. I didn’t get to hear it live or anything like that,” Hamlin said after qualifying 14th for Sunday’s race at Kansas Speedway. “But we’re overall pretty confident in our case.”

The teams filed the antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR on Oct. 2 in the Western District of North Carolina, arguing that the series bullied teams into signing charter agreements — essentially franchise deals — that make it difficult to compete financially.

Those were the only two holdouts of 15 charter-holding teams that refused to sign the agreements in September.

The most recent extension of the charters lasts until 2031, matching the current media rights deal. Perhaps the biggest benefit of them is that they guarantee 36 of the 40 spots available in each NASCAR race to teams that own them.

Overturning the injunction would leave 23XI and Front Row racing as “open teams,” meaning they would have to qualify at every Cup Series event. But there are only four open spots, and 23XI had four cars at Kansas this week – Bubba Wallace, Riley Herbst, Tyler Reddick and Corey Heim – and Front Row had three with Noah Gragson, Zane Smith and Todd Gilliland.

“You know, the judges haven’t made any kind of ruling,” Hamlin said, “so until they do, then we’re going to stay status quo.”

NASCAR attorney Chris Yates had argued the injunction, granted in December by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell, forced the series into an unwanted relationship with unwilling partners, and that it harms other teams because they earn less money. He also said that the teams should not have the benefits of the charter system they are suing to overturn.

“There’s no other place to compete,” countered Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney representing 23XI and Front Row, noting overturning the injunction will cause tremendous damage to the teams, potentially including the loss of drivers and sponsors.

“It will cause havoc to overturn this injunction in the middle of the season,” Kessler said.

There is a trial date set for December, and judge Steven Agee urged the sides to meet for mediation — previously ordered by a lower court — to attempt to resolve the dispute over the injunction. But that seems unlikely.

“We’re not going to rewrite the charter,” Yates told the judges.

RICHMOND, Va. — A three-judge federal appellate panel indicated Friday it might overturn an injunction that allows 23XI Racing, co-owned by retired NBA great Michael Jordan and veteran driver Denny Hamlin, and Front Row Motorsports to race as chartered teams in NASCAR this season while the two teams sue the stock car series over alleged antitrust violations.

NASCAR attorney Chris Yates argued the injunction, granted in December by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Bell of the Western District of North Carolina, forced the series into an unwanted relationship with unwilling partners, and that it harms other teams because they earn less money.

Yates said the district court broke precedent by granting the injunction, saying the “release” clause in the charter contracts forbidding the teams from suing is “common.” He argued, essentially, that the teams should not have the benefits of the charter system they are suing to overturn.

Overturning the injunction would leave the two organizations able to race but without any of the perks of being chartered, including guaranteed weekly revenue. They would also have to qualify at every Cup Series event to make the field, which currently has only four open spots each week; 23XI and Front Row are each running three cars in Cup this season.

Judges Steven Agee, Paul Niemeyer and Stephanie Thacker, at multiple points during the 50-minute hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, pushed back on the argument made by plaintiff’s attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who accused NASCAR of being a monopoly.

“There’s no other place to compete,” Kessler told the judges, later noting that overturning the injunction would cause tremendous damage to the two teams, which could lose drivers and sponsors. “It will cause havoc to overturn this injunction in the middle of the season.”

The teams filed the antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR on Oct. 2 in the Western District of North Carolina, arguing that the series bullied teams into signing new charters that make it difficult to compete financially. That came after two years of failed negotiations on new charter agreements, which is NASCAR’s equivalent of franchise deals.

23XI – co-owned by Jordan, Hamlin and Curtis Polk, a longtime Jordan business partner – and Front Row Motorsports, were the only two out of 15 charter-holding teams that refused to sign new agreements in September.

The charters, which teams originally signed before the 2016 season, have twice been extended. The most recent extension runs until 2031, matching the current media rights deal. It guarantees that 36 of the 40 available spots in weekly races will go to teams holding charters.

The judges expressed agreement with Yates’s argument that the district court had erred in issuing the injunction allowing the teams to race, because it mandated they sign the NASCAR charter but eliminated the contract’s release.

“It seems you want to have your cake and eat it, too,” Niemeyer told Kessler.

At another point, the judge pointedly told Kessler that if the teams want to race, they should sign the charter.

Yates contended that forcing an unwanted relationship between NASCAR and the two teams “harms NASCAR and other racing teams.” He said that more chartered teams would earn more money if not for the injunction and noted that the two teams are being “given the benefits of a contract they rejected.”

Kessler argued that even if the district court’s reasoning was flawed, other evidence should lead the circuit court to uphold the injunction. Niemayer disagreed.

“The court wanted you to be able to race but without a contract,” he said.

A trial date is set for December and Agee strongly urged the sides to meet for mediation – previously ordered by a lower court – to attempt to resolve the dispute over the injunction.

“It’ll be a very interesting trial,” Agee said with a wry smile.

The prospect of successful mediation seems unlikely. Yates told the judges: “We’re not going to rewrite the charter.”

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.”