Kyle Palmieri's face said it all.
The New York Islanders forward was standing by the bench on Monday night as replay officials reviewed his would-be game-winning goal against the Columbus Blue Jackets.
The on-ice referee quickly waved the goal off, but replays showed Palmieri was not standing in the blue paint when Columbus goaltender Elvis Merzlikins first shoved him out of the way. There was also a beat that allowed the goalie to reset, even if that initial contact was considered a problem.
Palmieri assumed that the goal would be allowed. Then came the word from the replay office in Toronto: the call stands. No goal. Palmieri looked confused. Then he shook his head ruefully.
The Isles eventually lost the game in overtime, a significant blow for a team in a very tight playoff race, and Palmieri remained unhappy in his postgame comments. "He said there was contact in the crease, and I guess the goalie needs five minutes to get reset," he said, calling the decision "embarrassing," but with an expletive in front of it.
But it was Isles coach Patrick Roy who made the key observation: if replay officials are afraid to overturn the on-ice call, then "we don't need Toronto," he said.
Correct.
Goalie interference is an infamously opaque offense - hilariously, the NHL just last week gave a media briefing that tried to clarify the rule - and there will always be a certain amount of subjective judgment when one of the deciding factors is whether a goaltender has had time to reset. But the replay sure looked conclusive: Palmieri was on the edge of the crease, not in it, and Merzlikins, after pushing him, had a moment to gather himself. It was just a beat, but goalies make quick reaction saves all the time; getting reset quickly is part of their deal.
It looked like a close call, but a clear one. Good goal. And if you're going to have replay review, isn't the point to be sure about close calls?
This is the inherent problem with replay reviews. They can be long, kill momentum, and suck the life out of a building, sure, but they're supposed to provide some kind of objective truth. Instead, one kind of subjective decision becomes a secondary subjective decision, and fans (and players) are left with the same uncertain result, just after a longer amount of time. The situation was even more unsatisfactory for the Isles because what seemed like compelling evidence of a goal was right there.
Roy's point about replay officials in Toronto being reluctant to overturn a call is also key, and it's not just a problem in hockey. Every sport that has instituted some kind of system where an official in a booth is examining video images has tried to include a safeguard in which priority is given to the decision of the official closest to the action. The idea is that replay is only used to correct obvious mistakes. But what this system invariably does is force the replay officials to effectively pass judgment on the regular officials - a position they clearly do not enjoy.
This conflict can be most infuriating in soccer, which typically allows for replay officials to suggest the on-field referee consult a pitch-side monitor to reconsider a decision, but even making that recommendation can be viewed as showing up the person who made the original call. Instead of a system geared toward getting the most accurate decision using the best available evidence, a questionable call can be left unchanged because the replay isn't clear enough.
Which was, evidently, the case with the disallowed Palmieri goal. It was originally waved off, and there wasn't quite enough visual evidence to overturn it. So the original call was confirmed. In the ensuing controversy, various pundits noted that had it been deemed a goal on the ice, that decision probably would have stood.
Which is, again, annoying. Sometimes officials can, understandably, miss calls in a fast-moving game. But if leagues are going to institute replay review and accept the negative impacts that its associated delays are going to have on the live product, then the ultimate reason for making a decision shouldn't be, "Well, that's the way the guy on the ice saw it."
In the end, instead of accepting that human error is part of the game and getting on with our lives, leagues set up elaborate systems that try to correct those errors, study replays for comically long stretches, and then just leave the mistaken decision in place because they couldn't be totally sure that it wasn't correct. Even if they thought it probably was.
If the replay official is just going to defer, then why have one?
Scott Stinson is a contributing writer for theScore.
