Not really sure why this is a discussion. Is there any debate that around the fact that Lindgren shot the puck in his own net? That seems pretty clear and once that fact is established I’m not really sure on what basis Mackinnon would get an assist except that people are upset his home point streak ended.
Well it’s a bit more complex according to the rulebook. nhl rule 78.4 says “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 had last touched the puck shall be credited with the goal but **no assists shall be rewarded.**
Seems clear but then it says, “A goal shall be scored if the puck is put into the goal in **any other manner** by a player of the defending side. The player of the attacking side who last touched the puck shall be credited with the goal and **assists may be rewarded.”**
So, was it “shot” in by the Ranger player, then no assists. Was it “any other manner” and should assists be given? Seems like it was “swept” in softly by the Rangers stick, not a shot, but maybe the “any other manner” refers to the goalie pulling it in by pads or something? But then that seems weird to give assists.
Seems like it could go either way honestly.
My assumption is a 'shot' is a puck that is directed into the net by any sort of sweeping, shooting, passing motion. "Any other manner' most likely includes pucks that go in off the defenders body or deflect in some way off the defender other than the blade of their stick into their own net.
Probably, but if you watch the overhead replay, Lindgren's stick is pretty clearly pushed by Rantanen's (it moved towards the goal on contract, and when the contract stopped, the blade moves away from goal). So did Lindgren shoot? Or did his stick get pushed? It's not conclusive to say the assist should be given, but it's a reasonable question to ask if nothing else
They may need to rewrite the rule because I see what you're saying but the spirit of the rule is not "what is a 'shot' really?". The "shot" is more in reference to an intentional action on the puck. Not to say he intentionally shot it into his net, but that his intent was to move the puck with his stick. This didn't deflect off his stick, he tried to actively move the puck and fucked up, putting it into his own net. That's why it is an own-goal and not a deflection.
Similarly, shooting the puck and having it hit the goalie's stick and then bounce into the net isn't an own-goal, it was deflected off the goalie. Otherwise tons of goals would be called own-goals on the goalie and negate assists.
It's very straightforward really.
This is true but it seems like it’s usually reserved for situations where the puck is deflected off a defending player and then goes in.
For instance in the TB/LAK game last Saturday Kucherov passed the puck to Point and the loose puck was accidentally put home but the LAK player, not that dissimilar from what Lindgren does here. Point was awarded the goal with no assist to Kucherov but of course nobody batted an eye because that’s the proper scoring and the way it has always been scored.
Only if the puck is not shot. If shot into the goal, no assists. If "put into the goal in any other manner", assists may be awarded.
He hit the puck, with the blade of his stick, on the ice, into his own net. That's shot in.
Im all about MAC hes a god on the ice, but cmon man…ive never seen an assist on an own goal im sure you could google and go find one or two obscure moments where thats happened 100 years ago, but cmon its not something that happens in modern hockey bc it doesnt make sense. You dont want asterisks in the history book it will lead to just more people with asterisks and then the history book wont even be legit.
Except if the other team gains possession, players who had the puck before that don’t get assists, assists are mute after a change in possession (otherwise we’d never have unassisted goals except right after faceoffs), but they have to give the goal to someone.
You are almost correct. If this was a deflection you’d be right. It wasn’t a deflection though.
If you just add an apostrophe and a “t” immediately after “can” in your statement-you’d have it 100%.
I’m not sure why you’d spout that when ANYONE can look at the rule book lol.
Aside from a leading Hart candidate, leading Norris candidate, and only being 4 points behind 1st in the NHL? I’m sure Sharks fans are sympathetic to your plight.
If not for Lindgren shooting it on net it likely wouldn’t have been a goal in the first place. Be happy that the game was tied from a boneheaded mistake.
I don't get why this isn't the take home point. The puck wasn't heading towards the net until Lindgren shot it past Igor. The Rangers would likely have won in regulation without this play. Unclear why Avs fans are more upset about this whole situation than Rangers fans.
Because the avs don't care about wins or losses. The more points they get in the standings, the more likely the are to play Vegas or Nashville in the first round.
The avs don't need more points.
lol...they do need more points. They \*could\* make the playoffs without more points, and probably will clinch tonight. But against the Rangers, they definitionally needed the points to make it to the playoffs so they'd have the opportunity to play either of those teams or anyone else. There's no way the Avs felt they didn't need more points, or didn't want to beat the Rangers. Love Georgie but he celebrated beating the Rangers in a shootout last year like he won the Stanley Cup.
Obviously they want to win and they dominated the OT I thought although Georgie made some big saves too.
Presidents trophy isn't all it's cracked up to be and between Dallas, Vegas, Nashville, or Winnipeg, who would you rather play first? And second? There are no good matchups, just pain, injuries, and Mark Stone. Whoever comes out of the central will be decimated by the time they sweep the pacific team and get to the finals, whether they finish 1, 2, 3, or in WC1 or 2.
I get that, completely, and there’s been a similar conversation in the east vis a vis whom the Rangers want to play. My viewpoint is keep the team healthy while trying to win, and letting the chips fall where they may. There’s a great line from a book about the Rangers 94 Cup run where they asked Mike Keenan why they the emphasis on the president’s trophy, and his reply was something along the lines of “so
We can play game 7 of the Stanley cup final at home”
Mack is incredible. genuinely nervous every time he touched the puck. I just don't get how this is even a discussion. the only reason the puck is even going towards igor is bc of lindgren.
Rantanen wasn't even shooting the puck with his stick motion. He was just trying to collect it. This isn't a situation where two guys simultaneously shot the puck. So I'm not sure what the debate is, other than pure homerism.
I mean I think a different way to look at it is "If the rangers had a penalty would the play have been called dead there" which I don't believe it would. I don't think that is really possession personally, but it is what it is.
>Mack is incredible. genuinely nervous every time he touched the puck.[ I just don't get how this is even a discussion. the only reason the puck is even going towards igor is bc of ~~lindgren.~~ **God**.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxGTPEOrBGc)
>the only reason the puck is even going towards igor is bc of lindgren.
I don't think this is true. It seems like Lindgren is trying to stop Rantanen's shot and had his stick pushed into the puck. So it was 100% Lindgren's stick, but Rantanen made the motion that propelled the puck.
https://x.com/AvsRobin/status/1773565005801099640?s=20
https://x.com/AvsRobin/status/1773566297416061344?s=20
So it's a weird situation, and fine if the NHL wants to rule no assists, but it's inaccurate to represent it as an open-and-shut "Lindgren shot it"
Bro. I want the streak to live as much as the next. Rants stuck motion there would have brought the puck to the side where he would have a forehand shot on a mostly empty net. Then Lindgren panicked, and it went in. The right call was made, and it sucks.
It's an OG, no quesiton. Without Lindgren's stick there, the puck doesn't take a trajectory towards the goal. But to say there is no argument and it's 100% on Lindgren is also ignoring details.
There is an arguement, but not enough to change the result. I'm aware that's too nuanced for reddit, but I'll still try.
You can’t see it clearly from this clip. [This overhead slowmo angle they showed on MSG makes it clear as day.](https://twitter.com/1salty_patriot/status/1773591548959031415?s=46&t=RT2UgMhFtkjv5EuRAf6B_g) Lindgren actively tried to slide it under Igor and slipped it right through him instead.
Argh until now I did think the force was from Mikko behind L’s stick. With this view I stand corrected. Sigh.
And hey. Second to Gretzky is not bad here. And MacKs got some more seasons to enhance his section at the HoF !!! 🙌🏼🙌🏼
Lindgren's stick is the only one to make contact. 100%, non-debatable. To me, it looks like Rants is the one who generated the force towards the goal though. So room for debate, but not enough to overturn is probably a fair result.
I see that overhead and see Rantanen's stick push Lindgren's (when his stick moves away, Lindgren's stick moves away from goal, like he was resisting the push). It doesn't necessarily change the result, but it means people arguing for the assist have a not-absurd reason for doing so.
It was marked an assist, but then they changed it to an own goal from Lindgren which it definitely is, and so it's just a Toews goal no assists given out
https://twitter.com/AvsRobin/status/1773565005801099640
Lindgren got his stick knocked into the puck by Rantanen so they called it an own goal
Edit: idk how that’s an own goal honestly he didn’t have possession there. That angle really annoys me more than I was last night
Is this from the MSG broadcast? They showed a replay last night from what I think was a different angle. It looked like Lindgren was trying to move the puck back to Igor so he could cover it.
I just found this on twitter idk which broadcast it was from. I just don’t think that goes in without mikko smacking his stick there and think assists should have been rewarded because of that action
Players who never played the game or especially never officiated the game can never tell. Also the homer goggles got the best of em. They want the streak alive and it’s not.
Looks more to me like mikko hit his stick into the puck not like he was purposefully trying to play it back to Shesterkin. I don’t really see that as an own goal that doesn’t deserve assists imo
Okay here's where I stand on this: either the credit goes to whoever touched it last and the assists go with it, or start recording "own-goals" as its own stat.
Then it should be recorded as an "own-goal" on the stat sheet, not recorded as a goal scored by the last player on offense to touch the puck. Just as I mentioned in my original comment.
Yea I agree. They want to show Mack they’re behind him 100% and will try anything to help no matter how arcane or unlikely. There’s no downside to taking your player’s side to the very end.
The League also released a huge stat correction on hits back in February (2/12/24) that covered all games back to the beginning of the season. That correction affected almost 2300 statlines. Since then, they've been releasing stat-corrections each week - mostly hits, shots, shots against, etc. There are a few goal and assist corrections too. Not surprised teams are appealing stats given the development in the last couple months with the league based on that.
Listen, I live in a city where tens of thousands of people look at McDavid and Draisaitl's stars on NHL.com every day.
If it happened literally ever where a player was granted a point post-hoc a day later, it would likely happen to one of these players and I'd know about it.
I can see why the Avs would want to inflate MacKinnons totals in the one year where he can compete with McDavid in scoring I guess. I just think it's juvenile and silly. If you score a point you score a point, if not, litigating over and over is just...
Supporting your star player, especially with no consequences, is a no brainer. It would be silly not to.
But given the amount of support McDavid has gotten over the years (not to mention Ryan Smyth fiasco all those years ago), kind of makes sense youre not used to your team supporting its stars.
Lmfao this was just about the point streak, not "Avs wanting to inflate MacKinnon's totals". The media was asking about whether the team would appeal immediately after the game, and Bednar said they would look into it. Media and fan attention was a big part driving behind the appeal, and the team did it because it couldn't hurt. The Avs isn't looking at every goal where Mack didn't have a point and appeal, nor is the team "litigating over and over" - the team didn't raise it during the game, and the league made its decision in the appeal, and that's that.
And yet scoring is subjective enough that Hockey operations has an official method of challenging who's assigned points. Why is it silly to challenge this? The worst that happens is they do exactly what they did. I guarantee you this streak meant more for the rest of the team than it did MacKinnon, judging by all of their reactions after the game last night.
They thought it hit the cuff of his glove and would be considered a hand pass. Not saying I agree, just what Bednar said in the post game interview. He also chuckled and said maybe we need to review the technicalities of that rule again.
This happened to Kucherov a few games ago too. Perhaps they want to keep the points race spicy.
EDIT: [the goal in question](https://streamable.com/u61tlp) against the LA Kings
There was an oilers goal a few games ago that was originally a Bouchard goal that was assisted by Draisaitl and McDavid but it grazed Hyman’s shin pad as he tried to jump out of the way so the goal got changed to Hyman’s (giving him a hatty) and it took away Connor’s assist
Hyman knew right away that it touched him but it took the NHL like 2 whole periods to change it lol
Okay so we agree that Kuch deserved an assist on [this goal](https://streamable.com/u61tlp) right?
Edit: guess I should’ve added /s, thought it was clear this was a joke.
That's it. I'm DONE with the nhl. You hear me, DONE. I could take the wheel of dops, I could take the response to idiots having their fee fees hurt over a rainbow, I could take the entire situation in Chicago, I could take the Pittsburgh rigged lottery, i could take taylor fucking hall stealing the hart from mackinnon, but NO MORE! If the nhl can just blatantly take an assist away from a player on my team, then they can do without me watching!!! GOOD DAY.
But yeah that kind of sucks.
sharp important resolute jellyfish dinosaurs connect gullible price slap elastic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No disrespect to the league, I'm a firm believer that the NHL not awarding a point is a huge fluke and robs MacKinnon of truly accomplishing what their capable of. I've spent the last few minutes in pure disbelief and it just doesn't make sense to me. I've spent the entire regular season watching MacKinnon play great hockey it's just not fair.
If MacKinnon doesn't get the assist again I will face that the league got the right call, but I am just 100% sure it was a fluke and does a big disservice to MacKinnon and the NHL.
That's some optimism right there. I'm just hoping he can get to 65 at this point but I'm not feeling particularly hopeful about it anymore. His production has slowed way down
Pretty clear possession by Lindgren. He completely handles the puck. This isn't just a deflection. For example, if there was a delayed penalty, they would have blown it down. I know Avs fans want the streak to continue, but they're reeeeeaaching bigtime.
It's the right call but I feel like hockey ops makes some bizarre decisions on assists sometimes and we just don't really care about it when it's assist number 11 for a player in Game 34. It was worth a shot for the Avs to appeal given the streak
I don't think he'd be happy with getting an assist like that and no one would respect the record that way. It's just better that it ended. Incredible streak but its time came
Why would they?
He didn’t get an assist-so he doesn’t get credited with one.
Seems pretty straightforward.
Unless of course you have a tinfoil hat and think the league is literally trying to stop his streak because… …..reasons?
Amazing streak though-and I wouldn’t be surprised if he starts another one right soon.
Bummer, but like other fans have said. It's a distraction. The kind of thing that'll make someone choke up on their stick a little too tight to keep the streak running.
So people should be awarded points for nothing? Yeah it's fun when the points are fraudulent so you can rub yourself off to someone else's accomplishments 🙄
I think the best way to answer this is, if Rantanens stick isn't there to help Lindgrens stick propel the puck in, would the puck go in anyway? I say no. Meaning Lindgren wasn't in full control and therefore Mack should get an assist. But seems subjective I suppose
What? It clearly touches it from the overhead angle. You can say that does or does not matter, but you can’t watch the video and say it doesn’t touch his stick. That kinda takes all credibility away. Mikko definitely hits his blade with his stick.
Also, I cannot understand how an NHL defenseman would intentionally slide a puck into a scrambling goalie. When lindgren first touches the puck the goalies pad is barely getting over. He’s not sliding it to a set goalie for a stoppage, he’s sliding it into a scrambling goalie which you don’t see or ever do intentionally.
https://x.com/1salty_patriot/status/1773591548959031415?s=46&t=RT2UgMhFtkjv5EuRAf6B_g
You see Rantanens stick sweeps left to right and does not propel lindgrens stick towards the net. Lindgren is trying to shovel it into his goalers pads but scores instead.
I think rantanen’s stick might’ve clipped it enough to make a difference between “gently curls under goalie” and “pops it through goalie into net” but ultimately that doesn’t factor into the scoring report, still an own goal
I just don’t see Lindgrens arms or hands move at all other than the slight pivot but mikkos stick hitting his perfectly aligns with the way his stick moves forward and back. That said It’s really not that big of deal and trying to be unbiased I can easily see why the nhl didn’t change it
Ok it’s close enough that I understand why they didn’t change it. I’m clearly biased here but it still looks to me that the stick is moved by mikko there. Lindgrens arms and hands hardly move at all and you see the stick flex and whip back right after mikkos stick is off of his.
Different guy here. But this is the overhead
https://x.com/AvsRobin/status/1773566297416061344?s=20
I think it’s safe to say Rantanen’s stick makes contact with the back blade of Lindgren’s stick, however I do not think it is safe to say that that contact overrules the “control of the puck” that Lindgren has. To me, Lindgren curls his wrist in a manner that lines up with the direction the puck travels when leaving his stick. He’s trying to play the puck into Igor to get a whistle but instead he plays it under Igor and into the net. Rantanen’s stick path seems like it would direct the puck more in the direction of the post or even wide of the net. If Lindgren makes contact *any* direct play with the puck (propelling it with stick, skate, or hand) he is considered by the rulebook to have “control of the puck” which negates Colorado’s prior possession of the puck (thus killing the chain of assists).
The reason I bring that up is because Lindgren doesn’t have to have “full control,” just “legal control,” if that makes sense.
We can safely say Rantanen doesn’t touch the puck itself, both by the video and by the fact he is not awarded the goal, own goal or otherwise. I think the Avalanche did the right thing if they appealed this goal, may as well, but I don’t think we can come anywhere near to conclusively saying Rantanen directed this puck into the net in a way that overrules Lindgren’s “legal control of the puck.”
I feel like the NHL is in too deep at this point. If they would have awarded assist initially (which they can on an own goal), it probably stands. But they didn't, and the hockey world saw this morning how the streak was over, so why change that on a judgment call?
Not really sure why this is a discussion. Is there any debate that around the fact that Lindgren shot the puck in his own net? That seems pretty clear and once that fact is established I’m not really sure on what basis Mackinnon would get an assist except that people are upset his home point streak ended.
Well it’s a bit more complex according to the rulebook. nhl rule 78.4 says “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 had last touched the puck shall be credited with the goal but **no assists shall be rewarded.** Seems clear but then it says, “A goal shall be scored if the puck is put into the goal in **any other manner** by a player of the defending side. The player of the attacking side who last touched the puck shall be credited with the goal and **assists may be rewarded.”** So, was it “shot” in by the Ranger player, then no assists. Was it “any other manner” and should assists be given? Seems like it was “swept” in softly by the Rangers stick, not a shot, but maybe the “any other manner” refers to the goalie pulling it in by pads or something? But then that seems weird to give assists. Seems like it could go either way honestly.
My assumption is a 'shot' is a puck that is directed into the net by any sort of sweeping, shooting, passing motion. "Any other manner' most likely includes pucks that go in off the defenders body or deflect in some way off the defender other than the blade of their stick into their own net.
NO! It's not a shot! He scooted it! It was a scoot! So MacKinnon gets the point! /s
Probably, but if you watch the overhead replay, Lindgren's stick is pretty clearly pushed by Rantanen's (it moved towards the goal on contract, and when the contract stopped, the blade moves away from goal). So did Lindgren shoot? Or did his stick get pushed? It's not conclusive to say the assist should be given, but it's a reasonable question to ask if nothing else
Seems like it went one specific way.
They may need to rewrite the rule because I see what you're saying but the spirit of the rule is not "what is a 'shot' really?". The "shot" is more in reference to an intentional action on the puck. Not to say he intentionally shot it into his net, but that his intent was to move the puck with his stick. This didn't deflect off his stick, he tried to actively move the puck and fucked up, putting it into his own net. That's why it is an own-goal and not a deflection. Similarly, shooting the puck and having it hit the goalie's stick and then bounce into the net isn't an own-goal, it was deflected off the goalie. Otherwise tons of goals would be called own-goals on the goalie and negate assists. It's very straightforward really.
Thanks for the explanation
The rule explicitly states that assists can be awarded on own goals
This is true but it seems like it’s usually reserved for situations where the puck is deflected off a defending player and then goes in. For instance in the TB/LAK game last Saturday Kucherov passed the puck to Point and the loose puck was accidentally put home but the LAK player, not that dissimilar from what Lindgren does here. Point was awarded the goal with no assist to Kucherov but of course nobody batted an eye because that’s the proper scoring and the way it has always been scored.
Only if the puck is not shot. If shot into the goal, no assists. If "put into the goal in any other manner", assists may be awarded. He hit the puck, with the blade of his stick, on the ice, into his own net. That's shot in.
Im all about MAC hes a god on the ice, but cmon man…ive never seen an assist on an own goal im sure you could google and go find one or two obscure moments where thats happened 100 years ago, but cmon its not something that happens in modern hockey bc it doesnt make sense. You dont want asterisks in the history book it will lead to just more people with asterisks and then the history book wont even be legit.
Except if the other team gains possession, players who had the puck before that don’t get assists, assists are mute after a change in possession (otherwise we’d never have unassisted goals except right after faceoffs), but they have to give the goal to someone.
You are almost correct. If this was a deflection you’d be right. It wasn’t a deflection though. If you just add an apostrophe and a “t” immediately after “can” in your statement-you’d have it 100%. I’m not sure why you’d spout that when ANYONE can look at the rule book lol.
Quickly downvote this man!
[удалено]
They announced it in the arena as unassisted.
> honestly i think we’re all just salty You could've stopped there
give us a break we don’t have much else going right now
Aside from a leading Hart candidate, leading Norris candidate, and only being 4 points behind 1st in the NHL? I’m sure Sharks fans are sympathetic to your plight.
You're replying to a joke Jared Bednar account
That’s his username but he makes plenty of normal comments and thats clearly not a Bednar joke.
Seems like a bad joke to me but yeah, comment doesn't work either way
it’s a great joke, everyone is saying so
Jared you are getting me downvotes you need to chill
If not for Lindgren shooting it on net it likely wouldn’t have been a goal in the first place. Be happy that the game was tied from a boneheaded mistake.
I don't get why this isn't the take home point. The puck wasn't heading towards the net until Lindgren shot it past Igor. The Rangers would likely have won in regulation without this play. Unclear why Avs fans are more upset about this whole situation than Rangers fans.
Because the avs don't care about wins or losses. The more points they get in the standings, the more likely the are to play Vegas or Nashville in the first round. The avs don't need more points.
lol...they do need more points. They \*could\* make the playoffs without more points, and probably will clinch tonight. But against the Rangers, they definitionally needed the points to make it to the playoffs so they'd have the opportunity to play either of those teams or anyone else. There's no way the Avs felt they didn't need more points, or didn't want to beat the Rangers. Love Georgie but he celebrated beating the Rangers in a shootout last year like he won the Stanley Cup.
Obviously they want to win and they dominated the OT I thought although Georgie made some big saves too. Presidents trophy isn't all it's cracked up to be and between Dallas, Vegas, Nashville, or Winnipeg, who would you rather play first? And second? There are no good matchups, just pain, injuries, and Mark Stone. Whoever comes out of the central will be decimated by the time they sweep the pacific team and get to the finals, whether they finish 1, 2, 3, or in WC1 or 2.
I get that, completely, and there’s been a similar conversation in the east vis a vis whom the Rangers want to play. My viewpoint is keep the team healthy while trying to win, and letting the chips fall where they may. There’s a great line from a book about the Rangers 94 Cup run where they asked Mike Keenan why they the emphasis on the president’s trophy, and his reply was something along the lines of “so We can play game 7 of the Stanley cup final at home”
Shit that's a badass answer from Keenan, I love it
Me too! I read that book in the early 2000s, that line has stuck with me!
Avs are used to getting every single break to go their way
Mack is incredible. genuinely nervous every time he touched the puck. I just don't get how this is even a discussion. the only reason the puck is even going towards igor is bc of lindgren.
Would they even have scored if it wasn't for Lindgren putting it into the net? Possibly, but not definitely.
Rantanen wasn't even shooting the puck with his stick motion. He was just trying to collect it. This isn't a situation where two guys simultaneously shot the puck. So I'm not sure what the debate is, other than pure homerism.
I mean I think a different way to look at it is "If the rangers had a penalty would the play have been called dead there" which I don't believe it would. I don't think that is really possession personally, but it is what it is.
Yes
>Mack is incredible. genuinely nervous every time he touched the puck.[ I just don't get how this is even a discussion. the only reason the puck is even going towards igor is bc of ~~lindgren.~~ **God**.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxGTPEOrBGc)
>the only reason the puck is even going towards igor is bc of lindgren. I don't think this is true. It seems like Lindgren is trying to stop Rantanen's shot and had his stick pushed into the puck. So it was 100% Lindgren's stick, but Rantanen made the motion that propelled the puck. https://x.com/AvsRobin/status/1773565005801099640?s=20 https://x.com/AvsRobin/status/1773566297416061344?s=20 So it's a weird situation, and fine if the NHL wants to rule no assists, but it's inaccurate to represent it as an open-and-shut "Lindgren shot it"
Bro. I want the streak to live as much as the next. Rants stuck motion there would have brought the puck to the side where he would have a forehand shot on a mostly empty net. Then Lindgren panicked, and it went in. The right call was made, and it sucks.
It's an OG, no quesiton. Without Lindgren's stick there, the puck doesn't take a trajectory towards the goal. But to say there is no argument and it's 100% on Lindgren is also ignoring details. There is an arguement, but not enough to change the result. I'm aware that's too nuanced for reddit, but I'll still try.
The homer in me is pissed but this is the right call. And I will also remain pissed about this forever
This is the correct way to do fandom. Hell yeah.
I’m glad it’s over. Awesome run, but when the record starts distracting from the win, that’s a problem.
I’m not glad it’s over. It would have been amazing to see a player on our team beat a great one record. It sucks. It’s right. But it sucks.
I’m glad it’s over too tbh
lol. I bet
I haven't seen the goal in question, but I appreciate the team sticking up for Nate regardless
[https://twitter.com/sportsnet/status/1773553871467544588?s=46&t=S_LiHKGoXi91Lmgu-MxoZA](https://twitter.com/sportsnet/status/1773553871467544588?s=46&t=S_LiHKGoXi91Lmgu-MxoZA)
that....that wasn't a assist? We've had guys get secondary's for leaving a puck by the boards as they got off the ice.
You can’t see it clearly from this clip. [This overhead slowmo angle they showed on MSG makes it clear as day.](https://twitter.com/1salty_patriot/status/1773591548959031415?s=46&t=RT2UgMhFtkjv5EuRAf6B_g) Lindgren actively tried to slide it under Igor and slipped it right through him instead.
Yeah, I thought Mikko got it too, but this overhead view definitely shows it was Lindgren.
Does Rants not ever so slightly touch the puck w the tip of his stick? Serious question, I’m watching on my phone and my eyes suck.
Nah he fans on it just before Lindgren gets his stick on it and Lindgren has full control as he quickly sweeps it under Igor.
Gotcha, thanks for sharing the overhead view
Argh until now I did think the force was from Mikko behind L’s stick. With this view I stand corrected. Sigh. And hey. Second to Gretzky is not bad here. And MacKs got some more seasons to enhance his section at the HoF !!! 🙌🏼🙌🏼
Lindgren's stick is the only one to make contact. 100%, non-debatable. To me, it looks like Rants is the one who generated the force towards the goal though. So room for debate, but not enough to overturn is probably a fair result.
I see that overhead and see Rantanen's stick push Lindgren's (when his stick moves away, Lindgren's stick moves away from goal, like he was resisting the push). It doesn't necessarily change the result, but it means people arguing for the assist have a not-absurd reason for doing so.
It was marked an assist, but then they changed it to an own goal from Lindgren which it definitely is, and so it's just a Toews goal no assists given out
https://twitter.com/AvsRobin/status/1773565005801099640 Lindgren got his stick knocked into the puck by Rantanen so they called it an own goal Edit: idk how that’s an own goal honestly he didn’t have possession there. That angle really annoys me more than I was last night
Is this from the MSG broadcast? They showed a replay last night from what I think was a different angle. It looked like Lindgren was trying to move the puck back to Igor so he could cover it.
https://x.com/1salty_patriot/status/1773591548959031415?s=46&t=RT2UgMhFtkjv5EuRAf6B_g Here’s the overhead. Shows it clearly
Yes, that’s the angle. Very clear what happened there.
I just found this on twitter idk which broadcast it was from. I just don’t think that goes in without mikko smacking his stick there and think assists should have been rewarded because of that action
I mean, he plays the puck with his stick and knocks it into his own net. Do you need him to go end to end with it instead? It's 100% an own goal.
Players who never played the game or especially never officiated the game can never tell. Also the homer goggles got the best of em. They want the streak alive and it’s not.
Looks more to me like mikko hit his stick into the puck not like he was purposefully trying to play it back to Shesterkin. I don’t really see that as an own goal that doesn’t deserve assists imo
To me it looks like Mikko pushes his(Lindgren) stick into the puck. 🧐
from that angle, maybe, other angle rantanen stick isn't even going towards the net.
Hmm the other angle I saw last night made it look like Rantanen was the one who put it in the net.
From that angle it doesn't look to me like Mikko's stick has any influence at all.
[удалено]
It’s not that he didn’t touch it, it’s that it was an own goal. Which is definitely was
Okay here's where I stand on this: either the credit goes to whoever touched it last and the assists go with it, or start recording "own-goals" as its own stat.
[удалено]
It's not recorded on stat sheets, is my point. And it arguably should be.
Why would assists go with it?
Because it's the way a normal goal would be recorded.
It’s not a normal goal though.
Then it should be recorded as an "own-goal" on the stat sheet, not recorded as a goal scored by the last player on offense to touch the puck. Just as I mentioned in my original comment.
Man what a scrub that MacKinnon guy is. Couldn’t even get to 36 games.
Crazy they tried to appeal that lmao
Feel like any team would do this for a star player considering the circumstances.
Yea I agree. They want to show Mack they’re behind him 100% and will try anything to help no matter how arcane or unlikely. There’s no downside to taking your player’s side to the very end.
The League also released a huge stat correction on hits back in February (2/12/24) that covered all games back to the beginning of the season. That correction affected almost 2300 statlines. Since then, they've been releasing stat-corrections each week - mostly hits, shots, shots against, etc. There are a few goal and assist corrections too. Not surprised teams are appealing stats given the development in the last couple months with the league based on that.
Lightning didn’t do it for Kucherov last week in a similar situation. “Is there a rift between Lightning brass and Kucherov?!” \- Toronto Media
The circumstances I’m talking about was the point streak so this really isn’t a similar situation. Was Kucherov on an all time home point streak?
Why wouldnt they for Mack worst that happens is they say no big deal. Crazy you think it’s crazy.
A lot more plays get appealed for assists than you might think. Not that crazy for them to appeal considering his streak, and it’s a close play
Yeah Toronto would never do anything like that
Lol right? I don't think I've ever seen that or heard of that ever happening before. Kind of absurd.
Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen regularly.
Listen, I live in a city where tens of thousands of people look at McDavid and Draisaitl's stars on NHL.com every day. If it happened literally ever where a player was granted a point post-hoc a day later, it would likely happen to one of these players and I'd know about it. I can see why the Avs would want to inflate MacKinnons totals in the one year where he can compete with McDavid in scoring I guess. I just think it's juvenile and silly. If you score a point you score a point, if not, litigating over and over is just...
Supporting your star player, especially with no consequences, is a no brainer. It would be silly not to. But given the amount of support McDavid has gotten over the years (not to mention Ryan Smyth fiasco all those years ago), kind of makes sense youre not used to your team supporting its stars.
Oh ya, it's all about McDavid somehow.
Typical Oiler fan response.
Lmfao this was just about the point streak, not "Avs wanting to inflate MacKinnon's totals". The media was asking about whether the team would appeal immediately after the game, and Bednar said they would look into it. Media and fan attention was a big part driving behind the appeal, and the team did it because it couldn't hurt. The Avs isn't looking at every goal where Mack didn't have a point and appeal, nor is the team "litigating over and over" - the team didn't raise it during the game, and the league made its decision in the appeal, and that's that.
And yet scoring is subjective enough that Hockey operations has an official method of challenging who's assigned points. Why is it silly to challenge this? The worst that happens is they do exactly what they did. I guarantee you this streak meant more for the rest of the team than it did MacKinnon, judging by all of their reactions after the game last night.
Did you see the goal they tried to challenge too?
They thought it hit the cuff of his glove and would be considered a hand pass. Not saying I agree, just what Bednar said in the post game interview. He also chuckled and said maybe we need to review the technicalities of that rule again.
You’re getting downvoted but definitely similar vibes
This happened to Kucherov a few games ago too. Perhaps they want to keep the points race spicy. EDIT: [the goal in question](https://streamable.com/u61tlp) against the LA Kings
There was an oilers goal a few games ago that was originally a Bouchard goal that was assisted by Draisaitl and McDavid but it grazed Hyman’s shin pad as he tried to jump out of the way so the goal got changed to Hyman’s (giving him a hatty) and it took away Connor’s assist Hyman knew right away that it touched him but it took the NHL like 2 whole periods to change it lol
What an unsatisfying hat trick to get.
Well he has 3 others this year that were nicer. But that’s just the Zach Hyman way lol, he’s had goals go off of his face, his hand, his leg, etc.
Nothing happened to anyone here. It was played by Lindgren and went into the net.
Okay so we agree that Kuch deserved an assist on [this goal](https://streamable.com/u61tlp) right? Edit: guess I should’ve added /s, thought it was clear this was a joke.
No
Oh dang I thought I had you there.
Good try 😂
Damn he just lost the Hart Trophy SMH.
He’s still winning the hart, best COMPLETE player in the league this year
He's awful defensively looking at advanced stats
Oh well. Better that the streak isn’t extended with a questionable play.
You never want an asterisk on your record for sure.
That's it. I'm DONE with the nhl. You hear me, DONE. I could take the wheel of dops, I could take the response to idiots having their fee fees hurt over a rainbow, I could take the entire situation in Chicago, I could take the Pittsburgh rigged lottery, i could take taylor fucking hall stealing the hart from mackinnon, but NO MORE! If the nhl can just blatantly take an assist away from a player on my team, then they can do without me watching!!! GOOD DAY. But yeah that kind of sucks.
sharp important resolute jellyfish dinosaurs connect gullible price slap elastic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Muppet Christmas Carol A family with taste and you still abandon them? For shame, for shame!
Lmao this made me laugh way too hard
trees consist detail sable direful act spoon lock shocking crush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
No disrespect to the league, I'm a firm believer that the NHL not awarding a point is a huge fluke and robs MacKinnon of truly accomplishing what their capable of. I've spent the last few minutes in pure disbelief and it just doesn't make sense to me. I've spent the entire regular season watching MacKinnon play great hockey it's just not fair. If MacKinnon doesn't get the assist again I will face that the league got the right call, but I am just 100% sure it was a fluke and does a big disservice to MacKinnon and the NHL.
It was a cool streak but I’m not mad it’s over, I was getting too wrapped up in the chase for 41.
We still think Matthew's can get 70 so it happens to us all.
That's some optimism right there. I'm just hoping he can get to 65 at this point but I'm not feeling particularly hopeful about it anymore. His production has slowed way down
Based.
The public bus is still full of piss no matter what the NHL says.
Mackinnon finally nutted! 🙌
As a ranger fan, this scramble over a phantom assist has been one of the funniest things to watch. Total denial
Pretty clear possession by Lindgren. He completely handles the puck. This isn't just a deflection. For example, if there was a delayed penalty, they would have blown it down. I know Avs fans want the streak to continue, but they're reeeeeaaching bigtime.
The Dogg does not care about a home point streak and neither do I.
It's the right call but I feel like hockey ops makes some bizarre decisions on assists sometimes and we just don't really care about it when it's assist number 11 for a player in Game 34. It was worth a shot for the Avs to appeal given the streak
I don't think he'd be happy with getting an assist like that and no one would respect the record that way. It's just better that it ended. Incredible streak but its time came
Why would they? He didn’t get an assist-so he doesn’t get credited with one. Seems pretty straightforward. Unless of course you have a tinfoil hat and think the league is literally trying to stop his streak because… …..reasons? Amazing streak though-and I wouldn’t be surprised if he starts another one right soon.
Bummer, but like other fans have said. It's a distraction. The kind of thing that'll make someone choke up on their stick a little too tight to keep the streak running.
I’m telling you. MacKinnon doesn’t care nearly as much as any of the fans complaining. He has one thing on his mind.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Colorado fans are so dumb lmfao
No fun league
So people should be awarded points for nothing? Yeah it's fun when the points are fraudulent so you can rub yourself off to someone else's accomplishments 🙄
I think the best way to answer this is, if Rantanens stick isn't there to help Lindgrens stick propel the puck in, would the puck go in anyway? I say no. Meaning Lindgren wasn't in full control and therefore Mack should get an assist. But seems subjective I suppose
Look at the overhead. Rantanens stick doesn’t even touch Lindgrens stick.
What? It clearly touches it from the overhead angle. You can say that does or does not matter, but you can’t watch the video and say it doesn’t touch his stick. That kinda takes all credibility away. Mikko definitely hits his blade with his stick. Also, I cannot understand how an NHL defenseman would intentionally slide a puck into a scrambling goalie. When lindgren first touches the puck the goalies pad is barely getting over. He’s not sliding it to a set goalie for a stoppage, he’s sliding it into a scrambling goalie which you don’t see or ever do intentionally.
My bad it barely touches the stick in a motion that in no way would’ve propel Lindgrens stick in the direction which moved the puck towards the net.
https://twitter.com/AvsRobin/status/1773565005801099640 Can you send a video of the overhead because it looks pretty clear like it does here
https://x.com/1salty_patriot/status/1773591548959031415?s=46&t=RT2UgMhFtkjv5EuRAf6B_g You see Rantanens stick sweeps left to right and does not propel lindgrens stick towards the net. Lindgren is trying to shovel it into his goalers pads but scores instead.
I think rantanen’s stick might’ve clipped it enough to make a difference between “gently curls under goalie” and “pops it through goalie into net” but ultimately that doesn’t factor into the scoring report, still an own goal
I just don’t see Lindgrens arms or hands move at all other than the slight pivot but mikkos stick hitting his perfectly aligns with the way his stick moves forward and back. That said It’s really not that big of deal and trying to be unbiased I can easily see why the nhl didn’t change it
You see his stick curve forward and around the puck. Thats all him.
[удалено]
Ok it’s close enough that I understand why they didn’t change it. I’m clearly biased here but it still looks to me that the stick is moved by mikko there. Lindgrens arms and hands hardly move at all and you see the stick flex and whip back right after mikkos stick is off of his.
Different guy here. But this is the overhead https://x.com/AvsRobin/status/1773566297416061344?s=20 I think it’s safe to say Rantanen’s stick makes contact with the back blade of Lindgren’s stick, however I do not think it is safe to say that that contact overrules the “control of the puck” that Lindgren has. To me, Lindgren curls his wrist in a manner that lines up with the direction the puck travels when leaving his stick. He’s trying to play the puck into Igor to get a whistle but instead he plays it under Igor and into the net. Rantanen’s stick path seems like it would direct the puck more in the direction of the post or even wide of the net. If Lindgren makes contact *any* direct play with the puck (propelling it with stick, skate, or hand) he is considered by the rulebook to have “control of the puck” which negates Colorado’s prior possession of the puck (thus killing the chain of assists). The reason I bring that up is because Lindgren doesn’t have to have “full control,” just “legal control,” if that makes sense. We can safely say Rantanen doesn’t touch the puck itself, both by the video and by the fact he is not awarded the goal, own goal or otherwise. I think the Avalanche did the right thing if they appealed this goal, may as well, but I don’t think we can come anywhere near to conclusively saying Rantanen directed this puck into the net in a way that overrules Lindgren’s “legal control of the puck.”
I'm reluctant to believe that McKinnon allowed the organization to appeal this. They must have done that without his knowledge.
How much did Gretzky pay them?
I feel like the NHL is in too deep at this point. If they would have awarded assist initially (which they can on an own goal), it probably stands. But they didn't, and the hockey world saw this morning how the streak was over, so why change that on a judgment call?