Skip to content

Photo: Nick Grossmann’s ‘save’ bails out Flyers

Nov 20, 2013, 1:14 AM EDT


Just how close was the Flyers’ flirtation with disaster on Tuesday night? There’s the shot up above—you be the judge.

Sure, Philadelphia wound up defeating the Ottawa Senators 5-2, so in the grand scheme of things Nick Grossmann kicking the puck out of his own net might not seem to have mattered all that much. The Flyers had just allowed a third-period marker to knot the score at two though, and should Grossmann’s bail-out save been ruled a goal based on replay, Philly would’ve been trailing and in line for yet another late-game collapse.

Instead, the refs did not find sufficient evidence to overturn the call on the ice, and Kimmo Timonen (1 G, 2 A) would find the back of the net a short time later to help spark the Orange & Black down the stretch. Crisis averted, and the Flyers move to 8-10-2 on the season.

Seeing the play in real time, I was fairly convinced Grossmann made an incredible play. After watching enough replays, I’m fairly convinced the puck in its entirety probably did cross the goal line at some point. Remember though, the rubber needs to be completely over the red line, and close as it is, these low resolution screen grabs don’t prove much.


Maybe the real genius in this play was Grossmann’s positioning over the puck prevented the overhead camera from getting a look that likely would’ve confirmed any suspicions. The explanation from the Situation Room:

Those are the breaks, and the Flyers pick up two big points.

Whether Grossmann kept that puck out of the net or not, it was a tremendous effort by one of the game’s top stay-at-home defenders. Afterwards, head coach Craig Berube joked his defenseman was tough enough to stand in goal without pads. Or maybe it wasn’t a joke. Grossmann is a scary dude.

There’s been a lot of talk lately that the Flyers may have turned a corner. They’re 6-3-2 over the last 11 games, so maybe there’s something to that theory. Finishes like this leave me feeling a bit more reserved though. Had Ottawa been awarded that goal with just over 10 minutes remaining, how would it have changed the momentum from that point on? My guess is the Flyers don’t win if that happens.

Sometimes it truly is better to be lucky than good though. That said, this team needed a break like that, arguably deserved one, and they finally got it. Good for them.

>> Flyers back Mason in win with big third period [CSN]

  1. igantz - Nov 20, 2013 at 8:48 AM

    Grossmann covers that 5 hole better that Bryz ever did.

  2. BenE. - Nov 20, 2013 at 8:57 AM

    Since I’m a fair spectator, it should have been a goal. It sucks to see a team score a goal and have it never put on the board. But the Flyers have had goals overturned in the past, and the universe balances itself.

    Anyone remember this beauty in Pittsburgh in 2010?

    • psudrozz - Nov 20, 2013 at 9:19 AM

      the call was no goal. there is no evidence to prove conclusively that the puck crossed the line. i don’t see anything in the video replays that shows the puck crossing the line. this is unrelated to the pitt example in that the puck was not concealed.

      so no, it shouldn’t have been a goal.

      • BenE. - Nov 20, 2013 at 9:25 AM

        My only point with the Pitt goal was that the Flyers have had obvious goals taken away in the past.

        As for the Sens goal, I disagree. I think the puck was in.

      • Marvin Monroe - Nov 20, 2013 at 1:13 PM


        It doesn’t matter if you think it was in. I think it was in too. But there needs to be conclusive video showing the puck crossing the line. The video is so poor that there was no way the call on the ice was going to be over ruled. The real issue we should be talking about is why we don’t have better video that that. They need to come up with some standard gauge of where cameras are located. There needs to be 3-4 cameras just aimed at the net/goalline the entire game.

    • willh888 - Nov 20, 2013 at 9:24 AM

      didn’t home teams get in trouble for not sharing enough angles with officials

      • BenE. - Nov 20, 2013 at 9:29 AM

        The Penguins, in fact.

      • willh888 - Nov 20, 2013 at 9:39 AM

        that’s what i thought, but was unsuccessful trollin’ around google for the story. Weird how the story wasn’t a bigger deal

      • vgp - Nov 20, 2013 at 9:42 AM

        Yeah, Pittsburgh withheld the video that showed the goal from the league. And the Penguins were in big trouble. I think the league office actually spoke to them and kindly asked them not to do it again.

      • erzug - Nov 20, 2013 at 10:53 AM

        I also thought it was over based on the location of where it struck his right skate, but the fact that it was bouncing around and not flat at the time probably assisted in the outcome.

        Or, The War Room in Toronto has hired former NFL refs to decide. ;-)

  3. haleks - Nov 20, 2013 at 11:04 AM

    People need to analyse this call better and take into account more than just “I see white paint between the puck and red line from the angle view.”

    1. The puck hit Grossmann’s left skate.

    2. The puck goes in the direction of Grossmann’s right skate while rising a 2-3 inches off the ice. (This basically negate the 1st picture angle, of course you’ll see some white paint between the puck and red line, the puck is in the air, it isn’t flat on the ice)

    3. The puck hit Grossmann’s inside skate boot (not his blade), then the puck goes down on the red line and then bounce away. (While Grossmann’s skate blade is definitely inside the goal line about 2-3 inches with the angle of his feet (vertically and horizontally) the front of his skate boot is almost flush to the red line (Based on the overhead), the back of his boot is perhaps 1-2 inches inside at most)

    It’s impossible that the entire puck crossed the line on that play. Since the puck was wambling but was still somewhat flat and not vertical, there must be at least 3 inches between the goal line and Grossmann’s skate boot, which taking into consideration everything I posted in this post I doubt there was. A piece of the puck was over the red line for sure, but not the entire puck, and to be called a goal the entire puck must be over the goal line.

    • psudrozz - Nov 20, 2013 at 11:29 AM


      i like that!


(email will not be published)


wholesale Senior Bow… on ‘Who’s That Guy?…
clubberlangphila on Exit Interviews: Evaluating th…
Renee on Steve Mason will start Game 4…
Renee on At least Evan Turner didn…