As per Rule 57.3, the right call was made.

“When a player, in the neutral or attacking zone, in control of the puck (or who could have obtained possession and control of the puck) and having no other opponent to pass than the goalkeeper, is tripped or otherwise fouled from behind, thus preventing a reasonable scoring opportunity, a penalty shot shall be awarded to the non-offending side.”

What’s the lesson here?  If you can’t catch up to a player on a breakaway, don’t try to limply hook him from behind.

Yes, Byfuglien got off a shot, but would have had a better opportunity without the stickwork.

Posted by PRC. on 04/11/09 at 06:27 PM ET

The knee-jerk shows something bugged him, that’s the foul.

Posted by SENShobo from Waterloo, ON on 04/11/09 at 06:32 PM ET

Absolutely not a penalty shot. Not even a penalty.

“Or otherwise fouled from behind.” There was no foul. Troy Murray said that would have been a great defensive play 10 years ago. Not so today. I understand calling the slash from behind or the horizontal stick interfering with the hands, but this qualified as neither.

But these things happen. Meaningless game, really. Great pass from Bolland, it should be said.

Posted by eternal_fields on 04/11/09 at 06:32 PM ET

The ref called it because he thought Kronwall’s stick touched Byfuglien’s hand--in which case it would have been the right call.  From the replay angles, it’s clear that Kronwall only got stick, so it’s clearly the wrong call.

There’s not even a debate to have about it, it’s just a referee mistake.

Posted by Ryan from Toronto on 04/11/09 at 06:48 PM ET

Bad call.  What if this were a Central Division deciding game.  Would you want that call made either way?  Flip it around Hawk’s fans.  Granted this game meant nothing but its a bad call.

Posted by AxeMaster9 on 04/11/09 at 06:52 PM ET

The knee-jerk shows something bugged him, that’s the foul.

Yeah a good defensive play.

Posted by moocat on 04/11/09 at 07:17 PM ET

Otherwise fouled from behind.

Ok, um, so where was the foul?

Not a penalty.

Good thing this game means jack shit.

Posted by Garth on 04/11/09 at 07:24 PM ET

The knee-jerk shows something bugged him, that’s the foul.

Right.  Because the player’s reaction is always appropriate to the contact or lack thereof?

For evidence of this truth, I present you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B53W-7tk4Uw

Posted by shanetx on 04/11/09 at 07:41 PM ET

Good Call

Posted by Dale on 04/11/09 at 07:57 PM ET

Oh and I am a Sens fan not a Hawks fan (in case you thought I was biased for either team)

Posted by Dale on 04/11/09 at 07:58 PM ET

Good call because the Red Wings were wearing God awful ugly uniforms.

Posted by siggy on 04/11/09 at 08:14 PM ET

I don’t think we thought you were biased for either team, so much as we just didn’t care about a response as well thought out and reasoned as..

Good Call

Please, enlighten us as to why this is a good call?  The rule is pasted above.  There was no foul.  Bad call.

Referees are human.  Mistakes happen.  Everyone understands that, because they’re acting in a second’s time with no chance to sit and consider what they saw and no slow replays to watch.  But to watch the video and say “good call” - that took some actually watching, and some suspension of intelligence.  We applaud you, I’m sure they’ll appreciate your post back at Pensblog.

Posted by shanetx on 04/11/09 at 08:14 PM ET

So, Dale elaborate. Why was it a good call? It was neither a hook or a slash. Wasn’t up on the hands and didn’t break his stride in any way.

It was a stick check or a bit of a stick lift which are certainly legal.

Posted by moocat on 04/11/09 at 08:14 PM ET

Garbage call by a ref who only worked 32 regular season games and, according to people who have worked with him before, is a arrogant ass. j

Save your breaths for the playoffs.

Posted by Osrt on 04/11/09 at 08:25 PM ET

What foul? Bad call, no penalty, fire the ref.

Posted by Alan from Atlanta on 04/11/09 at 09:04 PM ET

Clearly not a foul on the replay, but you can see how the ref made the call: just as the stick went in toward where there are often hooks on the hands, the Hawk fumbled the puck. I wonder why players ever put the stick up there. You have almost no chance of legally affecting the play, but it screams for a call. Too bad a mistake like this changed the game, but it happens all the time.

Posted by false_cause from DC on 04/11/09 at 09:53 PM ET

at full speed it looks like a “light” stick to the hands, and that’s what the ref sees.

Posted by squirtholio on 04/12/09 at 03:34 AM ET

I can understand how he made the call at game speed, but it doesn’t change the fact that the TRUTH is that no foul occurred.

I would hope that in the playoffs, even if a stick caught a glove THAT lightly, a call wouldn’t be made.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 04/12/09 at 10:19 AM ET

I do agree at full speed, it probably looks like he was hooked, but to call it a penalty shot instead of just a two minute?  Even if it was a hook, I have seen much worse only get called for a minor rather then a penalty shot.

Posted by wingsnut25 on 04/12/09 at 10:47 AM ET