Regel 37: Video Review

...

The following situations are subject to video review at the discretion of the referee:
(I) Puck crossing the Goal Line
(II) Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being dislodged
(III) Puck in the net prior to (or after) the expiration of time at the end of a period
(IV) With the use of a foot/skate, a “distinct kicking motion” was evident
(V) Puck deliberately directed, batted, or thrown into the net by an attacking Player by any means (and with any part of their body) other than with their stick - excl. foot/skate – see (IV) above
(VI) Puck deflected directly into the net of an On-ice Official
(VII) Puck struck or deflected into the net with a high-stick, above the height of the crossbar
(VIII) Puck entering the net in a proper manner through goal mouth (ensuring puck did not enter net improperly through net meshing or underneath the net frame, etc.)
(IX) Puck entering the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result of the play was unaffected by any whistle blown by the Referee upon their losing sight of the puck; and
(X) The legitimacy of all potential goals on “Penalty Shot” or “Penalty Shot” Shootout attempts to ensure compliance with applicable rules (e.g., Goalkeeper leaving crease prior to puck touch at Center ice, Goalkeeper throwing stick, Goalkeeper dislodging goal, shooter cradling puck above the normal height of the shoulders, shooter performing illegal “spin-o-rama” move, Skater’s continued forward advancement of puck, “double-tap”/ “rebound”, etc.)
(XI) Missed Game Stoppage Event in the Attacking Zone Leading to a Goal. A play that leads directly and immediately to the scoring of a goal on the ice and should have been stopped by reason of any play occurring in the Attacking Zone that should have resulted in a play stoppage caused by the attacking Team but did not.
(XII) Scoring Plays Involving Potential “Interference on the Goalkeeper” → Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper

Plays that involve a puck entering the net as a direct result of a “distinct kicking motion” shall be ruled “no goal”. A “distinct kicking motion,” for purposes of Video Review, is one where the video makes clear that an attacking Player has deliberately propelled the puck with a kick of their foot or skate and the puck subsequently enters the net. A goal cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player propels the puck with their skate into the net (even by means of a subsequent deflection off another Player, unless from a stick of a teammate) using a “distinct kicking motion”.
A goal also cannot be scored on a play where an attacking Player kicks any equipment (stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of their own stick, causing the puck to cross the Goal Line.

A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking Player’s skate who does not use a “distinct kicking motion” shall be ruled a “good goal”.

A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking Players’ skate shall also be ruled a “good goal”, as long as no “distinct kicking motion” is evident.
→ Rule 49.2 – Goals

The determining factor for high stick Video Review is where the puck makes contact with the stick in relation to the crossbar. If the puck makes contact with a portion of the stick that is at or below the level of the crossbar (despite some other portion of the stick being above the crossbar) and enters the goal, the goal shall be allowed.
→ Rule 80.3 – Disallowed Goal

The Video Review Operations may use Video Review to establish the correct time on the clock.
The “burn in” of the Game Clock is mandatory for the two overhead goal video feeds and should be made available by the host broadcaster on as many additional feeds as possible.
Any loss of time on the game or penalty clocks due to a false “face-off”, a “face-off” violation or a puck going out of play must be replaced. The Video Review Operations may be consulted or may intervene with On- and Off-Ice Officials directly, as appropriate, to ensure that any loss of time on the game or penalty clocks due to these situations is properly replaced.
→ Rule 76.8 – Face-off Procedure - Verification of Time, → Rule 85.7 – Verification of Time

In the event of any dispute regarding time, the matter shall be referred to the Video Review Operations for adjustment, and its decision shall be final. The Game Timekeeper shall assist to verify game time via an additional timing device (League-approved stopwatch). In the event a Video Review shows that a goal was scored prior to the play being stopped, the Video Review Operations will inform the Game Timekeeper and Official Scorekeeper of the time of the goal and the amount of playing time left to be re-set on the Game Clock and penalty time clocks (if applicable).
→ Rule 34.7 – Verification of Time

Should the Video Review Operations be able to determine that a goal has been scored through the use of video replay, and play on the ice has nonetheless continued, the Video Review Operations shall instruct that the in-arena horn be sounded to stop play immediately, and the goal will be awarded. The Game Clock (and penalty clocks, if applicable) will then be re-set to the time of the goal. Should the first stoppage of play following an apparent goal coincide with the end of a period, the On-ice Official(s) will instruct both Teams to remain at their respective Players’ Bench until the Video Review of the play can be completed.

...

The standard for overturning the call in the event of a “goal” call on the ice is that the On-ice Officials (Referees), after reviewing any and all available replays, determine that the play which directly and immediately leads to a goal should have been stopped but was not at some point after the puck entered the Attacking Zone but prior to the goal being scored; where this standard is met, the goal will be disallowed.

Potential infractions that would require a play stoppage in the Attacking Zone include but may not be limited to:
→ Rule 79 – Hand Pass, → Rule 80 – High-Sticking the Puck, and → Rule 85 – Puck out of Bounds
Such infractions will only serve as a basis for overturning a “goal” call on the ice if Video Review can conclusively establish that a game stoppage event had occurred in the Attacking Zone and was missed by the On-ice Official(s).

Where the infraction at issue was a missed penalty call subject to the judgment or discretion of the On-ice Official(s), such infraction cannot result in the “goal” call on the ice being overturned, even if upon review, the On-ice Official(s) would have made a different call.
Goals will only be reviewed for a potential “Missed Game Stoppage Event in the Attacking Zone” if the puck does not come out of the Attacking Zone again between the time of the “Missed Game Stoppage Event in the Attacking Zone” and the time the goal is scored.

The standard for overturning the call in the event of a “goal” call on the ice is that the On-ice Officials (Referees), after reviewing any and all replays and consulting with the Video Review Operations, determine that the goal should have been disallowed due to “Interference on the Goalkeeper,” as described in Rule 69 – Interference on the Goalkeeper; where this standard is met, the goal will be disallowed.

The standard for overturning the call in the event of a “no goal” call on the ice is that the On-ice Officials (Referees), after reviewing any and all replays, determine that the goal on the ice should have been allowed because either:
(I) There was no actual contact of any kind initiated by the attacking Player with the Goalkeeper; or
(II) The attacking Player was pushed, shoved or fouled by the defending Player causing the attacking Player to come into contact with the Goalkeeper; or
(III) The attacking Player’s positioning within the Goal Crease did not impair the Goalkeeper’s ability to defend their goal and, in fact, had no discernable impact on the play; where this standard is met, the goal will be allowed.