A few weeks ago I was watching the Pittsburgh Penguins take on the New York Islanders and something happened in the game which gave me the idea for an NHL brain teaser. The brain teaser goes like this: Describe a scenario in which an NHL referee could tell you the score of the game but not who’s winning.
If nobody comes up with the answer I’ll post it in a few weeks.
Mark said, “The referee can not tell you who is winning the fight.” This is a clever interpretation of my question, and I award you points for this guess. I should have been more specific though. Let me rephrase: Describe a scenario in which an NHL referee could tell you the score of the game but not which team is winning. Note: The game is not tied.
Okay, here’s some more detail to make things clearer. Let’s imagine the Penguins are playing the Islanders. There’s ten minutes left to play in the third period. The ref in question has been on the ice during the entire game. Sidney Crosby decides to have a conversation with the ref during a stoppage in play.
Sidney Crosby: Hey ref, what’s the score?
Referee: One of the teams has scored three goals, and the other team has scored two goals.
Sidney Crosby: So, which team is winning? The Penguins or the Islanders?
Referee: I’m not sure.
Melissa said, “One of the goals could be under contention, or in the process of being disallowed.” Melissa, you are the closest so far but don’t quite have the full answer yet. If a goal is being reviewed because it is under contention, then the referee probably wouldn’t know with certainty what the score is until after the tapes have been replayed. In that sense I would argue that the referee can’t tell you the score because he doesn’t know it with full certainty.
In my scenario the referee knows without a doubt that one of the teams has scored three goals and that the other team has scored two goals. He just doesn’t know which team is winning.
Keep thinking about it. You’re getting close.
Melissa said, “Michael, I’m coming up with a lot of horrible answers that revolve around the referee being blind and deaf. I have a question: is this situation particular to hockey, or could you substitute another sport?” Melissa, you are not alone in wondering if the NHL refs are sometimes blind.
To be honest I’m not certain if this could apply to another sport or not because I know NHL hockey much better than I do most other sports. With a little imagination I can think of a way it could happen in the NFL, but it wouldn’t be as clear cut as it is in the NHL.
I’ll give you a big hint. This is possible in the NHL thanks to the help of video replay. This scenario would not be possible in hockey leagues that don’t have access to video replay.
Also, there should be no tricky interpretation of my words when I say “the ref can’t tell you who’s winning.” The ref can’t tell you who’s winning because he honestly doesn’t know who’s winning. In fact, it’s not just the refs who would find themselves in this predicament. A knowledgeable fan watching the game would also be able to tell you the score but not know who’s winning.
Congratulations to Ian who was the first to come up with the correct answer! Steve also did a great job of elaborating on Ian’s answer and coming up with a clear explanation of how this could happen in the NFL.
In the NHL when a goal is scored a red light behind the goal typically turns on, the referee points to the net to acknowledge the goal, play is stopped and the players celebrate.
At least this is what usually happens. However, sometimes a player will shoot the puck so hard into the net that it bounces out so fast that nobody is really sure if it’s a goal or not. In a blur of motion the referees are sometimes tricked into thinking that the puck bounced off a goalpost or perhaps even the goalie’s skate.
This happened a few weeks ago when Tyler Kennedy of the Pittsburgh Penguins appeared to have scored his first NHL goal. After Tyler Kennedy thought he had a goal he put his hands in the air to celebrate, only to watch as the play continued without any red light acknowledgement or referee confirmation. When a questionable “goal” like this occurs the referees will let the play continue until there’s a normal stoppage in play. At the next break in the action the referees will call “upstairs” (which is really a video replay booth in Toronto) to have the goal reviewed.
The problem is this: what if the next break in the play is caused by the other team scoring a goal? In this scenario both Team A and Team B believe they’ve scored a goal. If it turns out that Team A’s goal is illegitimate, then Team B’s goal stands. If, however, the video replay reveals that Team A’s goal is in fact a legal goal then everything that happened after that goal was scored is undone. Team B’s goal wouldn’t count, and the clock would be rolled back to the time the goal was scored.
While the referee is waiting to hear back from the video replay booth he would know that one of the two goals would count, but not know which one. In other words, he would know that the score was about to become 3-2 or 2-3 depending on which team’s goal was valid.
The referee can not tell you who is winning the fight.
He could just say the score, i.e. “three to two”, withholding any mention of team names, etc.
I’m not much of a hockey person, but in baseball the score gives the winning team away by the order it’s announced – visiting team is always first, with the home team second. If this is true in the NHL, then I think it would probably be the championship game where neither team is playing on their home field.
I asked my wife… the NHL junkie. The only thing that came to her mind is “maybe one team scored on itself, but that would count for the other team.”
One of the goals could be under contention, or in the process of being disallowed.
Michael, I’m coming up with a lot of horrible answers that revolve around the referee being blind and deaf. I have a question: is this situation particular to hockey, or could you substitute another sport?
I say overtime shoot out. The ref could tell you the score of the actual game but not whose winning because its a shootout, the goals don’t count until the final shot is made. Therefore, he cannot tell you who is winning because its a tie even though one team may have more goals in the shoot out over the other.
I’m glad you put this up because I think I’m the only person I know, out of my friends, who watches hockey and loves hockey more than the other sports. If you’re an Islanders or Penguins fan, I’m sorry, Flyers fan all the way and it behooves me to be obnoxious about it because I’m from Philadelphia.
A tie. Any tie. The start of the game for instance. Random guy “Whats the score?” Ref: “Zero Zero.” Random guy “Who’s winning?” Ref “Are you high…?” Any time the points are even the ref can tell you the score, but because no one is winning, he can not tell you someone is winning. First half, second half, overtime it doesn’t matter. No one is winning if the score is tied.
When looking at a replay of an empty net goal to see if a goal scored. If the pucked scored during a previously tied game (2-2), he could relay that the goal was scored and the score was 3-2… but because it was empty net and the replays at the goal line are very close, might not be able to see, simply from the replay, whose goal the puck went into.
There has been a close call at one end of the ice where it is possible that the puck may have crossed the line, but the play continued and a goal was scored at the other end of the rink. At the stoppage for the goal the close call is being examined via the video replay. Depending on the out come of the replay either team would be ahead by one goal
Given the example that there is a shot on goal against the Penguins which appears deflected, it is then returned immediately for a goal against the Islanders. However on video review of the stop on goal, it appears that the puck crossed the goal line, it would then be the case that one team or the other HAD scored, but it was yet to be determined which team it was.
The NFL example would be a fumble on a pass reception in the endzone returned for a touchdown. If the fumble is ruled legal, one team scored, if the player is ruled as being down, the other scores.
OK, I’ve been coming back for a week. Is there an answer?
I think Ian and Steve have it. Assuming the second goal was fairly clear-cut, then we know that there was exactly one goal scored, we just don\’t know which team will get it.
Good puzzle!
Hmmm…
Upon further review, I will have to dispute your answer
The scenario: The game between Pittsburgh and Toronto is tied 2-2 and Tyler Kennedy comes down and shoots what looks like a goal but the ref waives it off and says no goal and Toronto comes down the other way and Jason Blake (who always freakin scores against the penguins) blows one by Marc-Andre Fleury. Before the puck is dropped for the Blake goal, upstairs (ie the NHL Office) calls in and says the Kennedy shot is under review. If you were to ask the ref at that time – he should tell you the score is 3-2 Toronto – because that is reflective of the calls that were made by the officials on the ice. (If he’s a nice guy he may tell you “However there is a review going on that may change the score”).
The reason for this is because what upstairs is doing will reverse the
call, until that moment that the call is officially reversed what is
called on the ice is “official”. A referee on the ice is instructed to
always make a call one way or the other (goal/no goal) and that is
considered official unless it has been reversed – but until it is
reversed – what the referee called is official.
Two main reasons for this: 1) The referee is talking to the head office
) – if communication can’t be restored in
and the phone call drops (you’ve seen the cingular ads – a drop call
makes a world of difference
a reasonable amount of time (I believe it’s at the refs discretion)what
was called on the ice stands. 2) When the replay is inconclusive (or
the video replay is inaccessible) what was called on the ice by the
referee stands.
If you’re ever at a game where this happens (or watch it on tv) the home team is instructed to put the score on the board — In the case above while the call was being reviewed the score board at Mellon Arena would show 3-2 Toronto and then once the referee got notification from the head office they would then switch the scoreboard to 3-2 Pittsburgh.
What if the review showed both of the play’s goals didn’t count? One was a goal post, the other puck never crossed the goal line in its entirety. The ref didn’t signal goal on either play. Then the score would be 2-2. Once a call goes to Toronto it is out of the ref’s hands.
I have to dispute Steve’s interpretation of when it happens in the NFL — if a player fumbles the ball in the end zone, regardless of whether it was a run or a pass, they had control of the ball in the end zone, and thus it’s a touchdown(similarly, players stretch out to get past the plane of goal line, ignoring the fact that they’re much more likely to fumble when doing so, because once the ball crosses the plane, it’s a touchdown.).
What’s theoretically possible, I suppose, is that a pass goes through someone’s hands, and someone else intercepts it, then returns it for a touchdown — one team would say that the receiver had control of the ball long enough for it to be a touchdown, and the other would say that it was an incomplete pass up until the point it was intercepted.
And, of course, Rich’s niggling answer would be correct in the NFL case, too.
Also, I suppose that someone in the NBA could very quickly rebound an attempted three-pointer off the rim, make a full-court shot from that spot, and get called for goal-tending.
I don’t know NBA review rules well enough to be able to tell you if that sort of a thing is reviewable or not, and I find it unlikely that the whistle wouldn’t have been blown by the time the rebounding player got the shot off.