N/A · Reviewed by NHL · Published 2026-04-28
Based on a review by NHL (accessed 2026-04-28).
The overtime goal by Vegas was ultimately disallowed by the officials after a video review, as the rules expert confirmed the player's skate had broken the plane of the blue line before the puck entered the offensive zone, making the play offside.
The video provides an in-depth review and analysis of a controversial overtime goal in a hockey game between the Vegas Golden Knights and the Utah Mammoth. It features commentary and an expert opinion on the offside rule application, culminating in the official decision regarding the goal's legality.
The content provided focuses on a specific moment in an NHL game where a potential game-winning goal was disallowed due to an offside ruling. The discussion involves a detailed analysis of the rule and slow-motion replays to determine the exact timing of the puck and player's skate relative to the blue line. As this is a sports highlight, there is no product being reviewed, thus no product-specific verdict, pros, cons, or recommendations can be extracted from the transcript. The video's primary subject is the interpretation of hockey rules and the impact of the call on the game.
reviewer_claimstrong
reviewer_claimstrong
specification_claimstrong
reviewer_claimstrong
visual_inspectionneutralt=00:00–00:04
Vegas scores what appears to be a game-winning goal in overtime, leading to immediate celebration.
reviewer_claimneutralt=00:07–00:09
A commentator observes that the play was "so close to being offside at the Utah line."
reviewer_claimneutralt=00:10–00:16
Officials are reviewing the goal, and it's stated that there are no challenges allowed in overtime, meaning the decision will be made by Toronto.
expert_opinionneutralt=00:22–00:29
Rules expert Dave Jackson explains that a rule change a couple of years prior means the skate does not have to be on the ice for a play to be considered onside.
expert_opinionnegativet=00:29–00:34
Based on the initial visual, Dave Jackson indicates that the player's skate appears to have broken the plane of the blue line before the puck, suggesting an offside.
visual_inspectionneutralt=00:36–00:39
The broadcast shows a slowed-down, zoomed-in replay to meticulously examine the puck's position relative to the blue line and the player's skate.
reviewer_claimnegativet=00:50–00:51
After the review, the play was officially declared offside, resulting in no goal for Vegas.
The potential game-winning goal scored by the Vegas Golden Knights in overtime was initially celebrated but then underwent a video review for offside. After a thorough examination by officials, it was determined that the play was offside, and the goal was called back.
Rules expert Dave Jackson explained that a recent rule change clarifies that a player's skate does not need to maintain contact with the ice to be considered onside. The crucial factor is that the skate must not have crossed the leading edge of the blue line before the puck fully enters the offensive zone. In this case, the skate was judged to have broken that plane.
The commentators explicitly stated that in overtime periods, there are no coach's challenges available to dispute calls like offside. Instead, any questionable plays that require review are automatically sent to and decided by the central review team in Toronto.
30/100 source quality
In a crucial overtime period, a potential game-winning goal by the Vegas Golden Knights was scored and immediately put under review for an offside infraction. Commentators and a rules expert, Dave Jackson, provided a detailed breakdown of the play, focusing on the specific interpretation of the offside rule concerning the player's skate position relative to the blue line. Jackson clarified that the skate does not need to be on the ice, but must not break the plane of the blue line. After the review process, the goal was officially called back, leading to a sigh of relief for the opposing team's goalie.
Full transcript is not redistributed here to respect the original creator’s rights.
This page converts NHL's review of the N/A N/A (Not a Product Review) into structured evidence — timestamped claims, pros & cons, and buyer questions. It is not the original review and does not replace watching or reading the full source.
Brand relationship disclosed as: brand_owned