WASHINGTON, DC — The Washington Capitals fell to the Boston Bruins for the second time in eight days on Saturday, losing 3-2 in the shootout, but they came close to a potentially lengthy two-man advantage late in regulation that could have turned the tides.
With the Caps already up a man thanks to a boarding call from Nikita Zadorov, Mark Kastelic shot the puck over the glass from the Bruins’ defensive zone, a play the Capitals argued should be a delay-of-game penalty.
Several of the Capitals, including Alex Ovechkin and head coach Spencer Carbery were incensed when officials declined to issue a penalty, which would have given the Caps 54 seconds at five-on-three with the score tied. After the game, Carbery explained his side of the dispute.
“I went over this this summer, because this happened to us last year,” Carbery said. “So if you remember, they put a rule in place for it to be challengeable and I asked a specific question of, ‘Just call the penalty. Let the Boston Bruins challenge it.” But they say they need to be certain that it was a delay of game.
“My only issue with that is there’s four sets of eyeballs on the ice. Someone has to see that that goes straight out there. And they didn’t. So their argument is, ‘We can’t just call it and then expect Boston to challenge it. We have to have seen it.’ And that’s where it’s frustrating and unfortunate, that four guys don’t see that go out. One of the four guys to go like, ‘I have that going straight out,’ so they can’t call it.
“Which is frustrating, because it’s clear as day. I saw the broadcast was doing a bunch of replays on it, and it just it rolled up on them and goes straight out. And that puts us in a five-on-three. You would expect to score in that scenario.”
Kastelic shot the puck into the boards before it bounced off and ricocheted out of play, constituting a deflection that would not necessitate a penalty.
What counts as a penalizable puck over the glass is defined by NHL Rule 63: Delaying the Game:
63.2 Minor Penalty – A minor penalty for delay of game shall be imposed…
(iii) On any player who shoots or bats (using his hand or his stick) the puck directly (non-deflected) out of the playing surface from his defending zone, except where there is no glass. The determining factor shall be the position of the puck when it was shot or batted by the offending player. If contact with the puck occurs while the puck is inside the defending zone, and subsequently goes out of play, the minor penalty shall be assessed. When the puck is shot over the glass ‘behind’ the players’ bench, the penalty will be assessed;
NOTE: When the puck is shot into the players’ bench, the penalty will not apply. When the puck goes out of the playing area directly off a face-off, no penalty shall be assessed.
While the NHL began allowing penalized teams to challenge the call in the 2024-25 season, the Capitals could not challenge the lack of penalty.
Tom Wilson wasn’t as certain as Carbery when asked about the call.
“I had like five different people tell me 100% on both sides of it,” Wilson said. “I haven’t seen it with my own eyes. The linesman was pretty sure, but I heard broadcast was pretty sure. I heard our coaches say that it was straight out. So I don’t know.”
Ultimately, though, Wilson argued the Capitals shouldn’t have needed a five-on-three—or the nine-round shootout that decided the game—to secure a win.
“That was a weird one that way,” he said. “But, I mean, we have two power plays at the end of the game. At the end of the day, we’ve got to score a goal there. It’s not good enough. We have the game on our stick. We’re supposed to be the guys that can make it happen, and we don’t.”
