Picture this: In the high-stakes world of NHL overtime, a goal that splits fans and sparks heated debates, leaving even seasoned hockey enthusiasts scratching their heads. But here's where it gets controversial—the Wild's victory-clinching shot, scored with the net completely out of position, has the Predators fuming and questioning the very rules of the game. Dive in as we unpack this bizarre play that could redefine how we think about fair play on the ice.
Greg Wyshynski, ESPN's senior NHL writer, brings us the details from November 5, 2025, at 12:35 AM ET.
The Nashville Predators were adamant that an unusual overtime goal by the Minnesota Wild, scored with the net dislodged, shouldn't have stood as valid. On Tuesday night, Wild forward Kirill Kaprizov passed the puck across the crease to teammate Marcus Johansson right as Predators goalie Justus Annunen inadvertently nudged the net off its moorings. Johansson's initial shot struck the side of the net as it began to slide away, but he retrieved the puck and backhanded it over the goal line and off the end boards, all while the cage was still displaced.
Officials signaled a goal at 3:38 of overtime, and after a thorough NHL video review, it was confirmed. Minnesota secured a 3-2 win, bouncing back from a dramatic moment when Nashville's Steven Stamkos equalized with just 0.3 seconds remaining in regulation time.
Nashville coach Andrew Brunette summed up the team's frustration, saying, 'The explanation was that, in his opinion, it was a goal. I disagree with his opinion, but that's the way it is.'
Stamkos, the star player, voiced his displeasure post-game, describing it as a truly odd sequence. 'Obviously, a weird play. I can see the confusion, but the confusing part for us was why it was so emphatically called a goal. I get it. Listen, the net came off. If the puck goes in right away, no problem if the net is off. But he missed the net, and the puck actually bounced back to him because the net was sideways,' he explained, highlighting the chaotic nature of the incident.
The NHL's Situation Room stood by the decision, ruling that Annunen had displaced the net before Johansson had a clear shot at scoring, and they referenced Rule 63.7 to support it. For those new to hockey rules, this regulation essentially states that if a defender accidentally or intentionally moves the goal post before the puck crosses the line in its normal spot, a goal can still be awarded—provided the attacking player was about to score, the post was shifted by a defender, and the puck would have entered between the usual posts. It's designed to prevent teams from gaining unfair advantages, like knocking the net off to block shots, but it can lead to these tricky calls.
To clarify for beginners, imagine the goal net as a fixed target in a game—much like a basketball hoop. If someone on defense jiggles the hoop just as you're about to shoot, and the ball still goes in somehow, the rule might let it count to keep things fair. In this case, the officials believed Johansson was on the verge of scoring when the net moved.
Stamkos, however, argued that the goal wasn't solely due to the displacement. 'I understand the net came off. I don't think there was any intent from our goaltender to knock it off—it came off twice today. From our vantage point, we thought the puck came back to him on the second attempt because the net was off. If not, the puck goes behind the net, and we live to fight another day. So, that's where we didn't agree with the call,' he elaborated, suggesting the net's position might have unfairly redirected the puck back to Johansson for a second chance.
Brunette echoed this, insisting his goalie didn't mean to dislodge it. 'I don't think just by the physics of pushing that's what he was trying to do. I thought they missed the net. If the net didn't dislodge, you would have ended up hitting the net,' he noted. 'Unfortunately, they didn't see it the same way. And you move on.'
And this is the part most people miss: Is this rule outdated in an era of instant replays and high-speed cameras? Some argue it protects offensive plays, while others say it can feel like rewarding luck over skill. For example, think of similar controversies in sports history, like a soccer goal allowed after a bizarre bounce—does the spirit of the game matter more than strict enforcement?
This victory marked the Wild's second consecutive win, boosting them to a 5-6-3 record. Meanwhile, Nashville fell to 5-6-4, dropping their second straight overtime contest.
Looking back, Stamkos reflected, 'We deserved a lot better, for sure. One of our best games of the season, for sure.'
Now, here's where controversy really boils over: Should goals like this be allowed, or does it undermine the integrity of the sport? Was the Predators' goalie unfairly penalized for a split-second mistake, or did the Wild rightfully capitalize on a rule that favors the attacker in such scenarios? Some fans might see it as a smart play by Johansson, while others view it as a loophole that lets teams bend the rules. What do you think—does this call change how you feel about NHL officiating? Agree with the Predators' side, or back the Wild? Drop your thoughts in the comments below, and let's debate the finer points of hockey's rulebook!
