Did the puck cross the line, or not?
That’s what the hockey world is furiously debating after the Edmonton Oilers fell to the Anaheim Ducks in Game 4 with a controversial overtime loss Sunday night. Ryan Poehling scored 2:29 into overtime, and the Ducks pushed Connor McDavid and the Oilers to the brink of first-round elimination with a 4-3 victory.
But the issue — as observers, players and commentators are arguing — is that the puck under goaltender Tristan Jarry’s skate was ruled a goal despite none of the on-ice officials having a clear sightline.
The call on the ice — that the goal was good — triggered an automatic review by the league. In order to overturn the call, the NHL situation room would have needed conclusive evidence that the puck didn’t cross the goal line, according to Sportsnet. The call was confirmed, leaving Edmonton trailing the series with Anaheim 3-1.
The controversy has reignited the debate over whether the NHL should follow other leagues like Major League Baseball, which just starting using the Automated Ball-Strike (ABS) challenge system, and tennis, which uses electronic line calling, to embrace new tech when making calls.
“I just don’t understand how, without someone behind the net, you can say that that’s a good goal,” NHL insider Elliotte Friedman said during a Sportsnet broadcast after the game.
“This is another call for some sort of tracking technology that can solve this problem for everybody.”
A common thread in the debates about the call is that goal-line technology could have eliminated the need for a debate at all.
The NHL has used Sony’s Hawk-Eye technology for the past decade as part of Synchronized Multi-Angle Replay Technology (SMART) services in every team’s arena to make replay reviews and coach’s challenges faster and more accurate.
But as The Associated Press notes, the same technology that has become omnipresent in tennis and soccer to determine whether the ball is in or out or if it crossed the line has evolved to the point that it could help hockey officials and the league’s situation room make more precise calls for close plays.
Yet the NHL hasn’t adopted fully automated goal‑line technology.
right call was made imo, because it does look like the puck fully crossed the line based on the angles we saw. <br><br>but unless there were more telling angles, a no goal call may have stood because you can’t overturn without definitive proof. goal line tech would be clutch here. <a href=”https://t.co/BKwHQNkZQB”>https://t.co/BKwHQNkZQB</a>
Common sense says it’s a goal, but common sense shouldn’t decide games, The Athletic’s Shayna Goldman wrote on X. The sentiment was echoed by other observers, including hockey journalist Jim Parsons, who wrote that logic alone is not supposed to be enough to determine such a critical call in a “potential series-changing decision.”
Goal‑line technology might have provided an immediate, objective confirmation about whether the puck fully crossed the line, especially with no referee behind the net and limited sightlines on the play, explained Laurel Walzak, an associate professor and the director of the Global Experiential Sports and Entertainment Lab at Toronto Metropolitan University.
But that’s not how the NHL’s rules or review system operate today, she said. And in Sunday’s game, Hockey Operations determined that the officials’ call was conclusive.
“For that reason, I do not believe goal‑line technology would have changed the outcome,” Walzak told CBC News.
“In fact, I think it would have supported what both the officials on the ice and the situation room ultimately saw and confirmed.”
Olympic organizers roll out new AI tools for Paris 2024
Last June, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman was questioned about when the league might be able to use tracking technology. “When we’re certain that it works,” he replied.
“We’re closer — we keep getting closer,” NHL executive vice-president of business development and innovation David Lehanski said at the time.
Hockey presents unique challenges, like the speed of the puck, the constant movement of players and officials, and the reality that player equipment often blocks sightlines, explained Walzak.
“AI tools could eventually support this process, but they shouldn’t necessarily replace it,” she said.
Technology and AI are already reshaping officiating by improving accuracy, reducing human bias and enhancing fairness, Walzak said. In tennis, for instance, line‑calling technology has replaced human judgment and reduced line disputes.
The system uses AI to analyze footage from 18 cameras set up along the court, according to Reuters. Wimbledon adopted the technology in 2025, joining most other top tennis tournaments that had already made the change.
But the system also malfunctioned during a quarter-final match between Taylor Fritz and Karen Khachanov that year, requiring a point to be replayed.
Still, other leagues are embracing the technology. MLB rolled out the Automated Ball-Strike (ABS) challenge system this season, with pitchers, catchers and hitters on both teams able to appeal the home plate umpire’s called balls and strikes to a computer system.
Meanwhile, the NFL started using Sony’s Hawk-Eye technology to measure first downs during last year’s preseason, English soccer’s Premier League introduced semi-automated offside technology for the first time in April and Major League Pickleball is introducing electronic line-calling for its matches this season.
There are important considerations around how much technology should be used before it interferes with the rules, the flow and the spirit of the game, Walzak said.
AI isn’t 100 per cent reliable, and if it’s not trained with high-quality data, it simply won’t measure the game the way a human official does, she said.
Plus, it can create new controversies.
“Fans would be just as upset if an automated system made a controversial call,” Walzak said.
“And with sport, emotion is part of the experience. AI isn’t going to change how fans feel in the moment or how passionately they defend the team they love.”
#TheMoment hockey fans watched the playoffs in a Quebec cathedral
