St. Louis Blues fan, angry over missed call, hopes to raise money for blind |

St. Louis Blues fan, angry over missed call, hopes to raise money for blind

Jonathan Bombulie
St. Louis Blues goaltender Jordan Binnington (50) and defenseman Alex Pietrangelo (27) argue against the winning goal by the San Jose Sharks in overtime of Game 3 of the NHL hockey Stanley Cup Western Conference final series Wednesday, May 15, 2019, in St. Louis. The Sharks won 5-4 to take a 2-1 lead in the series.

An angry St. Louis Blues fan is trying to turn the pain of a blown call that cost his team a playoff game Wednesday night into a fundraiser.

John Randall, a fan from Chesterfield, Mo., has started a GoFundMe page in honor of Marc Joanette, the referee who missed a blatant hand pass that led to an Erik Karlsson goal and a 5-4 overtime win for the San Jose Sharks in Game 3 of the Western Conference finals.

He is asking for donations, hoping to raise $7,000 for the St. Louis Society for the Blind and Visually Impaired.

Meanwhile, in New Jersey, a sportsbook is refunding money bet on the Blues to win the game. The book calls the refund a “Good Karma Payout.”

“The Sharks have been the beneficiary of a few questionable calls throughout the playoffs, which probably only further incensed Blues backers,” CEO Johnny Aitken said via Twitter. “Hopefully this Good Karma Payout eases their frustrations a bit.”

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jonathan by email at [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | NHL
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.