That call was garbage. It didnt even look like it was a matter of centimetres. It looked like atleast a solid inch.
- vancity787

The puck was already lifting up, giving gap/white underneath


And this picture isnt timed properly, but the video shows the overhead didnt indicate it was in either

The puck was already lifting up, giving gap/white underneath


And this picture isnt timed properly, but the video shows the overhead didnt indicate it was in either

- WhiteLie

The first photo would only be relevant if the camera was right at ice-level (i.e which would then allow 'white' to be seen from underneath) but it isn't right at ice-level. And this particular frame is not the best shot of the puck being behind the line. You need to let the video run further along to see it properly. The second photo doesn't show anything, either way.

And yes, the puck is wobbling but it is NOT standing on end, that is clearly obvious. Which means that it crossed the goal line (wobbling but nonetheless fairly flat). It's very clear in the video below (at the 57 second mark - or with 7 seconds remaining, as they have the time setting backwards)

https://ca.sports.yahoo.c...ew---video-043814535.html

The first photo would only be relevant if the camera was right at ice-level (i.e which would then allow 'white' to be seen from underneath) but it isn't right at ice-level. The second photo doesn't show anything, either way.

And yes, the puck is wobbling but it is NOT standing on end, that is clearly obvious. Which means that it crossed the goal line (wobbling but nonetheless fairly flat). It's very clear in the video below

https://ca.sports.yahoo.c...ew---video-043814535.html
- Zogg

Are you replacing Nucker as our new resident Flames fan? If so, you might have to change your avatar.

Are you replacing Nucker as our new resident Flames fan? If so, you might have to change your avatar.
- CubanBuffet

no, I don't like the Flames and was actually hoping they would get their ass kicked; however, I'm a fan of hockey and ensuring the right call(s) are made. That could have been any team and they would now be down 3-0 and virtually finished

The first photo would only be relevant if the camera was right at ice-level (i.e which would then allow 'white' to be seen from underneath) but it isn't right at ice-level. The second photo doesn't show anything, either way.

And yes, the puck is wobbling but it is NOT standing on end, that is clearly obvious. Which means that it crossed the goal line (wobbling but nonetheless fairly flat). It's very clear in the video below

https://ca.sports.yahoo.c...ew---video-043814535.html
- Zogg

The end of that video shows it with one end off the ice as it hits the pad, regardless of how slight, from that angle itll appear in

This shows a flat one and the differences it shows http://www.thehockeynews....as-a-goal-check-this-out/

Now I think its too close to say goal or not, but I certainly dont think it was an obvious/brutal call

we don't need any more Pilons. We already have Beiksa and Sbisa for that.

The end of that video shows it with one end off the ice as it hits the pad, regardless of how slight, from that angle itll appear in

This shows a flat one and the differences it shows http://www.thehockeynews....as-a-goal-check-this-out/

Now I think its too close to say goal or not, but I certainly dont think it was an obvious/brutal call
- WhiteLie

I already saw that experiment (I think Vantel posted). You will note, however, that in this experiment there is VERY little white being shown in the first photo. In the actual play, there is a LOT of white showing which would debunk this experiment/theory. In other words, if there was just a sliver of white showing then I could perhaps agree with this 'angle' perspective but there was a huge chunk of 'white' in the actual video. Such a large portion of white couldn't be reconciled with this particular angle theory.

<<<< see how tiny the amount of white being shown right where the red line almost meets the puck. Nowhere near the same as is actually shown in the video. And moreover, the camera on the ice was quite a ways further back - there is no way you could see this tiny amount of white from even 10-15 feet away yet we see a large chunk from a camera that is at least twice that distance.

no, I don't like the Flames and was actually hoping they would get their ass kicked; however, I'm a fan of hockey and ensuring the right call(s) are made. That could have been any team and they would now be down 3-0 and virtually finished
- Zogg

That's hockey though. No matter how the technology evolves so much of the game will still come down to judgement calls, which are sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and almost always controversial.

Frankly, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I thought that calling coincidental minors on Stajan's (Stagan?) goaltender interference was worse.

I would not mind if we traded our pick and a prospect or player for Fluery or Sanheim
- VANTEL

I think it would take a lot for hextall to trade sanhiem

That's hockey though. No matter how the technology evolves so much of the game will still come down to judgement calls, which are sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and almost always controversial.

Frankly, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I thought that calling coincidental minors on Stajan's (Stagan?) goaltender interference was worse.
- CubanBuffet

That call was also egregious. It was your typical 'make-up' call which I always hate. Just call the game correctly and you won't have to resort to these cheap tactics.

I agree, hockey is a difficult sport to officiate and a lot of calls are controversial as you noted, but there nonetheless has to be consistency and a focus on continued improvement to the standards of quality. Otherwise there is no point in even having either the technology or referees, for that matter.

Well that was painful, Fall Protection Training, what's the good word today?

Well that was painful, Fall Protection Training, what's the good word today?
- LeftCoaster

We are all going to Die and we are going to hell except Beatle John who will live beneath the waves in an octopuses garden.

I think it would take a lot for hextall to trade sanhiem
- Ross77

Can we interest you in Sbisa who was also a first round pick and has a reasonable cap hit

We are all going to Die and we are going to hell except Beatle John who will live beneath the waves in an octopuses garden.
- VANTEL

Sweet - but just an FYI even for Beattle John...none of us are getting outta here alive

Did Nucker get ahold of Benning, with all his experience, and set him straight on who to draft?

Did Nucker get ahold of Benning, with all his experience, and set him straight on who to draft?
- LeftCoaster

Gullzy has a spare ticket to the town hall meeting we all suggested Nucker to go.


I can hear Nucker in his Frank Costanza voice ask Benning" Why the hell did you trade Ryan Kesler"

Gullzy has a spare ticket to the town hall meeting we all suggested Nucker to go.


I can hear Nucker in his Frank Costanza voice ask Benning" Why the hell did you trade Ryan Kesler"
- VANTEL

Yes, the puck was almost certainly in. As Vantel says, the sticking point here is the lack of incontrovertible evidence.

Did you look at the Jason Kay piece that I linked to? He illustrates pretty clearly why the angle from the left that we saw is not a sure thing—and why the war room must have the overhead view in order to overturn a call.
- Carol Schram

I love the English language. She has no inhabitions of letting one have their way with her.

Healy sounds crusty tonight

If that goal missed call would've cost Calgary the series then perhaps we should take a look at the actual standard that they use to judge/review. Maybe 'inconclusive' is too high of a standard. Everyone seems to agree that the puck was in the net yet we are hamstrung by this absolute. Perhaps it should be 'based on the preponderance of evidence' so that it is more in line with a reasonable and not absolute judgement (this is not a criminal court). I don't want to see teams getting eliminated because of a bad call or non-call. It's fortunate that Calgary was able to score, otherwise I'm sure there would have been some very angry (and rightfully so) fans.

I maintain that puck was in the net - and it was clear from TWO angles - the close up one and the one where they showed Andersen using the kick save - clearly and 'conclusively' over the line on both counts. Let's just get the call right and nevermind the semantics
- Zogg

Gullzy has a spare ticket to the town hall meeting we all suggested Nucker to go.


I can hear Nucker in his Frank Costanza voice ask Benning" Why the hell did you trade Ryan Kesler"
- VANTEL

Ok, just for sh*ts and giggles, I used photoshop to try and isolate the one frame in particular which shows the puck across the line.


https://www.dropbox.com/s...0crossing%20line.jpg?dl=0

You will note the puck is NOT on end but relatively flat

Ok, just for sh*ts and giggles, I used photoshop to try and isolate the one frame in particular which shows the puck across the line.


https://www.dropbox.com/s...0crossing%20line.jpg?dl=0

You will note the puck is NOT on end but relatively flat


- Zogg

It's in - you're missing two good games!!

It's in - you're missing two good games!!
- LeftCoaster

It's in - you're missing two good games!!
- LeftCoaster

I'm obsessed...but yes, I am catching the games, some great action!