Colin Dambrauskas: Playing Little Spoon to Andersen's Big Spoon

Go Ducks Go




Edit: oh wait...they're in the same division now too

I agree with you on the goal call Colin. I think the rule is sh it, and the puck probably was in, but with the way it was called on the ice there was not enough evidence to tell 100% it was in.

I see you've played knifey spooney before

Glad to see some Flames fans can agree with the call.


I for one, not only think it was the correct call, but i don't think the puck ever crossed the line.

The best angle on goal-line calls as always been the above angle, and from what i saw the puck never crossed the line from that angle.

Maybe it did, but i didn't see it.


Good luck flames. Love watching the way this team plays.

I see you've played knifey spooney before
- drexel

Glad to see some Flames fans can agree with the call.


I for one, not only think it was the correct call, but i don't think the puck ever crossed the line.

The best angle on goal-line calls as always been the above angle, and from what i saw the puck never crossed the line from that angle.

Maybe it did, but i didn't see it.


Good luck flames. Love watching the way this team plays.
- tweaver3312

If you watch the over head camera it doesn't really help, because if you look closely the net actually gets pushed back on its moorings and the crossbar actually moves behind the goal line.

Needless to say, the NHL has got to get some better freaking cameras. At least some super HD zoom sh it. The blown up images would probably help us determine the call but they are soooooo blurry!

Glad to see some Flames fans can agree with the call.


I for one, not only think it was the correct call, but i don't think the puck ever crossed the line.

The best angle on goal-line calls as always been the above angle, and from what i saw the puck never crossed the line from that angle.

Maybe it did, but i didn't see it.


Good luck flames. Love watching the way this team plays.
- tweaver3312

Well...it certainly (crossed) the line...just not completely.

Well...it certainly (crossed) the line...just not completely.
- Colin Dambrauskas

or did it?!

In or not, we can all agree that the league can do better at figuring out if the puck crosses the goal line.

Anyways, is Ferland concussed? Is Bouma close?

Go Flames! Go country!

In or not, we can all agree that the league can do better at figuring out if the puck crosses the goal line.

Anyways, is Ferland concussed? Is Bouma close?

Go Flames! Go country!




- Mr.Pink

find the centerpoint of the goal line, and make it much thinner, therefore more obvious if the puck is across or not

4-1 Flames!!!






Ducks are rattled as (frank)!!!!

The truly frustrating thing about about the Bennett goal that was, but wasn't, is that the ruling from the NHL was correct, according to the way the rules have been written.
As with many instances in pro-sports, and life in general, and especially law, when rules or procedures are established, a whole slew of "what ifs" and other potential situations are taken into consideration. What we end up with is rules that seem to make sense at the time and cover the vast majority of possible occurrences. There are exceptions to almost every rule and that is when a rule comes under scrutiny.
It's understandable why the rule was written that in order for an. On ice call to be overturned, or reversed, that there must be "conclusive evidence" to support the decision, but this doesn't account for common sense or even what is clearly obvious, but without actual "conclusive video evidence".
I've seen video reviews where a goalie apparently made a glove save and the puck is in the Web of the glove but the glove is behind the goal line, but because there is no clear video of exactly where the puck is in the glove and the puck can't be seen, it is still no goal. It's clear to any objective observer that the puck is actually past the goal line, but it can't be proven, so no goal.
That is what we had with the disallowed goal on Tuesday night. The video in slow motion which only shows "x" number of frames per second, only has a clear image of the puck, from the "misleading" angle so it is possible that there is snow build up covering the goal line making it appear to be all the way over the line, or the red line is painted 3 inches below the ice surface so it doesn't show a true picture of where the red line really is at the surface.
These are good arguments, but I've watched the replay quite a number of times where there are 2 or 3 frames prior to image where the puck is blurred and the goal pad is being struck and most definitely being depressed from impact, that the puck is absolutely across the line, regardless what angle you are looking from, but the puck isn't a clear image and thus it is inconclusive evidence.
As the rule is written, that is not a goal because it wasn't called a goal in the first place. Had it been signaled a goal, it would not have been overturned based on the same rule that it could be proven conclusively that the puck did not cross the line.

What is needed here is the ability for common sense to be used for situations that an obvious goal regardless of provable evidence can be called a goal, or the NHL needs to catch up with other sports that have embraced computer technology that can produce 3D images of a play and signal out the puck to determine goal, or no goal.

The best thing here is that Gaudreau tied it up, and Backlund scored in OT so it doesn't have to be as big a deal (for Flames fans)as the goal/no goal that game 6 of 04 was.

Even when they bring in technology that definitively shows if a puck is in or not, there will still be heated debates on some goals and whether the technology is true or not as well.

my prediction tonight...4-2 flames, empty netter

"NHL goalies are really good. If you don't shoulder them in the head, and if you don't create chaos around them, they're going to see the puck and most of the time they're going to stop it. The Flames did a better job of interfering with the goalie Tuesday." - Frederic Chabot

There, I fixed it for you. Ramo should be in for some contact tomorrow night. How will Calgary respond? Hell, if the refs are going to go back to calling it like a regular season game, who knows what is going to happen?

my prediction tonight...4-2 flames, empty netter
- Lucas Neilson

my prediction tonight...4-2 flames, empty netter
- Lucas Neilson

Is that including another BS disallowed goal or ANA getting away with an illegal goal? If so, then I agree.

"NHL goalies are really good. If you don't shoulder them in the head, and if you don't create chaos around them, they're going to see the puck and most of the time they're going to stop it. The Flames did a better job of interfering with the goalie Tuesday." - Frederic Chabot

There, I fixed it for you. Ramo should be in for some contact tomorrow night. How will Calgary respond? Hell, if the refs are going to go back to calling it like a regular season game, who knows what is going to happen?
- yzermaneely

Ahhh get over it. Would you like a tissue for that issue?

It was a wienerhead play but it payed off. If it cost you the series you have some reason to female dog but it did not, so just stop.

Should make for some bad blood, which makes the series more interesting, which is what I expect in the playoffs.

At this point the no goal is a non factor but one thing I have not seen commented on when using the overhead view is that the top of the pad is closer to the goal line then the bottom ...it's the crouch position ...it is very possible that the puck can be across the line when it hits the bottom of the pad but the top is blocking it ...just a thought

At this point the no goal is a non factor but one thing I have not seen commented on when using the overhead view is that the top of the pad is closer to the goal line then the bottom ...it's the crouch position ...it is very possible that the puck can be across the line when it hits the bottom of the pad but the top is blocking it ...just a thought
- Redmile247

Good point!

In the end at least it is not Game 6 of the finals. I don't think I could bare to live through that agian.

Good point!

In the end at least it is not Game 6 of the finals. I don't think I could bare to live through that agian.
- Mr.Pink

I'm not saying it was for sure in but the pad is at an angle so it's just as deceptive as the main angle we see

I don't know what your talking bout ...I was at game 6 and we won ..I even celebrated on the red mile after ...there was no game 7 in Tampa

"NHL goalies are really good. If you don't shoulder them in the head, and if you don't create chaos around them, they're going to see the puck and most of the time they're going to stop it. The Flames did a better job of interfering with the goalie Tuesday." - Frederic Chabot

There, I fixed it for you. Ramo should be in for some contact tomorrow night. How will Calgary respond? Hell, if the refs are going to go back to calling it like a regular season game, who knows what is going to happen?
- yzermaneely

Awwww

Ahhh get over it. Would you like a tissue for that issue?

It was a wienerhead play but it payed off. If it cost you the series you have some reason to female dog but it did not, so just stop.

Should make for some bad blood, which makes the series more interesting, which is what I expect in the playoffs.
- Mr.Pink

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that play, it's playoff hockey, let the boys play.
If Anaheim can cut out the bone-headed penalties, this will be over in 5. Calgary hasn't shown they can do anything 5 on 5 against the Ducks, but if Anaheim has another 8 penalty game then this is probably going 7.

Awwww

- Nucker101

I was going to do the same thing. You beat me to it, you ass funny person.