View Single Post
Old
05-03-2007, 09:18 PM
  #72
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,261
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dirwoodian View Post
The frontal picture is obsolete i believe because you cannot tell from that distance how much space is between the pad where the puck hit and the line..The depth perception will give you the illusion. So IMO, it was over the line, but the proof was not there to overrule the call (i even said that during the review, and im a sabres fan). A side view im sure would end any doubts to this weither it was a goal or not and since there wasnt any, were all stuck with what we believe.
Plus we wouldnt have deserved it even if it counted, and we didnt even deserve game 2. I feel our guys are looking past the rangers at the cup and not focusing on the task at hand...darn presidents trophy got to our head..Well heres to a good game 5!
That would be an important point if the bottom of the pad (part on the ice) wasn't the farthest part back into the net, but it was. And there is no depth perception trick at work here unless you're ray charles because the only part you can see white between the bottom of the pad and the red line is the toe of the pad and as you can tell from any of the pictures or the video itself at any zoom level that the puck did not hit the toe.

I'm just debating this because we had 2 nights to kill without hockey, but I would like to hear a solid point counteracting the evidence, not just bs that people keep posting who obviously didn't even examine the photos.

vladmyir111 is offline   Reply With Quote