The Buttman theory
View Single Post
05-05-2007, 08:35 AM
Join Date: Mar 2006
Originally Posted by
Not that I'm upset, or anything, because I don't care either way. It's hockey. It's not perfect. Calls are missed in every aspect of the game.
However, my point is this; If the puck is clearly crossing the line, and Lundy's leg is clearly way behind the line, and we accept the puck is most likely moving faster than his leg, wouldn't it cover the distance of crossing the goal line faster than his leg can cross the distance from behind the line, to the line???
It's physics, and that, to me made it a goal.
Of course, I didn't think the Rangers should have lost a goal to a kick that was actually a leg bearing down to make a stop.
its easy to assume that its a goal, but it can't be overturned on assumptions. There has to be clear visual evidence that the puck crossed the line and this does not mean applying physics or assuming that the puck was traveling faster then the pad. doesn't matter.
Do I think it was a goal? Probably.
But its over now, and since that the call of no goal was made on the ice and there was no substantial video evidence to prove otherwise, the call stood.
should the league look to make improvements on video replay? Hell Freaking Yes. Just going by the past few series alone, there should be a camera with a faster frame rate from more locations than just the over head angle. and seeing as how the goal call is over and done with, the debate on how to make it better and more accurate should be the only one going on right now.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Staggarelli