HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL is trying to rob the Flames : Non Goal (all that talk here plz)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-05-2004, 11:16 PM
  #26
chris_dub
Avoid Catalina...
 
chris_dub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,975
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to chris_dub
If it was such an obvious goal, then how come no Calgary Flame made any attempt to contest it?

NHL is robbing the Flames...right...

chris_dub is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:16 PM
  #27
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
It takes more time than they took to look at more than one angle. Sure, after you look at all the angles, you might see only one that showed the puck, but you still have to cue up and look at all of them to make sure.

You don't know until you've watched it from EVERY angle that only one angle is good. I just don't think they had time to do that. The puck got dropped and someone went, "Oops!"
If they felt there was possibly a goal scored, they would have called downstairs. They didn't. It is that simple.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:16 PM
  #28
Rschmitz
Registered User
 
Rschmitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tampa Bay
Country: United States
Posts: 4,559
vCash: 500
It looked in to me, but the puck was in the air which could have made it look further in than it actually was. They deffinatly should have taken more time to review it though..and then they'd have to try and decide whether Gelinas had a distinct kicking motion. Kill the conspiracy theory though

Rschmitz is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:17 PM
  #29
Youreallygotme
Registered User
 
Youreallygotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kelowna BC
Posts: 2,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
It doesn't have to be a distinct kicking motion to be a kick in my book. I think it would have counted because it was a legal kick, but the foot is moving forward and makes contact with the puck. It's a kick, just a legal one. Let's just say he accidentally kicked it, which in this context makes it legal. I never said it shouldn't have counted. Just that a puck off a foot moving towards the net is not how Stanley Cup games should end IMO.
i dont think being an accident makes it legal. just my opinion. I'll shut up now

Youreallygotme is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:18 PM
  #30
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
That didn't blow a Stanley Cup championship.
I never said it did, nor do I care. I was talking about bizzarre goals or no goals. Nothing tops LeClair's. The Gelinas play is different and doesn't happen often, but I never recall a goal like LeClair's.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:18 PM
  #31
The Frugal Gourmet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 2,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontifex Maximus
That didn't blow a Stanley Cup championship.
Neither did this one, actually. There was time left in a regulation when the goal/non-goal occurred.

The Frugal Gourmet is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:18 PM
  #32
Ironchef Chris Wok*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Red Sox Nation
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Ironchef Chris Wok*
I thought there was a rule that the video people can CALL DOWNSTAIRS.

Is this true or no?

Ironchef Chris Wok* is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:19 PM
  #33
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
If they felt there was possibly a goal scored, they would have called downstairs. They didn't. It is that simple.
Probably because they didn't look at it until ABC pointed it out.

I'm not crying conspiracy either. I think it was a mistake.

Silver is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:20 PM
  #34
The Frugal Gourmet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 2,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironchef Chris Wok
I thought there was a rule that the video people can CALL DOWNSTAIRS.

Is this true or no?
This is indeed true. Everything is supposed to be automatically reviewed by the upstairs. Although, I don't know for sure that they did. That particular puck was pretty much impossible to see with the naked eye, and I have no idea if they thought to even look at it in slo-mo (but they claimed they did).

The Frugal Gourmet is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:22 PM
  #35
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Frugal Gourmet
Neither did this one, actually. There was time left in a regulation when the goal/non-goal occurred.
Agreed, and no Calgary fan can say this cost them the game. Who is to say that that goal doesn't spark the Bolts who pot two in the final few minutes to win it. Each goal sets off a chain reaction that is unique.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:24 PM
  #36
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
Agreed, and no Calgary fan can say this cost them the game. Who is to say that that goal doesn't spark the Bolts who pot two in the final few minutes to win it. Each goal sets off a chain reaction that is unique.
Oh c'mon you're really reaching here.

Possible? Yep...but not bloody likely. I guess I could win the lottery tomorrow as well...but I'm not banking on it.

Silver is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:25 PM
  #37
The Frugal Gourmet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 2,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
Agreed, and no Calgary fan can say this cost them the game. Who is to say that that goal doesn't spark the Bolts who pot two in the final few minutes to win it. Each goal sets off a chain reaction that is unique.
Exactly. Teams play completely different hockey when down a goal. Hell, Tampa would've had at least a minute of desperation with their goalie pulled for the series. You *know* they'd throw everything at the net.

All I'm saying is, if we conjecture one way and say it was a goal, by no means do we just declare Calgary the Cup winners. That's complete B.S. as well IMO.

The Frugal Gourmet is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:28 PM
  #38
Leon Trotsky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 33
vCash: 500
Even Sutter called it a non-goal, so give it a rest. The NHL and the Flames see the play exactly the same way. Two angles showed it to be inconclusive.

Leon Trotsky is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:28 PM
  #39
SabresFan44
Registered User
 
SabresFan44's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,287
vCash: 500
stop

Stop whining flame fans.....the puck wasnt flat on its back, and it dont matter. Just enjoy nhl while its here its going away soon...game 7 upcomming, if the flames arent complaning about that kicked in non goal there complaning about refs and suspensions. Stop whining...
Now i'm going to enjoy game 7 and anjoy watching Brooke Hogan sing once again.....

And if anyone knows about being screwed it's us Sabre fans.
FLAMES WEREN'T SCREWED!

SabresFan44 is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:28 PM
  #40
The Frugal Gourmet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York, New York
Posts: 2,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
Oh c'mon you're really reaching here.

Possible? Yep...but not bloody likely. I guess I could win the lottery tomorrow as well...but I'm not banking on it.
Odds favor Calgary in this situation, but it's still silly to declare them winner had they gotten a lead in the 3rd. Team score one goal with 5 minutes left in regulation all the freaking time. It just takes one lucky bounce, mistake, or great play.

The Frugal Gourmet is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:29 PM
  #41
Liquidrage*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tallahassee
Posts: 2,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
Neither CBC or ABC has an angle that shows conclusive evidence that the puck was completely across the goal line.

The overhead shows nothing, same with the net cam. The side angle that shows the puck has possibilities for optical illusions incase the puck was in the air. That angle is not 100% conclusive evidence that puck was completely across the goal line.

Now please quit crying conspiracy.

Whatever Van.

People aren't idiots. ABC showed a freeze frame. The puck WAS over the line. The picture was frozen and the puck was over the line. That's it. Conspiracy doesn't matter. Calgary got screwed.

Liquidrage* is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:30 PM
  #42
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
Probably because they didn't look at it until ABC pointed it out.

I'm not crying conspiracy either. I think it was a mistake.
I don't by the conspiracy theory either, but I think the NHL did blow the call in that I don't think any review actually took place until CBC/ABC picked it up. My only theory is the NHL was face saving when they sent out their little memo to the broadcast saying how they reviewed it and it was inconclusive.

The sad thing is someone on the broadcast teams picked it up before league officials, you know, the guys trained to do this. Someone on the broadcast saw something that made them take a closer look, it makes you wonder about the competence.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:30 PM
  #43
SabresFan44
Registered User
 
SabresFan44's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Kelowna, BC
Posts: 3,287
vCash: 500
Liquid Rage read my last post....Flamers weren't screwed....typical leaf fan you are. WHINE, WHINE, WHINE

SabresFan44 is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:33 PM
  #44
Hockeypuck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquidrage
Whatever Van.

People aren't idiots. ABC showed a freeze frame. The puck WAS over the line. The picture was frozen and the puck was over the line. That's it. Conspiracy doesn't matter. Calgary got screwed.
Want some cheese with that wine?

Hockeypuck is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:34 PM
  #45
Siberian
Registered User
 
Siberian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Saint Pierre
Country: France
Posts: 3,539
vCash: 500
Gelinas goal=Carters goal against Sweden in 2003
Very similar goals, obviously IIHF has more credibility!

Siberian is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:35 PM
  #46
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquidrage
Whatever Van.

People aren't idiots. ABC showed a freeze frame. The puck WAS over the line. The picture was frozen and the puck was over the line. That's it. Conspiracy doesn't matter. Calgary got screwed.
The angle was from a side camera at an angular position. That angle cannot be used as clear evidence that the puck crossed the line. It needed to be backed up by an angle with no possibility of optical illusions.

How hard is that to understand?

The puck may look like it crossed the line, but that does not make it conclusive evidence.


As mentioned, the Calgary Flames even said that the NHL could not award a goal based on the camera angles they had.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:39 PM
  #47
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,004
vCash: 500
i'll convert the nieminen thread into a thread for his subject.

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.