HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Flames fans: Stop whining!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-07-2004, 01:20 AM
  #1
Hemsky4PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Billeting Ales
Posts: 6,647
vCash: 500
Flames fans: Stop whining!

Is it just me or are a lot of media people and fans out of line by saying Calgary got screwed in game 6. I'm sure you all know the play, off Gelinas skate and stopped by Khabibulin but "one" replay showed that the puck "may" have crossed the line.

I think the puck was clearly in the air at the time and anyone with any knowledge of perception knows that a 2 dimensional image does not always show the reality of a 3 dimensional world. Only an overhead angle or angle from behind the goal line, not in front of it, can give conclusive evidence.

From what I've seen I don't think it was a goal. At worst the evidence is inconclusive an the cry babies should suck it up.

Hemsky4PM is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 01:35 AM
  #2
The Rage
Registered User
 
The Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stamford Bridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemsky4PM
Is it just me or are a lot of media people and fans out of line by saying Calgary got screwed in game 6. I'm sure you all know the play, off Gelinas skate and stopped by Khabibulin but "one" replay showed that the puck "may" have crossed the line.

I think the puck was clearly in the air at the time and anyone with any knowledge of perception knows that a 2 dimensional image does not always show the reality of a 3 dimensional world. Only an overhead angle or angle from behind the goal line, not in front of it, can give conclusive evidence.

From what I've seen I don't think it was a goal. At worst the evidence is inconclusive an the cry babies should suck it up.
Under normal circumstances, I would say that they are just whining. However, I have to admit that I would be whining too if it was my team that was one controversial non-goal away from the cup...

The Rage is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 01:46 AM
  #3
Hemsky4PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Billeting Ales
Posts: 6,647
vCash: 500
Accept that they are still "one goal away". Just score one more than Tampa in game 7. There's no guarantee Tampa wouldn't have scored to send game six into OT anyway. I'm just miffed that the media is using this so-called controversy to sell papers and get people mad. There's WAY less to be upset about in this one than there was in Buffalo 99.

Hemsky4PM is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 01:51 PM
  #4
vb
Registered User
 
vb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,261
vCash: 500
The NHL should enforce a rule where there are at least 3 cameras on the plane of the goal line - one from the top and one from each side. No exceptions and they must have the posts exactly in line with each other/goal line so that even a monkey make these calls.

While they are at, they should have a wide angle camera to cover the plane of the cross bar to see if shots are deflected in with high sticks.

vb is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 01:58 PM
  #5
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,868
vCash: 500
As a canuck fan who witnessed the "goal" by Otto, or should I say his skate , in the 89 game 7 overtime, that led the Flames to their first Cup, I can only smile about this...

to me it's payback

NFITO is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 04:19 PM
  #6
hockeyaddict101
Registered User
 
hockeyaddict101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 19,905
vCash: 500
Sutter admits is was inconclusive

and he saw both replays. The one on CBC and the one on ABC.

Time to move on, though I really think it the media more than the fans that are stirring this one up.

hockeyaddict101 is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 04:24 PM
  #7
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
The problem is that the more the media brings it up, the more the fans are going to buy into it.

I mean fans everywhere are convinced Sutter was bang on when he said the NHL doesn't want Calgary to win, so this is just tossing more fuel onto the fire.

I swear to god, I am going to lose it if I hear about the "non-goal" for the next 15 years if Tampa Bay ends up winning.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 04:59 PM
  #8
creative giant*
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemsky4PM
Is it just me or are a lot of media people and fans out of line by saying Calgary got screwed in game 6. I'm sure you all know the play, off Gelinas skate and stopped by Khabibulin but "one" replay showed that the puck "may" have crossed the line.

I think the puck was clearly in the air at the time and anyone with any knowledge of perception knows that a 2 dimensional image does not always show the reality of a 3 dimensional world. Only an overhead angle or angle from behind the goal line, not in front of it, can give conclusive evidence.

From what I've seen I don't think it was a goal. At worst the evidence is inconclusive an the cry babies should suck it up.
absolutely. there is no doubt that that puck flipped up in the air. the cbc guys are going "and you can clearly see that it's in the net". its clearly inconclusive is what it is. from the angle they were showing, which looked to be a couple of rows up in the stands, the puck would have to be WAY deeper in the net than the little sliver of white ice that was shown to actually be in the net. sometimes those flames fans......... :mad:

creative giant* is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 06:08 PM
  #9
mackdogs*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Van, left coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 907
vCash: 500
Inconclusive and possibly kicked in. I agree with you, Flames fans are acting like they've already lost game 7.

mackdogs* is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 06:26 PM
  #10
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,100
vCash: 500
first off, it wasn't kicked in. There has to be a clear kicking motion and gelina's skate was sideways as he was stopping.

Secondly, I think the fans are not upset that it wasn't called a goal. They were mad because there didn't seem to be a review. The play just carried on and then the next play started. It wasn't the decision, it was the fact that they never looked at all the replays to make a decision before carrying on with the game.

thirdly, I have a housefull of screeming teenagers at my house cheering on the flames tonight. this run has been a lot of fun for the city. I was lucky enough to be at two oiler parades but Edmonton has never been this turned on. I hope they do it just so every albertain can talk a little smack to the leaf or canuck fans who wonder over to this site.

Mr Sakich is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 06:38 PM
  #11
USC Trojans
I have a plan.
 
USC Trojans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LA Oiler fan
Posts: 11,810
vCash: 500
yeah, Flames fans...stop whining!!!

and also...stop winning!!! :mad:

USC Trojans is offline  
Old
06-08-2004, 01:20 PM
  #12
Walsher
Registered User
 
Walsher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,339
vCash: 500
That was definately no goal. Sure you could see white ice, but the puck was on end in the air and the camera angle was not even level with the goal line. Flames fans must be taking after Iginla who has in himself turned into a huge whiner the likes of which are only found in TO. Boo hoo - 5 cups to one still and never a doubt in my mind. Bottom line the Flames are still losers!

Walsher is offline  
Old
06-08-2004, 01:31 PM
  #13
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
I am confused about one thing...

On the Ference penalty, WTF was Iginla arguing about? He had his back to it when Gelinas hit St. Louis, so how on earth could he stand there and argue it when he didn't even see it?

Edit: I had Marty on the brain!


Last edited by dawgbone: 06-08-2004 at 01:36 PM.
dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-08-2004, 01:35 PM
  #14
Walsher
Registered User
 
Walsher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,339
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
I am confused about one thing...

On the Gelinas penalty, WTF was Iginla arguing about? He had his back to it when Gelinas hit St. Louis, so how on earth could he stand there and argue it when he didn't even see it?
Do you mean the Ferrence penalty in game 7? I know what you mean. St Louis had 2 cuts on his face from the high stick if it wasn't charging. Iginla whine all playoffs and I distinctly remember him being a complete idiot during an Oilers Flames game this year at home that I was at. He was and has become a true whiner.

Walsher is offline  
Old
06-08-2004, 01:38 PM
  #15
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walsher
Do you mean the Ferrence penalty in game 7? I know what you mean. St Louis had 2 cuts on his face from the high stick if it wasn't charging. Iginla whine all playoffs and I distinctly remember him being a complete idiot during an Oilers Flames game this year at home that I was at. He was and has become a true whiner.
LOL... yeah...

I looked at your post and said "Well yeah I said Ference cause I meant Ference"... then I looked and saw that I had put Gelinas... meh.

And I actually think Fraser was being nice... if he had called high sticking, which was the real call, that would have been a 4 minute penalty, not 2.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
06-08-2004, 08:20 PM
  #16
mrush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 219
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
LOL... yeah...

I looked at your post and said "Well yeah I said Ference cause I meant Ference"... then I looked and saw that I had put Gelinas... meh.

And I actually think Fraser was being nice... if he had called high sticking, which was the real call, that would have been a 4 minute penalty, not 2.
yah true cause if Calgary did manage to tie it, tampa would have like 2:30 of pp time for the first OT so Fraser was being nice.

mrush is offline  
Old
06-08-2004, 10:05 PM
  #17
kruezer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 6,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walsher
That was definately no goal. Sure you could see white ice, but the puck was on end in the air and the camera angle was not even level with the goal line. Flames fans must be taking after Iginla who has in himself turned into a huge whiner the likes of which are only found in TO. Boo hoo - 5 cups to one still and never a doubt in my mind. Bottom line the Flames are still losers!
I hate to do this Walsh, but I think you know what all the Flames fans are going to say to this. I'll hold my tongue

kruezer 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 02:05 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.