Again this pathetic arena has no ice level camera shots? Just ridiculous!
This is why the NHL is Mickey Mouse when compared to other pro leagues. EVERY arena should have mandatory camera views or face severe fines. This reminds me years ago were teams were ALL supposed to have the new seamless glass put in but some hesitated due to cost. Vancouver was one of these teams and in a playoof game Al Mcinnis had his shoulder seperated by Bertuzzi's check against the glass and missed the rest of the series.
Can you imagine if this was a playoff game?! They need to go back to the old rule of stick above the shoulders. That way you don't need to have the goal in the picture frame to decide.
Sportsnet doesn't have ice level cameras at both rink ends? Did Sportsnet not televise the game? FSN aside, I would think Canadian telecasts would have every camera angle under the sun covered.
__________________
"In a year that has been so improbable, the impossible has happened." - Vin Scully being clairvoyant in 1988.
The Los Angeles Kings - 2012 Stanley Cup Champions
Looks pretty obvious to me when you take into account that Smyth's stick is almost parallel to the lines on the face off circles and goal line. What that tells me is that Smyth has his stick at about the height of where he has it. In this case it's slightly above his waist. You can't tell me Smyth is anywhere close to tall enough to have his waist touch the top crossbar of the net. Ridiculous. Even if they didn't have disputable evidence, at least use common sense.
Simmer's washed out goal (on Carkner's BS dislodging of the net) was more infuriating. That both happened in the same game and cost the Kings two points....wow.
BS. That's a goal. Two angles in my books show it's a goal.
As a Canadian I also agree with another poster, how in **** is there not 43,000 different goal line angles, considering how rabid we are for this sport and the fact it's an NHL game.
If the league wants video review, then put in more camera angles. That stuff is frustrating.
Simmer's washed out goal (on Carkner's BS dislodging of the net) was more infuriating. That both happened in the same game and cost the Kings two points....wow.
This! Not sure why nobody's talking about this more. In any case, Kings were robbed because the call on the ice on Smyth's goal was by a ref behind the play. And this trio of clowns will work tonight's game in MTL.
This! Not sure why nobody's talking about this more. In any case, Kings were robbed because the call on the ice on Smyth's goal was by a ref behind the play. And this trio of clowns will work tonight's game in MTL.
that pic shows it clearly. (well, in a fuzzy manner)
Not to be a conspiracist, but what if Ottawa was scoring the tying goal w/ :03 left - would the ref initially signal goal? and then go check the replay? Hate to say it, but that would be my bet.
that pic shows it clearly. (well, in a fuzzy manner)
Not to be a conspiracist, but what if Ottawa was scoring the tying goal w/ :03 left - would the ref initially signal goal? and then go check the replay? Hate to say it, but that would be my bet.
Sorry, don't buy it. I blame the angle the ref was at (poor one) when the goal was scored for the reason it was waved off, not the team on the ice.
I have never seen any evidence of on the ice biased towards a team just because they are Canadian.
Sorry, don't buy it. I blame the angle the ref was at (poor one) when the goal was scored for the reason it was waved off, not the team on the ice.
I have never seen any evidence of on the ice biased towards a team just because they are Canadian.
You must be young.
And like I've said before, the ref that made the call was behind Smyth, and in no position to make the call. Where was the 2nd ref and why can't they talk about what they saw before they make the initial call?
If it had initially been called a goal, it's doubtful that it would have been overturned.
Every replay/pic angle I've seen clearly shows Smyth's stick was not over 4 ft high when he deflected the puck.
Yeah, that's horseplop. I used to respect Carkner. Not so much now. I never saw the game, but I assume no penalty or anything.
????? Carkner was smart there took advantage of the rules and got away with it. If one of the Kings did that we would all be praising him for saving a goal.
Bottom line is Smyth was a goal, Simmonds should have been a goal, penalty shot, or at least 2 min penalty for delay of game. No use crying now the games over.
And like I've said before, the ref that made the call was behind Smyth, and in no position to make the call. Where was the 2nd ref and why can't they talk about what they saw before they make the initial call?
If it had initially been called a goal, it's doubtful that it would have been overturned.
Every replay/pic angle I've seen clearly shows Smyth's stick was not over 4 ft high when he deflected the puck.
Why must I be young? PLEASE enlighten me on this.
I agree the initial call, goal or no goal, would have been upheld because there is inconclusive evidence to overturn the call.
Still, i'm quite interested to hear how you come to some conclusion on my age. Care to ballpark it? You'd think by looking at the fact I've been a HFer since this current set of boards were first created might clue you in that I'm not some youngster.
????? Carkner was smart there took advantage of the rules and got away with it. If one of the Kings did that we would all be praising him for saving a goal.
Bottom line is Smyth was a goal, Simmonds should have been a goal, penalty shot, or at least 2 min penalty for delay of game. No use crying now the games over.
Maybe you would praise Greene or whomever if he did that, but not me. I didn't say Carkner wasn't smart, I just said I don't respect it.
