HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Pretty decent proof of no goal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-03-2007, 08:50 AM
  #51
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
I don't think we should be going around claiming conclusive proof of anything...while it does kind of make me shake my head when people say "everyone knows it's in, physics demands it!" like they're all physicists, I don't think we should start claiming "it's definitely not in, look at these grainy pictures, complete with some guesswork on where the puck is and missing frames!"

Whatever it is, it's close. Though I don't think the puck going up on edge necessarily means it was it was any closer to being a goal. I don't think it went up on edge until it hit the pad, and therefor, when it was already coming back out.

The real question is whether it fully crossed the line before hitting Lundqvist's pad.
Well I didn't say it was conclusive, I said it's becoming more conclusive that it's not a goal considering everyone seems to think it is conclusive that it was a goal.

The best part is, how come we never see what happened after the puck disappeared? They show a couple frames but we don't see anything and they cut it. Now we can see the puck coming up (at least this is what we see, if there were HD cameras up there, then we'd know for sure). We know fully well that the puck came out before the play had been blown dead. Anyone who actually had watched the game or had been in MSG saw the puck at the edge of the crease when the whistle was blown.

That said, I think we fully proved that the puck had not gone under Lundqvist's pad like everyone is claiming which is their main basis that it had gone in.

WhipNash27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 10:32 AM
  #52
Madness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Iraq
Posts: 550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRChazzer View Post
I truly think people don't even read the thread.
You can clearly see that the puck DID NOT go under Lundqvist's pad. That it hit his pad in the now famed puck on the line picture, then it bounced up. His pad was moving forward at the time, so it hit his pad and bounced out. Everyone could see that the puck was not under Lundqvist's pad when the play ended, instead it had bounced out and was in the front of the crease.

Also as pointed out by bcrt2000 you can see that the puck had moved up in the replay and then came out. I think it's now becoming more and more conclusive that the puck never had crossed the line.
Indeed, so many people are saying that it's a goal because the puck went under the pad as if Lundqvist's pad was flying in the air for some reason, and they're using this as proof for the ''goal'', now that everyone can see the pics in this thread and in some other threads I think everyone agrees that the puck didn't go under Henrik's pad simply because the pad is moving along and in direct contact with the ice surface.

So is it a goal?, maybe. The only way we could tell is if we could see the puck from the side of the net. If that was a goal it probably would've been a world record for the shortest time a puck has been inside the net for a goal.

Madness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 11:00 AM
  #53
Madness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Iraq
Posts: 550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
The real question is whether it fully crossed the line before hitting Lundqvist's pad.
It looks like it did hit his pad before crossing the line, so the real question is whether it was entirely over the line directly after it hit his pad as the puck rotated vertically and was on edge.

Well It maybe was the save of the year by the King and judging by Briere's reaction maybe it was.

Madness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 11:42 AM
  #54
NYRSinceBirth
Registered User
 
NYRSinceBirth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madness View Post
Well It maybe was the save of the year by the King and judging by Briere's reaction maybe it was.

It really could be, but sadly enough it will always be remebered as a lucky call instead of an incredible save. I don't mind though, I don't think any other goalie in the league could have done what Henke did, let them be jealous (minus his puckhandling skill...)

NYRSinceBirth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 03:06 PM
  #55
dire wolf
be cool
 
dire wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 3,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrt2000 View Post
Okay, I think I've placed where the puck actually is when everyone thinks it disappears. I bet if we had HD cams it would be easier to see:






Frame 2 seems to correspond with this image:


The puck goes vertical for that split second so thats why its hard to see. Theres no way for the puck to go behind the line and then go to where it is in Frame 3 based on the speed it was going. The puck already has contacted the hook of the pad in Frame 1, and it bounces off the main part of the pad in Frame 2.
I'm not positive about the first picture, but in the 2nd and 3rd frames, I'm pretty sure you circled the buckle on his pads. Could be wrong. The point is that the pictures you posted are so fuzzy that you can't see anything. I agree about the HD point. I don't know why there aren't HD cams available.

dire wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 03:17 PM
  #56
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Ranger View Post
With all of the work being done on this goal/non goal, I was wondering if any of you could help me with a tape I have from Texas, the Zapruder tape. It was "shot" in 1963 and I have a few questions for you.


So true Jackson. If only the internet existed in 1963, the Kennedy assassination conspiracy would have been put to bed decades ago.

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 03:30 PM
  #57
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dire wolf View Post
I'm not positive about the first picture, but in the 2nd and 3rd frames, I'm pretty sure you circled the buckle on his pads. Could be wrong. The point is that the pictures you posted are so fuzzy that you can't see anything. I agree about the HD point. I don't know why there aren't HD cams available.
But he doesnt have any "buckles" in that spot in the first few frames.

This is the first time someone has pointed out that little blackness there and judging by that Post photo i think that is the puck. Im not so sure it was over the line at all now. I was convinced that the puck was over like everyone else, but now with these frames one could make a case it never did cross the line, even beyond reasonable doubt.

Nice job 2000.


Still too grainy though, HD should be EVERYWHERE... (another case for us HD "lovers and complainers") Also the net screws up the white areas

HockeyBasedNYC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 03:46 PM
  #58
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
No goal for sure.

Balej20* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 04:30 PM
  #59
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,304
vCash: 500
Awards:
If all these discussions have proved anything, it's that the refs made the right call. No one can agree on anything!

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 05:07 PM
  #60
bcrt2000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dire wolf View Post
I'm not positive about the first picture, but in the 2nd and 3rd frames, I'm pretty sure you circled the buckle on his pads. Could be wrong. The point is that the pictures you posted are so fuzzy that you can't see anything. I agree about the HD point. I don't know why there aren't HD cams available.


The buckle is nowhere near the original red circle
You can also look at the photo taken from the front (the one which corresponds to Frame 2), and you can clearly see there is no buckle from that angle either.


Last edited by bcrt2000: 05-03-2007 at 05:12 PM.
bcrt2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 06:52 PM
  #61
MayDay
Registered User
 
MayDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Kisco, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugerya View Post
I guess I'm thinking out loud so forgive me it I'm just repeating and correct me if I'm wrong.

The pictures are all at the same moment in time (as close as possible at least). The moment captured is when the puck is ever so barely on the line... the border of goal and no goal. However, the Front view shows that the puck is on Lundqvist's pad at this moment. Since his pad is moving forward an assumption might be made that it is impossible for the puck to proceed any further towards the net.

Therefore, the overhead view shows the deepest the puck penetrated which is the edge of the goal line because we know the puck was on Henrik's leg at this moment.

The 2nd picture/front view is one of the coolest pictures I have seen of an in-game moment. I want it on my wall.
It would be a bad assumption.

If Lundqvist's pad were parallel to to line and moving forward, then you can say there was no room for the puck to go deeper.

However, his pad was at more like a 45 degree angle to the line, with his toe pointed backward. If the puck intersected his pad at the goalline and rolled back towards his toe, there is still plenty of room for it to go completely over the line (if the puck was moving back faster than Lundqvist's leg was moving forward).

For the record, I think the refs probably made the right call (since the video evidence was inconclusive), but the puck probably was over the line. These pictures don't prove or disprove anything.

MayDay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 07:30 PM
  #62
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,860
vCash: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by MayDay View Post
It would be a bad assumption.

If Lundqvist's pad were parallel to to line and moving forward, then you can say there was no room for the puck to go deeper.

However, his pad was at more like a 45 degree angle to the line, with his toe pointed backward. If the puck intersected his pad at the goalline and rolled back towards his toe, there is still plenty of room for it to go completely over the line (if the puck was moving back faster than Lundqvist's leg was moving forward).

For the record, I think the refs probably made the right call (since the video evidence was inconclusive), but the puck probably was over the line. These pictures don't prove or disprove anything.

Why is everyone just making up their own stories without looking at all the pics and the video? Pray tell how does a puck come from Briere's side of the net...hit his pad...bounces BACK towards briere (to his toe like you said)....THEN go the completely opposite way again away from briere (as the exit of the puck is seen on the vid). There's just no way that happens unless the toe on his pad looked like gnome shoes, you know with the upward curve and all.

It's ok if you don't want to agree, but just say so instead of making up a story about where the puck went. It's not my fault there's absolutely no place left for the puck to go to make it a goal

vladmyir111 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 07:31 PM
  #63
Ranger1135
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Lindy Ruff stated in the post game that there was a conclusive view that he saw from TSN, if so where is it? Think it might have made its way to the public by now?
There was nothing that conclusively overruled the call made by the officials, let it go already.
Now he's b****ing that the Sabres are being obstructed which is prohibiting their game.
I think someone needs a waaaahhhmbulance. I loved him when he played for the Rangers a real heart and soul guy and I think he is an excellent coach....but jeeez what a whiner.

Ranger1135 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 07:39 PM
  #64
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,888
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLH View Post
That's also conclusive proof that the crossbar isn't lined up with the goal line. You guys should get that fixed.

SPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 07:40 PM
  #65
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,852
vCash: 500
I guess the Sabres being on 8 powerplays per game isn't enough for him while his team only gets about 3 or 4 penalties called against them

WhipNash27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:00 PM
  #66
SaintRon
Registered User
 
SaintRon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 3,661
vCash: 500
I am saying that the puck could not have come from behind ... that there had to have been a second shooter behind the net on the gravelly ice. If the shooter was behind you as you claimed that would have caused your head to pitch forward.

According to your story Briere passes you and starts walking up the slot then you say you were struck on the right pad. The puck then proceeds to ricochet off the temple striking Hank between the third and forth rib. The puck then came off the rib turned and hit Hank in the right wrist causing him to drop his helmet. The puck then splashed off the wrist, Pauses In mid air mind you- makes a left turn and lands on Hank's right pad and goes in.

That is one magic wrap-around.

I'm sure, by now, the NHL has the stashed away the Zupruder film of what really happened on that play.

SaintRon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:04 PM
  #67
MayDay
Registered User
 
MayDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Kisco, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladmyir111 View Post
Why is everyone just making up their own stories without looking at all the pics and the video? Pray tell how does a puck come from Briere's side of the net...hit his pad...bounces BACK towards briere (to his toe like you said)....THEN go the completely opposite way again away from briere (as the exit of the puck is seen on the vid). There's just no way that happens unless the toe on his pad looked like gnome shoes, you know with the upward curve and all.

It's ok if you don't want to agree, but just say so instead of making up a story about where the puck went. It's not my fault there's absolutely no place left for the puck to go to make it a goal
Hey, that's why I said "if" it went back towards his toe, it would have plenty of room to go deeper in the net and be a goal. Everyone here seems to assume that the puck hit Lundqvist's pad and then rolled up towards his knee, but I don't see any evidence of that either.

As to your other point, it's very easy to envisage how the puck could be moving towards Lundqvist's foot (right-to-left) and then change direction and move left-to-right again. And this reason is because Lundqvist's foot (like most people's) forms an angle with his leg. The puck could have been moving back-and-to-the-left along his leg pad, hit the top of his foot, and then bounced back out-and-to-the-right.

Againt, there's no proof of this, but it's definitely a plausible scenario. To say that there was no room for the puck to go in based on these still-frame photos is silly.

MayDay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:09 PM
  #68
Ranger1135
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRChazzer View Post
I guess the Sabres being on 8 powerplays per game isn't enough for him while his team only gets about 3 or 4 penalties called against them
I have really lost alot of respect for the guy. It seems like every positive thing he mentions about his opponent is followed with a backhanded comment about the officiating or how things haven't broken their way. Call it what it is they won game 1, took advatage of their opportunities in game 2, were for the most part outplayed in games 3 & 4 and need to do a better job.
The reality is the Rangers played well and took advantage of what was given them. The Sabres for the past two games have been unable to do the same. Is it that they are playing below their talent level or that the Rangers are stifling them, maybe a combination of the two....but quit *****ing about it. If you want it as a team you have to take it, lord know 8 out of the first 10 PP's in game 3 gave them an opportunity and game 4 shouldn't have come down to the last 17 seconds if your team had done the job. The only thing anyone truly owns is their mistakes...well pony up Lindy and quit gripping.

Ranger1135 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:18 PM
  #69
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,852
vCash: 500
PIM by game:
Nyr: 16, 8, 18, 10 = 52
Buf: 10, 10, 10, 10 = 40

I don't know what he's complaining about. Only 1 game Buffalo had more penalties than the Rangers and it was by 1.

WhipNash27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:21 PM
  #70
dirwoodian
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladmyir111 View Post
You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that this post has nothing to do with the overhead angle, but with the time synchronization of the frontal picture which pretty clearly shows Lundqvists pad right on the line leaving no room for a puck to cross.

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!

dirwoodian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:35 PM
  #71
Ranger1135
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
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!
Well that brings up a different point...if anyone can confirm or deny this please feel free, but an article I read today (I don't have the patience to track it down) stated that they do employ goal cams in either post for the conference and Cup finals.
If that is true...why not every playoff round and regular season game for that matter?
If Briere's stuff in was in and could be conclusively proven I could live with that. But as it stands...and according to precedent ...not rule in the NHL rule book, they Refs and the Toronto made the right call.
If the league does in fact have the capability and does not use the above mentioned cams until the conference and Cup finals then shame on them for not upholding the integrity of the game by using all means at their disposal to ensure the correct call on the ice.

Ranger1135 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 09:18 PM
  #72
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,860
vCash: 822
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 09:31 PM
  #73
Beau Fleuve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Beau Fleuve
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrt2000 View Post
Okay, I think I've placed where the puck actually is when everyone thinks it disappears. I bet if we had HD cams it would be easier to see:






Frame 2 seems to correspond with this image:


The puck goes vertical for that split second so thats why its hard to see. Theres no way for the puck to go behind the line and then go to where it is in Frame 3 based on the speed it was going. The puck already has contacted the hook of the pad in Frame 1, and it bounces off the main part of the pad in Frame 2.
In the first picture the puck appears to be parallel with the ice... or lying flat, in the last picture showing briere shooting the puck, it is not flush with the ice. it appears on edge the second it hits the pad which is the second picture even if the pucks movement between the first and second picture wasnt enough to move the entire pucks width past the line, the flipping on edge motion may have been why you cant see it in the second picture and could possibly be an argument for the puck to have been perpendicular with the ice and entirely over the line.

im sorry if thats really confusing.. i just gave myself a headache.

Beau Fleuve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 09:39 PM
  #74
Beau Fleuve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Beau Fleuve
this is kind of what i mean... the center of each puck is even with the other as far as distance past the goal line. The one on edge would be a goal though.


Beau Fleuve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 09:59 PM
  #75
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,852
vCash: 500
Well, let's just drop it. We'll never know the real answer and it's pointless to discuss this at this point. The game's over, Rangers won. End of story. Game 5 is tomorrow, hopefully there's no controversial reviews.

WhipNash27 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:25 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.