HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Pretty decent proof of no goal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-03-2007, 10:06 PM
  #76
hlundqvist30*
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,520
vCash: 500
Point is that by NHL rule it shouldn't have counted, and by logic it shouldn't either. In this thread, multiple people have come up with ways that it is no goal. Sabres fans (et al) have come in and came up with explanations on how it might still be in. I'm not critisizing, I guess my point is just that people have only been able to prove that it was not 100% no goal, only that there is still a possibility of it being a goal. There is nobody able to give a reason it WAS a goal, only reason it was not indisputably no goal.

hlundqvist30* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2007, 06:46 AM
  #77
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,261
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlundqvist30 View Post
Point is that by NHL rule it shouldn't have counted, and by logic it shouldn't either. In this thread, multiple people have come up with ways that it is no goal. Sabres fans (et al) have come in and came up with explanations on how it might still be in. I'm not critisizing, I guess my point is just that people have only been able to prove that it was not 100% no goal, only that there is still a possibility of it being a goal. There is nobody able to give a reason it WAS a goal, only reason it was not indisputably no goal.
Yep that was the whole point of the post. I can go and show pictures of why it probably wasn't a goal, while sabres fans can point to the theory of relativity and crude paintshop drawings. If that isn't the textbook definition of inconclusive then I don't know what is.

vladmyir111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2007, 08:17 AM
  #78
bcrt2000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,496
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Fleuve View Post
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.

Probably only one of the two valid theories out of anyone who is saying it was a goal. But it would be less than 1/60th of a second that it would have been in the net (since most video cameras only capture 60 frames per second). If true, it would likely be in somewhere between Frame 1 and Frame 2 however. If you look at the frontal picture which matches up with Frame 2, You can look at where the puck is hitting the pad and line it up with where that part of the pad is touching the ice, and its blue paint (and the pad is leaning forward slightly, so its actually further out in the blue paint than I indicated).



The only other valid theory is that the puck was already over the line in Frame 1, but because of the angle (the camera isn't directly over the goal line), you can't see the white ice between the goal line and the puck.

However, the theory of the puck continuing to move into the net/under the pads after Frame 1 is likely false.

bcrt2000 is offline   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 06:10 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.