HFBoards A Mathematical Proof On Why It Was A Goal
 Register FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
 Notices Buffalo Sabres Prospects:    Sam Reinhart, C   » Rasmus Ristolainen, D   » Nikita Zadorov, D   » Mikhail Grigorenko, C   » Jake McCabe, D   » Joel Armia, RW   » J.T. Compher, C   » Mark Pysyk, D   » Brendan Lemieux, LW   » Chad Ruhwedel, D   »

A Mathematical Proof On Why It Was A Goal

03-25-2006, 04:53 PM
#51
Roy G Biv*

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Toronto
Country:
Posts: 10,912
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by jflory81 No I'm not. I'm drawing the line of the puck's diameter that I am using at the bottom of the puck. Meaning that the angle from the ice to the bottom of the puck has to be 9.2 degrees or greater. All levels of the puck above that bottom are further in the net, and don't have to be considered.
Pretty sure you forgot to carry the 2

 03-25-2006, 09:00 PM #52 titonka Registered User   Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 35 vCash: 500 i had a thought and it may be a dumb one but early in the season marty biron made a sick catch of a puck which they determined to be a goal after review in which he caught the puck near the goalline. now if this wasnt a goal how could they say the whole puck crossed the line when marty had it in his glove?does anyone else remeber this save?he had another one just like it i think the next night
03-25-2006, 09:16 PM
#53
TVanek26*

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buffalo,New York
Country:
Posts: 8,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by titonka i had a thought and it may be a dumb one but early in the season marty biron made a sick catch of a puck which they determined to be a goal after review in which he caught the puck near the goalline. now if this wasnt a goal how could they say the whole puck crossed the line when marty had it in his glove?does anyone else remeber this save?he had another one just like it i think the next night
Yeah it was during the Pittsburgh home and home, but since it was Crosby's team and the team that was mainly being affected was Buffalo they called it a goal,not really surpirsed by it, it was definitely inconclusive as you could not see the puck but when has the league ever given us a call when we need one?

Yeah, that's right never.

03-25-2006, 09:44 PM
#54
Newfie Jesus
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 330
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DanielBriere48 Yeah it was during the Pittsburgh home and home, but since it was Crosby's team and the team that was mainly being affected was Buffalo they called it a goal,not really surpirsed by it, it was definitely inconclusive as you could not see the puck but when has the league ever given us a call when we need one? *waits for answer* Yeah, that's right never.
damn i remember that. i saw both games.

you guys got some issues and greivances to be filed with the league. no one can accuse you of wining with these examples.

good game tonight btww.

 03-25-2006, 11:57 PM #55 Rover*   Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 13,845 vCash: 500 Seeing the puck in the net is not an absolute. In the canucks/edmonton game a couple of nights ago, smyth scored on a shootout attempt, but the puck was under auld's arm and his arm was in the net. You could never see the puck from replays, but since auld's arm was in the net, logic dictates that the puck has to be in the net too. I have no problem with calls like that, but it did take the nhl 15 minutes to reach that conclusion, since you could never see the puck from any replay.
03-26-2006, 01:28 AM
#56
TVanek26*

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buffalo,New York
Country:
Posts: 8,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rover Seeing the puck in the net is not an absolute. In the canucks/edmonton game a couple of nights ago, smyth scored on a shootout attempt, but the puck was under auld's arm and his arm was in the net. You could never see the puck from replays, but since auld's arm was in the net, logic dictates that the puck has to be in the net too. I have no problem with calls like that, but it did take the nhl 15 minutes to reach that conclusion, since you could never see the puck from any replay.
But the rulebook states there has to be inconclusive evidence to call it a goal or to wave it off.Part of Biron's glove was on the line, which could have held a part of the puck therefor making it not a goal.We still won that game but still...

Forum Jump