HFBoards

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

Not Fair!!!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-28-2006, 09:18 PM
  #1
The Dawg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: South Africa
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Not Fair!!!

when the rangers apparently scored against tampa bay, it was ruled no goal becuase there was no evidence to see it go in despite it seeming to cross the line.

same thing just happened with the devils in the shootout and it was a goal. they won becuase of that. scott gomez went to go five hole on emery and his momentum took him backwards. it was impossible to tell if the puck crossed the line. they ruled it a goal.

---get the rules straight, refs. this does not make sense


Last edited by The Dawg: 03-28-2006 at 09:25 PM.
The Dawg* is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 09:19 PM
  #2
NYR94
Registered User
 
NYR94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,533
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR94
I didn't see that part of the Tampa game, but my friend told me a goal was under review. Did the video guys really screw up on that call in the game over the weekend? How bad was it? Did the MSG video that Sam and JD analyze show that it crossed?

NYR94 is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 09:21 PM
  #3
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
The linesman told the ref he saw the puck in the net anyway..it was pretty much inconclusive so they went to what the ref first said.

It was the right call.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 09:22 PM
  #4
The Dawg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: South Africa
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR94
I didn't see that part of the Tampa game, but my friend told me a goal was under review. Did the video guys really screw up on that call in the game over the weekend? How bad was it? Did the MSG video that Sam and JD analyze show that it crossed?
it appeared that the rangers scored when you watch the momentum of the goalie. they got a bad break cause there was NO evidence to show the puck crossed the line. it sucked and is understandable, but how the devs goal counted tonight is beyond me. where is the consistency?

The Dawg* is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 09:22 PM
  #5
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 15,290
vCash: 500
the right call was made tonight

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dawg
when the rangers apparently scored against tampa bay, it was ruled no goal becuase there was no evidence to see it go in despite it seeming to cross the line.

same thing just happened with the devils in the shootout and it was a goal. they won becuase of that. scott gomez went to go five hole on emery and his momentum took him backwards. it was impossible to tell if the puck crossed the line. they ruled it a goal.

---get the rules straight, refs. this does not make sense
not sure what happened with the Rangers game, but this was obvious.

Scotty went between the legs and Emrey totally slid into the net.

I wish that the Devils would have lost as well, but the refs made the right call on that play.

pld459666 is online now  
Old
03-28-2006, 09:23 PM
  #6
The Dawg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: South Africa
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine88
The linesman told the ref he saw the puck in the net anyway..it was pretty much inconclusive so they went to what the ref first said.

It was the right call.
in the ranger game, at hindsight it was ruled a goal too i thought. the red light went off..

The Dawg* is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 09:24 PM
  #7
The Dawg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: South Africa
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
not sure what happened with the Rangers game, but this was obvious.

Scotty went between the legs and Emrey totally slid into the net.

I wish that the Devils would have lost as well, but the refs made the right call on that play.
o i def. think it was a goal and i def. think the rangers scored. if the rangers goal wasnt allowed for not having evidence, why was the devs goal allowed under the same circumstances. its a tough call to make for sure but it seems officials have diff. views upon this when there isnt evidence to show it went in

The Dawg* is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 09:36 PM
  #8
DontStaal
Registered User
 
DontStaal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 1,747
vCash: 500
sometimes to me its seems the refs are confused themselves

at least this season

DontStaal is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 09:38 PM
  #9
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangersin06
sometimes to me its seems the refs are confused themselves

at least this season
I totally agree with that.

Balej20* is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 09:40 PM
  #10
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,086
vCash: 500
Did the ref in the Devils game call it a goal first and then it was reviewed? If so, then it's not the same situation at all.

The rule is that it has to be conclusive evidence to overturn the refs call on the ice. The ref did not signal goal in the Rangers game, and there was no conclusive evidence the other way, so they did that right.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
03-28-2006, 10:12 PM
  #11
BigCanada77
NYR in the Midwest
 
BigCanada77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 1,817
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BigCanada77
I didn't see either game, but in the Ranger one, when did they blow the whistle??? Maybe they couldn't tell if it crossed before the whistle. You have to think about when the ref ruled the shootout turn over. I dont know. Sometimes I can't make sense of what i wanna say lol.

BigCanada77 is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 10:18 PM
  #12
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,330
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
Did the ref in the Devils game call it a goal first and then it was reviewed? If so, then it's not the same situation at all.

The rule is that it has to be conclusive evidence to overturn the refs call on the ice. The ref did not signal goal in the Rangers game, and there was no conclusive evidence the other way, so they did that right.
THANK YOU. Heheh.

nyr2k2 is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 10:31 PM
  #13
RothmanHockey
Registered User
 
RothmanHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Port Chester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,660
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RothmanHockey
I saw that, and at first was a little pissed, but dude, like, where else would the puck be? So what if the goalie had it. The puck was in the goalie, who was in the net.

RothmanHockey is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 10:34 PM
  #14
RothmanHockey
Registered User
 
RothmanHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Port Chester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,660
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RothmanHockey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
Did the ref in the Devils game call it a goal first and then it was reviewed? If so, then it's not the same situation at all.

The rule is that it has to be conclusive evidence to overturn the refs call on the ice. The ref did not signal goal in the Rangers game, and there was no conclusive evidence the other way, so they did that right.
Sam and JD said it was conclusive that it had to be in the net, no matter what the call was on the ice.

I dont think the league even knows how to call anything this year.

RothmanHockey is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 10:35 PM
  #15
NYR fan 2
Registered User
 
NYR fan 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,806
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR fan 2
At least the Flyers lost

NYR fan 2 is offline  
Old
03-28-2006, 11:30 PM
  #16
Tawnos
Moderator
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 10,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZYanksRule
Sam and JD said it was conclusive that it had to be in the net, no matter what the call was on the ice.

I dont think the league even knows how to call anything this year.
Actually, the rulebook is pretty vague on this...

Tawnos is online now  
Old
03-29-2006, 05:49 AM
  #17
Kluivert4Ever
Registered User
 
Kluivert4Ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZYanksRule
I saw that, and at first was a little pissed, but dude, like, where else would the puck be? So what if the goalie had it. The puck was in the goalie, who was in the net.


I agree, sometimes you have to use pure logic, during our case versus Tampa one would think that the puck was in also, but not with as much certainty as the case was tonight. They made the right call.

Kluivert4Ever is offline  
Old
03-29-2006, 07:43 AM
  #18
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dawg
when the rangers apparently scored against tampa bay, it was ruled no goal becuase there was no evidence to see it go in despite it seeming to cross the line.

same thing just happened with the devils in the shootout and it was a goal. they won becuase of that. scott gomez went to go five hole on emery and his momentum took him backwards. it was impossible to tell if the puck crossed the line. they ruled it a goal.

---get the rules straight, refs. this does not make sense
the 2 plays were completely different...

when the puck is under the goalie and you can't see the puck you can't assume what part of the goalie the puck is under. however in the devil game, emery was 100% in the net therefore no matter what part of him the puck is under the puck is in the net. there is no assumption involved. in the ranger game, grahame was partly in the net, partly out of the net so you can't assume that the puck is under the part of his body in the net...

the 2 are completely different

NYR469 is offline  
Old
03-29-2006, 07:45 AM
  #19
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZYanksRule
Sam and JD said it was conclusive that it had to be in the net, no matter what the call was on the ice.

I dont think the league even knows how to call anything this year.
it does have to be conclusive that the puck was in the net...it wasn't conclusive in the rangers game, it WAS conclusive in the devil game. if the puck is under the goalie and the goalie is 100% across the line it doesn't take sherlock holmes to figure out that the puck is in too.

NYR469 is offline  
Old
03-29-2006, 09:40 AM
  #20
Bluenote13
20 down, 34 to go !
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dawg
when the rangers apparently scored against tampa bay, it was ruled no goal becuase there was no evidence to see it go in despite it seeming to cross the line.

same thing just happened with the devils in the shootout and it was a goal. they won becuase of that. scott gomez went to go five hole on emery and his momentum took him backwards. it was impossible to tell if the puck crossed the line. they ruled it a goal.

---get the rules straight, refs. this does not make sense
Nice headline guy, classy.

In regards to the 'no goal' the other night, looked like it was in
to me, we did get hosed a bit, but its over, we won, no need to embarrass yourself

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
03-29-2006, 10:05 AM
  #21
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
Nice headline guy, classy.

In regards to the 'no goal' the other night, looked like it was in
to me, we did get hosed a bit, but its over, we won, no need to embarrass yourself

Blue, why do you keep needling people?

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
03-29-2006, 10:12 AM
  #22
Bluenote13
20 down, 34 to go !
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowtron
Blue, why do you keep needling people?
Not people, just the cheerleaders

I mightve used one emiticon too many,
i just can't quit them...wish I could

There have been alot of asinine posts lately with
benching Tyutin, Weekes is the worst goalie in the NHL, or when threads start out with 'Not Fair' etc.

Those guys deserve

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
03-29-2006, 11:01 AM
  #23
The Dawg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: South Africa
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
Nice headline guy, classy.

In regards to the 'no goal' the other night, looked like it was in
to me, we did get hosed a bit, but its over, we won, no need to embarrass yourself
go jump off a bridge

The Dawg* is offline  
Old
03-29-2006, 11:09 AM
  #24
Bluenote13
20 down, 34 to go !
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dawg
go jump off a bridge
This is why i'm being called out as being too harsh today, right?

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
03-29-2006, 11:18 AM
  #25
The Dawg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Country: South Africa
Posts: 814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13
This is why i'm being called out as being too harsh today, right?
not at all, i just noticed you were a little stressed before the big game tonight. i figured you could relieve some stress with physical activity. ive done it before, its a thrill

The Dawg* 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 06:13 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.