HFBoards

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

Newsday Quote about video replays

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-02-2007, 11:57 AM
  #1
Satan'sIsland81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,024
vCash: 500
Newsday Quote about video replays

I dont mean to start a whole new round of talk about our series but did any of you see this quote in the Rags' newsday article from the NHL supervisor of officials about last nights no-goal call.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/hockey...orts-headlines

Here's the explanation from Bob Hall, the supervisor of officials in the series, for the replay ruling on the potential tying goal:

"What we're looking for is either confirm what the call is on the ice or we have to have a conclusive picture of the puck being in the net. It's what we were looking for in this case because the on-ice ruling was no goal. They hadn't seen the puck in the net. It has to be definitive. We looked and looked and looked. No replay that we have seen shows it definitely crossing the goal line ... You have to see the puck across the goal line."


Please note the bolded, underlined part. If that is the official requirement for these video replay decisions and last night's play was ruled no-goal, then how the HELL was that play against us in Game 3 called a goal. The camera angle last night was far more conclusive that the puck was over the line than it was on the call against us.

Satan'sIsland81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 12:03 PM
  #2
rbw
Registered User
 
rbw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,049
vCash: 500
This truly defines how poorly the league has implemented replay, forcing the suspension of logic in favor of removing judgment.

Consider that, if a goaltender had the puck under his pads in the crease, spun around and put his entire leg into the goal, keeping the puck under his pad, under the league's video review rules, it would have to be declared no goal, since the puck would never be visible.

rbw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 12:10 PM
  #3
NYYmt62
Registered User
 
NYYmt62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Islander Country
Country: United States
Posts: 1,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbw View Post
This truly defines how poorly the league has implemented replay, forcing the suspension of logic in favor of removing judgment.

Consider that, if a goaltender had the puck under his pads in the crease, spun around and put his entire leg into the goal, keeping the puck under his pad, under the league's video review rules, it would have to be declared no goal, since the puck would never be visible.
I agree with you completely. A goalie can be entirely in the net, with the puck underneath him and it would be considered no goal.

I don't quite understand how that was call no goal. Don't know if anyone else saw it- but Lundqvist basically said he thought it was a goal in the post game interview. What are you going to do, sometimes you get the calls and sometimes you don't.

NYYmt62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 12:10 PM
  #4
E_Godard
Registered User
 
E_Godard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Section 103
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 7,041
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbw View Post
Consider that, if a goaltender had the puck under his pads in the crease, spun around and put his entire leg into the goal, keeping the puck under his pad, under the league's video review rules, it would have to be declared no goal, since the puck would never be visible.
Yeah this is definitly an area that needs to be reviewed. Its only a matter of time before teams start to really exploit the **** out of this rule.

E_Godard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 12:12 PM
  #5
sonnyisles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 345
vCash: 500
What was the call on the ice in the game against the Isles?

sonnyisles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 12:19 PM
  #6
JMUIslesfan
Registered User
 
JMUIslesfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 75
vCash: 500
It is an absolute joke. The NHL could implement the technology that would make video replay unnecessary. How many calls have to go the wrong way before the NHL wakes up. Unreal

JMUIslesfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 12:27 PM
  #7
Trots19
Registered User
 
Trots19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Isles Country Baby!!
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonnyisles View Post
What was the call on the ice in the game against the Isles?
If I am not mistaken Vaneks goal was a no goal onthe ice but overturned by video review

Trots19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 12:30 PM
  #8
Darth Bangkok
Registered User
 
Darth Bangkok's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYYmt62 View Post
I agree with you completely. A goalie can be entirely in the net, with the puck underneath him and it would be considered no goal.

I don't quite understand how that was call no goal. Don't know if anyone else saw it- but Lundqvist basically said he thought it was a goal in the post game interview. What are you going to do, sometimes you get the calls and sometimes you don't.
I thought what Renney said in the post-game press conference was pretty much an admission he thought it was a goal too.

Darth Bangkok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 12:31 PM
  #9
sonnyisles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trots19 View Post
If I am not mistaken Vaneks goal was a no goal onthe ice but overturned by video review
If that's the case than they made a serious error on one of them. If the call on the ice for both games was no goal, then they should both have had the same end result.

sonnyisles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 12:32 PM
  #10
Trots19
Registered User
 
Trots19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Isles Country Baby!!
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonnyisles View Post
If that's the case than they made a serious error on one of them. If the call on the ice for both games was no goal, then they should both have had the same end result.

exactly!!!

Trots19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:05 PM
  #11
Titan124
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,683
vCash: 500
In this case, an overhead view showed the puck 100% in the net. I don't know what the league's deal is.

Titan124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:55 PM
  #12
NYYmt62
Registered User
 
NYYmt62's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Islander Country
Country: United States
Posts: 1,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by darth bangkok View Post
I thought what Renney said in the post-game press conference was pretty much an admission he thought it was a goal too.
Did not hear the Renney comment... It was definitely a goal, there was no question the puck was entirely across the line.

NYYmt62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 02:16 PM
  #13
Menwithouthat tricks
Registered User
 
Menwithouthat tricks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 381
vCash: 500
We're looking at this too parochially, like both calls went against us.

In reality, one went against us and the other went for the Rangers.

In Buffalo's case, they won one and now they lost one. So its Karma. The first call with Vanek, it was a goal but shouldn't have been called a goal, bum break for us. This Briere shot was a goal, shouldn't have been called a goal, and the league kinda got it right this time. Bummer for us again because the Rangers got the benefit of this call.

Menwithouthat tricks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 02:30 PM
  #14
goalmachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Islander Country
Country: United States
Posts: 1,092
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to goalmachine
Exactly. Calling last night's no goal, but Vanek's a goal is hypocrasy.

goalmachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 02:57 PM
  #15
Volek25
Registered User
 
Volek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,776
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Volek25
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonnyisles View Post
What was the call on the ice in the game against the Isles?
The call by the ref on Vanek's goal was No Goal...I watched the reply this morning because of this exact situation...the on ice ref's call was overturned, even though there was no clear shot of the puck over the line. There was a shot that one could assume it crossed the line, but you can't assume is what we were told from last nights review.

Volek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 02:58 PM
  #16
BJo
Registered User
 
BJo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,356
vCash: 500
NHL replay is a joke. Betman is a joke. And colin campbell is a bigger joke. It's not worth getting worked up about at this point. I'm looking forward to UFA and next season.

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy. But you're naive if you think the fact that since we're the islanders we dont get the benefit of the doubt. If we were Detroit, you would have seen at least 1 of those calls go our way, most likely the Vanek goal. I have no doubts in my mind about that

BJo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 03:10 PM
  #17
sonnyisles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjoelson View Post
NHL replay is a joke. Betman is a joke. And colin campbell is a bigger joke. It's not worth getting worked up about at this point. I'm looking forward to UFA and next season.

I'm not saying there is a conspiracy. But you're naive if you think the fact that since we're the islanders we dont get the benefit of the doubt. If we were Detroit, you would have seen at least 1 of those calls go our way, most likely the Vanek goal. I have no doubts in my mind about that
I really don't think that there is any anti Islander conspiracy going on in Toronto. I will say that the Isles probably don't get the same respect as some other teams do during games. Maybe they don't get the same benefit of the doubt on some penalty calls that other teams might. But this is to be expected becasue they haven't earned it yet. It's the same as in baseball where Tom Glavine might get the outside strike call when his pitch is 3 inches outside, but some rookie pitcher isn't going to get that same call. It does get frustrating at times but the answer has to come from inside the locker room....skate hard, move your feet, play a full 60 minutes, and the rest falls into place. That being said the Vanek call was probably wrong but the Isles didn't play well enough to win that series anyway. The Sabres are the better team.

sonnyisles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 03:14 PM
  #18
BJo
Registered User
 
BJo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonnyisles View Post
I really don't think that there is any anti Islander conspiracy going on in Toronto. I will say that the Isles probably don't get the same respect as some other teams do during games. Maybe they don't get the same benefit of the doubt on some penalty calls that other teams might. But this is to be expected becasue they haven't earned it yet. It's the same as in baseball where Tom Glavine might get the outside strike call when his pitch is 3 inches outside, but some rookie pitcher isn't going to get that same call. It does get frustrating at times but the answer has to come from inside the locker room....skate hard, move your feet, play a full 60 minutes, and the rest falls into place. That being said the Vanek call was probably wrong but the Isles didn't play well enough to win that series anyway. The Sabres are the better team.
I wasn't blaming the league for the results of the series. Obviously the team has to play better. But it's just like the tom glavine reference you made. The refs aren't necessarily doing it intentionally. But its an unintentional, unavoiable human error that we have to deal with. I stick with my opinion that if we were the Red Wings, Vanek's goal doesnt count.

BJo 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 03:33 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.