HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Goal\No Goal talk(ALL SUCH TALK GOES HERE!!!)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-06-2004, 11:24 AM
  #351
Toonces
The beer kitty
 
Toonces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure
I guess I'll throw my two cents in and say it was a goal. Hull clearly had posession.

Toonces is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 11:29 AM
  #352
oilers_guy_eddie
Registered User
 
oilers_guy_eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Intolerable climate
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 10,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punkie
I'm sure some one has said this before me but if it was a goal, how come no Flames player argued it? I personally don't think it was, but the puck was in the air so it is hard to tell. That's just my opinion.
I'm a little unclear-- is the video review official supposed to look at plays like that so that they can notify the referee during the next stoppage in play? Or do reviews have to be initiated on the ice?

oilers_guy_eddie is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 11:31 AM
  #353
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilers_guy_eddie
I'm a little unclear-- is the video review official supposed to look at plays like that so that they can notify the referee during the next stoppage in play? Or do reviews have to be initiated on the ice?
They can call down for a review. Someone was asleep at the wheel last night. They couldn't have possibly reviewed all angles in the short time between stoppage and puck drop.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 11:32 AM
  #354
DownFromNJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
It was not a goal regardless because Calgary didn't have the refs stop play to review it. Any argument is meaningless.

DownFromNJ is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 11:45 AM
  #355
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
 
The Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,629
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObeySteve
You could consider it inconclusive since it could simply look like it crossed the line by creating an optical illusion if it was in the air, but the puck wasn't very high at all.


http://img74.photobucket.com/albums/...06_TV3__2_.jpg


Look at the picture, it clearly in the air on the line, not fully past the line. The TV can play illusions on people like this one where it seems the puck is lying flat inside the net, when in truth it isn't.

The Bob Cole is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 11:59 AM
  #356
Blueski
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steblick
A lot of people seem to be implying that if the goal had been called, that Calgary would've won the cup. But it wasn't overtime! Who knows if Tampa would have re-grouped and got a goal to tie it again.

In short- it wasn't a decision (or non-decision) that determined the winner of the game!
QFA!!

Blueski is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:12 PM
  #357
Snakeeye
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steblick
A lot of people seem to be implying that if the goal had been called, that Calgary would've won the cup. But it wasn't overtime! Who knows if Tampa would have re-grouped and got a goal to tie it again.

In short- it wasn't a decision (or non-decision) that determined the winner of the game!
Just about the worst argument in the history of earth.

So, given how Tampa was having incredibly difficulty even generating shots, let alone quality shots, you can make the assumption that Tampa might have scored to tie the game anyway?

I think anybody in the universe would take their chances...

Snakeeye is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:29 PM
  #358
Spacemania
Murray says: Rawr!
 
Spacemania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Signpost Forest, YT
Country: United Nations
Posts: 28,280
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Spacemania
I saw that replay countless times, and I can say this for sure

for at least one moment, that puck was entirely past the line. I'm not even Canadian and right now I'm starting to belive the conspirasy about the NHL not wanting Calgary to win.

All I gotta say now is that thers only one game left. Lets just hope that this cup is awarded to the team who wan'ts it the most, not who the Refs want to win.

Spacemania is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:32 PM
  #359
SopelFan*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richard Park
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,239
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SopelFan*
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDaddy Version 1.3
They can call down for a review. Someone was asleep at the wheel last night. They couldn't have possibly reviewed all angles in the short time between stoppage and puck drop.
I dunno. CBC took awhile to generate the replay, but there was a longer stoppage than usual after that play. I found it weird, and wasn't aware of the controversy.

SopelFan* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:34 PM
  #360
SopelFan*
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Richard Park
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,239
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SopelFan*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemania
I saw that replay countless times, and I can say this for sure

for at least one moment, that puck was entirely past the line. I'm not even Canadian and right now I'm starting to belive the conspirasy about the NHL not wanting Calgary to win.

All I gotta say now is that thers only one game left. Lets just hope that this cup is awarded to the team who wan'ts it the most, not who the Refs want to win.
Why is this the refs fault? We can't even tell on countless zooms and replays, and they are suppose to catch this with their naked eye?

SopelFan* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:47 PM
  #361
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
IMO the replays are inconclusive and it should not have been ruled a goal, but they really should have gone upstairs for a much longer time than they did. With something this close and controversial it deserved a much longer review.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:10 PM
  #362
MacDaddy TLC*
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Leafin La Vida Loca
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SopelFan
I dunno. CBC took awhile to generate the replay, but there was a longer stoppage than usual after that play. I found it weird, and wasn't aware of the controversy.
ABC had it up within 10-15 seconds. They then had the blown up version on the next stoppage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DownFromNJ
It was not a goal regardless because Calgary didn't have the refs stop play to review it. Any argument is meaningless.
It wasn't Calgary's responsibility to ask for a review. That is the referees and the guys upstairs and the guys in the League office in Toronto's responsibility.

MacDaddy TLC* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:14 PM
  #363
Fan-of-#9
Registered User
 
Fan-of-#9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Southern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,775
vCash: 500
TO ALL FLAMES FANS:

WELCOME TO MY WORLD...

At least you guys have another chance, we didn't...GO GET 'EM BOYS!!!

Fan-of-#9 is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:32 PM
  #364
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Win it for Robidas!
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 24,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan-of-#9
At least you guys have another chance, we didn't...GO GET 'EM BOYS!!!
And why would the Sabres get another chance. It was a goal.

Troy McClure is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:33 PM
  #365
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure
And why would the Sabres get another chance. It was a goal.
Not per the rules in place that season.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:36 PM
  #366
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDaddy Version 1.3
They can call down for a review. Someone was asleep at the wheel last night. They couldn't have possibly reviewed all angles in the short time between stoppage and puck drop.
They don't start reviewing at the stoppage, they start reviewing as soon as the play happens. Play was not stopped immediately.

It doesn't take that long in this case, to find that there is only one angle that shows the puck...and that angle is clearly inconclusive.

As mentioned, ABC had time even during the stoppage to blow it up and show it to the TV audience.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:40 PM
  #367
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Win it for Robidas!
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 24,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Joe
Not per the rules in place that season.
What, don't you remember the memo?

Ah, I love this. Oh, and it was a lateral also.

Troy McClure is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 02:06 PM
  #368
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure
What, don't you remember the memo?

Ah, I love this. Oh, and it was a lateral also.
I'm not a Sabres fan. Never liked them and never will. But it is quite obvious something reaked on that play. Fact is, Bettman will not look Ruff in the eye to this day. I guess the Sabres never got the memo that the rules were going to fundamentally change in the middle of the playoffs. Sounds like the NHL trying to cover their collective behinds.

Lateral

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 02:15 PM
  #369
chriss_co
Registered User
 
chriss_co's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CALGARY
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,769
vCash: 500
i dont get these people who think it was a goal...

i for one don't think it was a goal.. i dont think there's a conspiracy.. and i dont think that reffing is an issue in the games the flames lost

judging from the angle alone, and the fact that the puck was in the air, its pretty simple that the puck didn't cross the line... its all about perspective.. first, if the puck was to be a goal, the entire puck had to cross the red line.. there was not enough space between khabby's pad and the red line for the entire puck to cross the line.. especially with him kicking his leg out

anyways, lets get on with game 7.. this is how a finals should end.. not by some controversial goal (sorry sabres fans)

chriss_co is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 02:21 PM
  #370
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,148
vCash: 500
if the shot is at ALL inconclusive, it is NO GOAL.

now, that said...look over this thread.

one side says- "clearly a goal! we were screwed!" this includes flames and non-flames fans alike.

the other side says, - "nah, that wasn't a goal.close, but you just can't tell."

this also includes flames and non-flames alike...and even the flames coach.

that said, it sounds pretty "inconclusive" to me. why cry over spilled milk and "what if?" we get another hockey game...when it could be 2 years before we see one again. to me, that sounds like a pretty sweet deal. game seven in what has been an incredible series.

And if it had been awarded a goal, you would have had your entire celebration ruined by everyone in the world coming out of the woodwork to say, "no goal, Bolts were robbed" and even, "well, we got away with one, there," a la Sabres\Stars.

Wouldn't you rather just win in convincing fashion, next game? So that there will be no question of legitimacy? no asterisk next to your name on everyone's mental list of champions?

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 02:26 PM
  #371
TVanek26*
 
TVanek26*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buffalo,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,583
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TVanek26*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Joe
I'm not a Sabres fan. Never liked them and never will. But it is quite obvious something reaked on that play. Fact is, Bettman will not look Ruff in the eye to this day. I guess the Sabres never got the memo that the rules were going to fundamentally change in the middle of the playoffs. Sounds like the NHL trying to cover their collective behinds.

Lateral

He's talking about the home run throw forward in Tennessee....


I'm guessing this clown is a Dallas fan....funny if the goal was legal, why did 38 different sport sites call the goal tainted?I remember a site called www.nogoal.com (In which the NHL got scared of and bullied the guy to destroy the site as he sold No goal shirts and showed tons of evidence)


Some of the 38 sites I got when I googled 1999 Stanley Cup Finals...

TSN,Slam,ESPN,ABC,Fox Sports,USA Today,CNN etc....the only sites that didn't proclaim that was probably NHL.com and Dallas' news.


Last edited by barrytrotzsneck: 06-06-2004 at 02:27 PM. Reason: profanity removed
TVanek26* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 02:29 PM
  #372
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBriere48
He's talking about the home run throw forward in Tennessee....

you mean the home-run throw SIDEWAYS

actually if you want questionable call, I'd look to the one that robbed the giants of another chance to kick a fieldgoal in the 2002 NFC championship against the 49ers, if we're making football comparisons.

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 02:40 PM
  #373
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Win it for Robidas!
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 24,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBriere48
I'm guessing this clown is a Dallas fan....
Yes, I am a Dallas fan, and I know I'm a Buffalo fan's worst enemy.

If anything Hull's goal was good for hockey because it forced the league to scrap the stupid toe in the crease rule.

Troy McClure is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 02:44 PM
  #374
Donnie D
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 700
vCash: 500
Got to love that conspiracy theory. You really think the NHL would risk letting a game go to a 2nd overtime if they really wanted to determine the outcome of the game?

Donnie D is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 02:47 PM
  #375
TVanek26*
 
TVanek26*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Buffalo,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,583
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TVanek26*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troy McClure
Yes, I am a Dallas fan, and I know I'm a Buffalo fan's worst enemy.

If anything Hull's goal was good for hockey because it forced the league to scrap the stupid toe in the crease rule.
But a rule is a rule.If they didn't have that rule in place fine, it's a clean loss.But if the rule is in place,then Hull's goal should not have counted, plain and simple.And if you honestly think that Hull's foot wasn't in the crease(while the puck was out of it),I hope you don't drive when you get older.

TVanek26* 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 02:46 AM.

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.