HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL is trying to rob the Flames : Non Goal (all that talk here plz)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-05-2004, 10:42 PM
  #1
Siberian
Registered User
 
Siberian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Saint Pierre
Country: France
Posts: 3,539
vCash: 500
NHL is trying to rob the Flames : Non Goal (all that talk here plz)

They looked at it and thought that was inconclusive? Are they totally blind? The league's officials and management is a joke. Bettman should go before it is too late....

Siberian is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 10:45 PM
  #2
Shoalzie
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Portland, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 13,999
vCash: 500
How much you want to bet that they saw some of the angles ABC was showing and they told them to shut up. I thought it looked in and the NHL tried to cover up their boo boo by sticking to their story. The game is now going into a second overtime...this goal has to be a dead issue at this point. No one really benefits by complaining about this any further. Obviously if Tampa goes on and wins the game tonight, they caught a major break and Calgary wins, no one will really care what happened.

Shoalzie is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 10:48 PM
  #3
Siberian
Registered User
 
Siberian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Saint Pierre
Country: France
Posts: 3,539
vCash: 500
CBS's footage clearly shows that was in. Bulin was just very quick with his pad but the puck clearly crossed the line. Flames should have been up 3-2.

Siberian is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 10:55 PM
  #4
Pontifex Maximus*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,098
vCash: 500
I've said it before but it has new meaning now.

The NHL should be embarrased.

Pontifex Maximus* is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 10:58 PM
  #5
Hockeypuck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siberian
CBS's footage clearly shows that was in. Bulin was just very quick with his pad but the puck clearly crossed the line. Flames should have been up 3-2.
CBs's footage only shows a spot shadow. The puck looks over the line,but from a front angle with the puck off the ice it isn't definite and could be no more than an optical illusion.

Hockeypuck is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 10:59 PM
  #6
littleHossa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 500
What penalties? They were called when they needed to, tell the players to stop the infractions.

littleHossa is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:00 PM
  #7
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Neither CBC or ABC has an angle that shows conclusive evidence that the puck was completely across the goal line.

The overhead shows nothing, same with the net cam. The side angle that shows the puck has possibilities for optical illusions incase the puck was in the air. That angle is not 100% conclusive evidence that puck was completely across the goal line.

Now please quit crying conspiracy.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:02 PM
  #8
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
I posted this in the game thread, but I think it deserves repeating:

How can the NHL take 5 minutes to look at a fairly easy call in the regular season, and then take 15 seconds to look at a very tricky call in the finals?

Someone dropped the ball, and no one is going to admit it.

I thought all reviews in the playoffs were looked at by the league office as well? If anyone else can remember a review that went that fast before, please remind me about it.


Last edited by Silver: 06-05-2004 at 11:06 PM.
Silver is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:02 PM
  #9
TwineSniper
Registered User
 
TwineSniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,092
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to TwineSniper
I'm sorry, but it looked in to me.

On one specific view, you can plainly see a good couple centimetres of white ice between the puck and the goal line. Now the only way the could think it was "inconclusive" is if they believe that the white ice was actually snow from Gelinas skate.

TwineSniper is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:04 PM
  #10
Hockeypuck
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Behind Enemy Lines
Posts: 308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The~Franchise
I'm sorry, but it looked in to me.

On one specific view, you can plainly see a good couple centimetres of white ice between the puck and the goal line. Now the only way the could think it was "inconclusive" is if they believe that the white ice was actually snow from Gelinas skate.
The specific view is a front angle with the puck off the ice so it could be an optical illusion. The overhead showed nothing.

Hockeypuck is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:06 PM
  #11
Karl Pilkington
Registered User
 
Karl Pilkington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,959
vCash: 500
Definitely looked in to me... but there's nothing anyone can do about it, so that's all the whining about it I'm gonna do.. except for it seemed kind of weird to me that they barely even reviewed the play.. and even if conclusive evidence was found, there was no break in between that play and the next faceoff for them to do anything..

Karl Pilkington is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:08 PM
  #12
Youreallygotme
Registered User
 
Youreallygotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kelowna BC
Posts: 2,286
vCash: 500
He kicked the puck in. No goal anyways. end of story

Just two weeks ago the kelowna rockets had a goal called back with the exact same amount of kicking motion. The nhl was reviewing that game with their own judgement, not the chl. so quit worrying, because even if the puck went in, no goal. KICKED IN.

Or should we go talk about a goal that mike keane scored in game 7 in round 1? because the evidence showed that the he had scored before the whistle went. so perhaps the flames shouldnt even be here??

Youreallygotme is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:08 PM
  #13
V for Voodoo
Registered User
 
V for Voodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boom Shaka-Laka.
Country: Nepal
Posts: 5,004
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to V for Voodoo Send a message via MSN to V for Voodoo
I thought it was inconclusive.
It looked like it may have been in, but nobody could say that without a shadow of a doubt.

V for Voodoo is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:08 PM
  #14
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
I'm glad the NHL didn't let it count. I'd hate it if a kicked puck wins the Stanley Cup.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:09 PM
  #15
ZadorovNJD*
go away fatso
 
ZadorovNJD*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Umm al-Qaiwan
Posts: 10,199
vCash: 500
Remember Pandolfo's phantom goal last year? It's not like the NHL hasn't screwed up in the playoffs before.

ZadorovNJD* is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:09 PM
  #16
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
How can the NHL take 5 minutes to look at a fairly easy call in the regular season, and then take 15 seconds to look at a very tricky call in the finals?

Someone dropped the ball, and no one is going to admit it.
The only time the reviews take that long, are when the on-ice officials call upstairs themselves. None of the on-ice officials thought it was possible the puck went in...hell, none of the Calgary Flames thought the puck went in.

The NHL released a statement in the intermission that there was only one angle that showed the puck, and it was not conclusive. It doesn't take five minutes to look at the only angle you have.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:10 PM
  #17
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
I'm glad the NHL didn't let it count. I'd hate it if a kicked puck wins the Stanley Cup.

Gelinas gave no distinct kicking motion. If there was conclusive evidence that the puck was in, it would have been a goal.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:10 PM
  #18
TwineSniper
Registered User
 
TwineSniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,092
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to TwineSniper
Quote:
Originally Posted by nucks&flames
Just two weeks ago the kelowna rockets had a goal called back with the exact same amount of kicking motion. The nhl was reviewing that game with their own judgement, not the chl. so quit worrying, because even if the puck went in, no goal. KICKED IN.

Or should we go talk about a goal that mike keane scored in game 7 in round 1? because the evidence showed that the he had scored before the whistle went. so perhaps the flames shouldnt even be here??


WRONG! There was no kicking motion. Read your rule book.

TwineSniper is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:10 PM
  #19
Youreallygotme
Registered User
 
Youreallygotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kelowna BC
Posts: 2,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nucks&flames
Just two weeks ago the kelowna rockets had a goal called back with the exact same amount of kicking motion. The nhl was reviewing that game with their own judgement, not the chl. so quit worrying, because even if the puck went in, no goal. KICKED IN.

Or should we go talk about a goal that mike keane scored in game 7 in round 1? because the evidence showed that the he had scored before the whistle went. so perhaps the flames shouldnt even be here??
that said, im cheering for the flames. They will win game 7.

Youreallygotme is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:12 PM
  #20
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinnie
Remember Pandolfo's phantom goal last year? It's not like the NHL hasn't screwed up in the playoffs before.
What about LeClair's goal through the net against Hasek and the Sabres. Nothing tops that one.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:12 PM
  #21
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver
I posted this in the game thread, but I think it deserves repeating:

How can the NHL take 5 minutes to look at a fairly easy call in the regular season, and then take 15 seconds to look at a very tricky call in the finals?

Someone dropped the ball, and no one is going to admit it.

I thought all reviews in the finals were looked at by the league office as well? If anyone else can remember a review that went that fast before, please remind me about it.
Tell me, was there any call downstairs to stop the play so they could look at it. If not, I doubt it was even reviewed until the CBC staff picked it up, then the rest is league face saving. By that time its too late unfortunately. I don't know if it was in or not, it appeared it was, but the "review" doesn't make much sense.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:14 PM
  #22
Silver
Registered User
 
Silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: California
Posts: 5,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
The only time the reviews take that long, are when the on-ice officials call upstairs themselves. None of the on-ice officials thought it was possible the puck went in...hell, none of the Calgary Flames thought the puck went in.

The NHL released a statement in the intermission that there was only one angle that showed the puck, and it was not conclusive. It doesn't take five minutes to look at the only angle you have.
It takes more time than they took to look at more than one angle. Sure, after you look at all the angles, you might see only one that showed the puck, but you still have to cue up and look at all of them to make sure.

You don't know until you've watched it from EVERY angle that only one angle is good. I just don't think they had time to do that. The puck got dropped and someone went, "Oops!"

Silver is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:15 PM
  #23
SmokeyClause
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
Gelinas gave no distinct kicking motion. If there was conclusive evidence that the puck was in, it would have been a goal.
It doesn't have to be a distinct kicking motion to be a kick in my book. I think it would have counted because it was a legal kick, but the foot is moving forward and makes contact with the puck. It's a kick, just a legal one. Let's just say he accidentally kicked it, which in this context makes it legal. I never said it shouldn't have counted. Just that a puck off a foot moving towards the net is not how Stanley Cup games should end IMO.

SmokeyClause is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:15 PM
  #24
Pontifex Maximus*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyClause
What about LeClair's goal through the net against Hasek and the Sabres. Nothing tops that one.
That didn't blow a Stanley Cup championship.

Pontifex Maximus* is offline  
Old
06-05-2004, 11:15 PM
  #25
Youreallygotme
Registered User
 
Youreallygotme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kelowna BC
Posts: 2,286
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
The only time the reviews take that long, are when the on-ice officials call upstairs themselves. None of the on-ice officials thought it was possible the puck went in...hell, none of the Calgary Flames thought the puck went in.

The NHL released a statement in the intermission that there was only one angle that showed the puck, and it was not conclusive. It doesn't take five minutes to look at the only angle you have.
exactly. All we see in here nowadays is whining, because people think they can outdo the nhl in every which way. The nhl said they looked at it and it was inconclusive. End of story. And i still think it was kicked in, after watching a goal of the exact same fashion get called back(and it was clearly in), i think this one wouldve been called back.

Youreallygotme 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 03:56 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.