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.

Was the goal in?

View Poll Results: Was the goal in?
Yes just look at the video. 144 35.73%
No. Khabby kicked it out. 34 8.44%
Inconclusive 161 39.95%
It was kicked in. 27 6.70%
Games over now so it don't matter 29 7.20%
NHL has a conspiracy againt a canadian team winning 8 1.99%
Voters: 403. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-06-2004, 11:36 AM
  #1
Sabes
Registered User
 
Sabes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,232
vCash: 500
Was the goal in?

http://www.eng-rus.com/goal.wmv
Was the goal in? Was it reviewed properly?

Sabes is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 11:41 AM
  #2
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
 
The Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,593
vCash: 500
I'll just post what I did before

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

That didn't go in. From that angle that the TV showed it looks like the puck is on the ice, and that it is past the red-line, but in fact the puck is in the air on top of the red line, not all of the puck was over which can only classify a goal. The angle just makes it seem like it was in the net. But I knew there would be people blaming that call because they lost.

The Bob Cole is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 11:43 AM
  #3
Toonces
The beer kitty
 
Toonces's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Jersey
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,675
vCash: 500
It's fair to have a poll, but this thread will likely get closed, or moved to the poll board.

Toonces is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 11:45 AM
  #4
Siberian
Registered User
 
Siberian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Saint Pierre
Country: France
Posts: 3,539
vCash: 500
People are making excuses that the puck was in the air, but the pad was on the ice and it was about 6 inches inside the line. The pad is what the puck hit when it went in, it was a GOAL!

Siberian is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 11:51 AM
  #5
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
 
The Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siberian
People are making excuses that the puck was in the air, but the pad was on the ice and it was about 6 inches inside the line. The pad is what the puck hit when it went in, it was a GOAL!

But he kicked out his leg too when he saved the puck, and when his pad and the puck met, the puck was not fully in the net. Maybe 3/4 of it was but the whole puck has to be inside the net to classify it as a goal.

The puck is in the air just get your head around that, it isn't inside the line, it just looks like it from the angle, but it really isn't.


It is too close to call, that is why they said inconclusive, and the call on the ice stands.

The Bob Cole is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 11:56 AM
  #6
Snakeeye
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toonces
It's fair to have a poll, but this thread will likely get closed, or moved to the poll board.



Yeah, it was in. There is no doubt of that, IMO. Problem was, it was so fast and close, that nobody on the ice thought to review it. Had the Flames or the officials called for a review, chances are there would be a lot of happy drunks in Calgary right now. But since the human eye wasnt fast enough, play continued before a proper review could be done. At that point, it became a moot point.

And that is the argument Colin Campbell should have used, rather than try to state the puck was not in despite the video. Why lie to everyone's faces when a perfectly acceptable, and legitimate, explanation exists?


Last edited by Drury77: 06-06-2004 at 01:36 PM. Reason: Removed questioning of mod decisions
Snakeeye is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:00 PM
  #7
Flames 1st pick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,031
vCash: 500
it's the NHL conspiracy or at least screwed up!!!, I give up, Flames are not going to win with all these odds against them

Good job Sutter!!! you have done much more than anyone expected.

Flames 1st pick is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:06 PM
  #8
Hitman*
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cowtown
Posts: 4,299
vCash: 500
The league is being consistent with this one. The angle was poor, the puck was in the air so it is inconclusive. Am I mad, yes, but I wouldn't want to win the cup on a controversial goal just as much as losing it to one.

Hitman* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:08 PM
  #9
Snakeeye
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Calgary
Posts: 735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
The league is being consistent with this one. The angle was poor, the puck was in the air so it is inconclusive. Am I mad, yes, but I wouldn't want to win the cup on a controversial goal just as much as losing it to one.
Why not? we may end up losing the Cup over the BS of game four. Seems to me a controversial goal that wins the cup is only fair.

Snakeeye is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:09 PM
  #10
Blueski
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Flames Fan
it's the NHL conspiracy or at least screwed up!!!, I give up, Flames are not going to win with all these odds against them

Good job Sutter!!! you have done much more than anyone expected.
Yeah, it's a conspiracy It really is sad when a team's fans have to make excuses for their team losing instead of admitting that maybe, just MAYBE their team wasn't as good that night.

And as a fan of a team that has fan's that also think the NHL has a conspiracy against them (The Blues have lost like 20 first round draft choices and one of the best dmen in the game for even thinking of signing free agents, oops think we just lost another for me posting that) I know conspiracy talk and all I have to say is that every bit of it is ludicrous!

The only part of this post that has any shred of truth is the fact that Sutter has done an excellent job and more that anyone expected out of the Flames this season. For that, I applaud

Oh, and I voted inconclusive (got to make sure to stay on topic you know )

Blueski is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:09 PM
  #11
maruk14
Registered User
 
maruk14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snakeeye
Only because the admins here would rather try to cram as many dicussions into one thread as possible, rather than let people do what this forum software was designed to do...


Yeah, it was in. There is no doubt of that, IMO. Problem was, it was so fast and close, that nobody on the ice thought to review it. Had the Flames or the officials called for a review, chances are there would be a lot of happy drunks in Calgary right now. But since the human eye wasnt fast enough, play continued before a proper review could be done. At that point, it became a moot point.

And that is the argument Colin Campbell should have used, rather than try to state the puck was not in despite the video. Why lie to everyone's faces when a perfectly acceptable, and legitimate, explanation exists?
He stated it was inconclusive ...

"We reviewed a number of camera angles and only one showed the puck," NHL director of hockey operations Colin Campbell said. "From that angle, it was inconclusive whether the puck crossed the goal line ... there was insufficient evidence."

Even Sutter didn't think it was a big thing ...

"It's got to be conclusive," Sutter said. "I looked at it from two different angles, and unless they have a different one, you can't say that it's a goal.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/recap?gameId=240605003

I just don't see this as that big a controversy, it was a bang, bang play and the call on the ice was no goal. Replay didn't show conclusive proof, play on.

maruk14 is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:18 PM
  #12
ObeySteve
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Delaware County, PA
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ObeySteve
This issue itself should have its own thread. It's become aggravating to the posters of how mods want to try to merge together about 15 different topics into one, when the only thing they end up having in common is something have to do with controversy.

ObeySteve is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:26 PM
  #13
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 maruk14
He stated it was inconclusive ...

"We reviewed a number of camera angles and only one showed the puck," NHL director of hockey operations Colin Campbell said. "From that angle, it was inconclusive whether the puck crossed the goal line ... there was insufficient evidence."

Even Sutter didn't think it was a big thing ...

"It's got to be conclusive," Sutter said. "I looked at it from two different angles, and unless they have a different one, you can't say that it's a goal.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/recap?gameId=240605003

I just don't see this as that big a controversy, it was a bang, bang play and the call on the ice was no goal. Replay didn't show conclusive proof, play on.
Nick Kypreos, John Garrett, Don Cherry, Paul Maurice, Craig Button all said it was no goal also. All of them have been somewhat homers towards the Flames also.

SopelFan* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:35 PM
  #14
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
Inconclusive, therefore it shouldn't be ruled a goal, but they should have reviewed it for more than 15 seconds.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:49 PM
  #15
KingofSpain
Registered User
 
KingofSpain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Windsor, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 344
vCash: 500
Has anyone seen other angles of the "goal"? Like an overhead view.

I have to say that the one angle is definitely inconclusive. Too bad it was so fast and Sutter, or someone else didn't call for a proper review.

KingofSpain is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:50 PM
  #16
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 Ice Demon
Has anyone seen other angles of the "goal"? Like an overhead view.

I have to say that the one angle is definitely inconclusive. Too bad it was so fast and Sutter, or someone else didn't call for a proper review.
I saw the above angle. It looked like no goal there. However, the crossbar and Khabibulin's pad leave no white space.

SopelFan* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:55 PM
  #17
Flonaldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hämeenlinna, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 304
vCash: 500
Yes it was a goal but I was torn between which alternative to vote for because "it doesn't matter anymore" is the reality of the situation. That's why Sutter made the comments he did, he doesn't wan't his team to be thinking about anything else than winning the game when G7 comes around. The NHL made a fool of itself with how they handled the situation.

Flonaldo is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:56 PM
  #18
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 Flonaldo
Yes it was a goal but I was torn between which alternative to vote for because "it doesn't matter anymore" is the reality of the situation. That's why Sutter made the comments he did, he doesn't wan't his team to be thinking about anything else than winning the game when G7 comes around. The NHL made a fool of itself with how they handled the situation.
How can you CONCLUSIVELY say that the puck was entirely across the line? You can't.

SopelFan* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 12:58 PM
  #19
Phanuthier*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murder capital (Edm)
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Well as a fan, I really don't have any say.

We were given 1 angle to work with, where the heck are the others? I was at the game, and didn't have the benefit of seeing any angles, but did CBC or ABC or ESPN or whatever at least give an overhead or something? From the bleeder of the bleeders, it looked in to me, but nobody lifted their arms, so I just thought it was out.

My only beef is they never stopped play to review it, nor did Iginla or Conroy or Regehr ask for a review.

Phanuthier* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:01 PM
  #20
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 Splatman Phanutier
Well as a fan, I really don't have any say.

We were given 1 angle to work with, where the heck are the others? I was at the game, and didn't have the benefit of seeing any angles, but did CBC or ABC or ESPN or whatever at least give an overhead or something? From the bleeder of the bleeders, it looked in to me, but nobody lifted their arms, so I just thought it was out.

My only beef is they never stopped play to review it, nor did Iginla or Conroy or Regehr ask for a review.
CBC took ages to figure out that anything happened. I think they watched ABC and then did it like 5 minutes later. They had an overhead angle, but you couldn't see anything. Then they had the goalcam, where you see pads and nothing else.

SopelFan* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:02 PM
  #21
Phanuthier*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Murder capital (Edm)
Posts: 10,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SopelFan
CBC took ages to figure out that anything happened. I think they watched ABC and then did it like 5 minutes later. They had an overhead angle, but you couldn't see anything. Then they had the goalcam, where you see pads and nothing else.
Well if its inconclusive, its no goal.

Period.

Phanuthier* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:04 PM
  #22
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 Splatman Phanutier
Well if its inconclusive, its no goal.

Period.
The overhead angle would have been a good angle, but there was so little space between the crossbar and his right pad, it was hard to see.

SopelFan* is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:06 PM
  #23
ObeySteve
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Delaware County, PA
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ObeySteve
In the end, most of you are voting for Inconclusive because you didn't want that to be the SC-winning goal....not because you actually think it isn't clear whether the puck is in the net or not.

ObeySteve is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:17 PM
  #24
Pangolin
Registered User
 
Pangolin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splatman Phanutier
Well as a fan, I really don't have any say.

We were given 1 angle to work with, where the heck are the others? I was at the game, and didn't have the benefit of seeing any angles, but did CBC or ABC or ESPN or whatever at least give an overhead or something? From the bleeder of the bleeders, it looked in to me, but nobody lifted their arms, so I just thought it was out.

My only beef is they never stopped play to review it, nor did Iginla or Conroy or Regehr ask for a review.

But in earlier series, it's already proven that even if they didn't stop play to review it, the head office still did review it and if they thought it was in, they would have called in and count it as a goal.
Tampa already had this happen to them this post-season.

Pangolin is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 01:29 PM
  #25
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
I cannot believe the results of this poll. It should be unanimous that the video is inconclusive.

Even Sutter says the video is inconclusive. That erases any debate.

BCCHL inactive 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 09:06 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.