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, 08:53 PM
  #51
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chattanooga TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
because, if they're anything like me...upon seeing the replay several times(in my case, in high definition,) i see nothing that clearly shows the entire puck crossing the line?
It still could have been ruled a kick even IF they ruled it was a goal. Gelinas seemed like he saw the puck pretty well when he skated into it....so it could have been disallowed even after the fact.

IMO, the puck was likely over the line, but I think Gelinas deliberately directed it in with the skates (I could be wrong on that, but that was my take when I saw the play). Either way, I think the right call was made. The goal was too iffy and inconclusive to make it a goal....when the goal judge did not count it as a goal. Now if the judge had said it a goal first, then this could be a whole new ball game. Frankly, there probably isn't enough evidence to support the theory that the puck "isn't" over the line.......which would be needed to overturn it. The only possible way it would be overturned, IMO, is if the officials felt the goal was kicked in (like me).

__________________
- Enoch -
Enoch is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 08:56 PM
  #52
ObeySteve
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Delaware County, PA
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ObeySteve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
It still could have been ruled a kick even IF they ruled it was a goal. Gelinas seemed like he saw the puck pretty well when he skated into it....so it could have been disallowed even after the fact.
You might want to take a look at the NHL rulebook. It has to be a "distinctive kicking motion". If it is not, regardless of intention by the player whose skate made contact with the puck, then it is a goal.

ObeySteve is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 09:13 PM
  #53
Siberian
Registered User
 
Siberian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Saint Pierre
Country: France
Posts: 3,539
vCash: 500
Look, even Doc Rivers just said on ABC that it was clearly a goal. Unbiased people all could see that was a GOAL, hardworking goal which was supposed to decide the Stanley Cup winner.

Siberian is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 09:20 PM
  #54
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chattanooga TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObeySteve
You might want to take a look at the NHL rulebook. It has to be a "distinctive kicking motion". If it is not, regardless of intention by the player whose skate made contact with the puck, then it is a goal.
I know what the rule says, but the officials could say that Gelinas saw the puck and therefore deliberately skated into it to knock it in........then disallow it. Its not like the officials are sticklers for the rulebook anyways. I have seen similar judgements made based on the same theory.

Enoch is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 09:28 PM
  #55
Flames 1st pick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,039
vCash: 500
Tomorrow, Gary Bettman is going to make a surprised visit. He will announce it was a goal. Series is over and award the Flames with the Stanley Cup before the start of the game.

It's the only right thing to do.

Flames 1st pick is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 09:31 PM
  #56
SwisshockeyAcademy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siberian
Look, even Doc Rivers just said on ABC that it was clearly a goal. Unbiased people all could see that was a GOAL, hardworking goal which was supposed to decide the Stanley Cup winner.
Now that you mention it i don't know why McCreary did not have a direct line to Doc Rivers, we would have this issue resolved. Doc will no doubt be in the warroom tomorrow to make sure it doesn't happen again.


Last edited by SwisshockeyAcademy: 06-06-2004 at 11:11 PM.
SwisshockeyAcademy is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 09:32 PM
  #57
Vinnythe[Le]Cavalier
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Down south, where the hockey ignorant live
Posts: 84
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siberian
Look, even Doc Rivers just said on ABC that it was clearly a goal. Unbiased people all could see that was a GOAL, hardworking goal which was supposed to decide the Stanley Cup winner.
that potential goal wasn't supposed to decide the Stanley Cup, so don't say something homer like that.

You say that unbiased people could see that it was goal when there are unbiased people who say it's in inconslusive. EVEN DARRYL SUTTER said it was inconclusive.

Vinnythe[Le]Cavalier is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 09:35 PM
  #58
Hiishawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Out there somewhere
Posts: 1,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallas Flames Fan
Tomorrow, Gary Bettman is going to make a surprised visit. He will announce it was a goal. Series is over and award the Flames with the Stanley Cup before the start of the game.

It's the only right thing to do.
I know you are joking but people have got to remember that this play did not DECIDE the cup. It was not in overtime. It would have given Calgary the LEAD, not the cup.

Hiishawk is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 09:38 PM
  #59
devildan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
The only camera that showed the puck was a side camera at an angular position. That angle has possibilities for optical illusions. If the puck was in the air, the white ice you see between the puck and the goal line is under the puck, not beside it. Since it cannot be determined if the puck was in the air or on the ice, there cannot be conclusive evidence from that angle that the puck completely crossed the line.
Exactly

devildan is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 09:44 PM
  #60
Hiishawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Out there somewhere
Posts: 1,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch
I know what the rule says, but the officials could say that Gelinas saw the puck and therefore deliberately skated into it to knock it in........then disallow it. Its not like the officials are sticklers for the rulebook anyways. I have seen similar judgements made based on the same theory.
This is correct. Putting your skates in stopping position in order to direct the puck into the net CAN constitute a "direct kicking motion". A key in determining this is whether the player is looking at the puck when doing so.

So we have about 5 conditions here-
1. Inconclusive about crossing the line fully. NHL rules say inconclusive equals no goal.
2. No officials (on OR off ice) called the goal or even asked for a review.
3. No Calgary players or coaches call for a review.
4. Kicking motion could be argued (see above) even if it was fully across the line.
5. That play did not decide the game or the cup. It didn't happen in overtime.

The weight of evidence and argument is-
The winner of game 7 is the Stanley Cup champion. Just as Calgary playes and coaches understand.

Hiishawk is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 09:51 PM
  #61
Rschmitz
Registered User
 
Rschmitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tampa Bay
Country: United States
Posts: 4,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siberian
Look, even Doc Rivers just said on ABC that it was clearly a goal. Unbiased people all could see that was a GOAL, hardworking goal which was supposed to decide the Stanley Cup winner.
Doc Rivers is a basketball coach....

I believe they should have reviewed for more than 15 seconds; but if the experts think its that obvious than who are we as mere fans to argue? I'm no expert in physics, nor do I have a degree in aerodynamics; but I do know that optical illusions do exist and the minisucle amount of space between the puck and the line..combined with the height of the puck, would mean that the puck had indeed not crossed fully over the line.

Rschmitz is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 09:58 PM
  #62
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siberian
Look, even Doc Rivers just said on ABC that it was clearly a goal. Unbiased people all could see that was a GOAL, hardworking goal which was supposed to decide the Stanley Cup winner.
First of all, if it was a goal, we don't know it would have stood as the game winning goal.

Secondly, I will repeat...

The only camera that showed the puck was a side camera at an angular position. That angle has possibilities for optical illusions. If the puck was in the air, the white ice you see between the puck and the goal line is under the puck, not beside it. Since it cannot be determined if the puck was in the air or on the ice, there cannot be conclusive evidence from that angle that the puck completely crossed the line.

There is no conclusive evidence, period. You cannot argue that due to the science involved with viewing the puck from a side angle in comparison to the goal line.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 10:14 PM
  #63
PhillyNucksFan
Registered User
 
PhillyNucksFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,652
vCash: 500
Inconclusive.

There must have been 10+ cameras on the play, and only ONE, at least only one so far that I have seen, showed "somewhat" the puck "possibly" being over the line.

It was the right call not to call it a goal. Sure, it would have, could have, probably had gone in. Who cares, the goal did not stand and TB won it in 2OT.

I dont know about you, but I am sure NHL video refs people have the expertise and equipments to decide whether the goal was in or out. It is not Kerry Fraser up there, lets remember that.. :lol

PhillyNucksFan is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 10:24 PM
  #64
Brett38
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 786
vCash: 500
I agree with Siberian. I think this was a missed call. Was it close? Yes, but all this talk about the puck in the air is a ploy by Campbell to get us to think even more. Sutter will say it is no goal because he does not want to derail his team and cause a disruption.

For the record, I am not a Flames fan. I like both of these teams. In fact, I would love for Andrechuck(sp) to finally win a cup. I also love Iggy.

My call...It was a goal.

Right now...who cares!

Game seven here we come!!!!!!!!!!

Brett38 is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 10:29 PM
  #65
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett38
My call...It was a goal.
Based on what?

There is no conclusive video evidence.


There is no "thinking it was a missed call". How hard is it to understand that the angle that shows the puck possibly crossed the line, is not 100% conclusive?

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 10:33 PM
  #66
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,492
vCash: 500
What dont people understand, it was inconclusive. The puck was in the AIR peeps, the air, if it was along the ice, its a goal, but it was air-born, so you cant tell if it was across the line, or just a dillusional angle.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 10:34 PM
  #67
rwilson99
Registered User
 
rwilson99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: TAMPA, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
Based on what?

There is no conclusive video evidence.

There is no "thinking it was a missed call". How hard is it to understand that the angle that shows the puck possibly crossed the line, is not 100% conclusive?
Possibly in, possibly kicked... conclusively inconclusive.

rwilson99 is offline  
Old
06-06-2004, 10:47 PM
  #68
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ObeySteve
I still have yet to see anyone give a good explanation as to why it's inconclusive.

If anyone can do so, please do.
It's an optical illusion as others have explained.

Maybe this will help:


Last edited by Psycho Papa Joe: 06-06-2004 at 10:51 PM.
Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 01:16 AM
  #69
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
No, many of us think it wasn't in at all. But we're not so conceited that we think it isn't possible that we're wrong about it.

Thus, we vote inconclusive.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 02:25 AM
  #70
quat
intheDanRusseljungle
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 8,924
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Joe
It's an optical illusion as others have explained.

Maybe this will help:
Exactly! The puck could be anywhere between the "eye" (camera), and other than size there is no way to judge where exactly it sits. Obviously the closer the puck gets to the eye the larger it would be, but at the distance the puck was being filmed, 3 to 6 inches would be impossible to detect.

quat is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 04:30 AM
  #71
Brad Tolliver
Terror Goes Into
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Overtime
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siberian
Look, even Doc Rivers just said on ABC that it was clearly a goal. Unbiased people all could see that was a GOAL, hardworking goal which was supposed to decide the Stanley Cup winner.
Well, there you go ladies and gentlemen, international hockey expert Doc Rivers, who must have been spending years watching and commentating on hockey, called it a goal so everyone must now conform with his opinion.

Screw that Darryl Sutter fellow too, I bet he is part of the conspiracy bias against the Flames because he said it was no goal.

Brad Tolliver is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 05:40 AM
  #72
Crossbar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 48" above the ice
Posts: 5,114
vCash: 500
Players change their opinion after seeing the replays

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam040606/nhl_cal_tb5-cp.html

Crossbar is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 07:32 AM
  #73
petec1978*
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Where Zell Miller's
Country: United States
Posts: 3,401
vCash: 500
This just in!

The Panthers still finished 33 points behind the Lightning and therefore fired Rick Dudley.

You can read the story at:

http://www.whycrossbarandpanthernationaresobitter.com

-Pete Choquette

petec1978* is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 08:29 AM
  #74
Sotnos
Registered User
 
Sotnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Not here
Posts: 10,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Joe
It's an optical illusion as others have explained.

Maybe this will help:
Good picture joe, that illustrates it well.

Sotnos is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 10:49 AM
  #75
ObeySteve
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Delaware County, PA
Posts: 3,552
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ObeySteve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Joe
It's an optical illusion as others have explained.

Maybe this will help:
The puck was on the ground the entire duration of the play.

ObeySteve 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 03:39 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.