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.

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
06-07-2004, 11:43 AM
  #76
Flamin' Griz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 474
vCash: 500
I voted inconclusive, but I also could have voted that the game is over so it doesn't matter....because it doesn't.

No way was it kicked in.

Flamin' Griz is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 11:43 AM
  #77
Flonaldo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hämeenlinna, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 304
vCash: 500
It's funny how everyone in the "inconclusive"-camp says that you can't really see from that angle and blah blah blah. Then practically everyone of them turns around and says that it's 100% sure that the puck was in the air. Just goes to show that people will believe whatever justifies their point of view and makes their opinion the right one.

I don't think the puck was in the air, and that's based on how the puck lines up with Khabby's pad. Therefore that angle would show the puck being inside the goal line.

Flonaldo is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 11:49 AM
  #78
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,848
vCash: 500
yes the puck was in

http://home.comcast.net/~jimmywhite/100_33592.jpg

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 02:35 PM
  #79
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClarkeMustGoDotCom

From my uneducated eye, Khabbys pad is on the ice, the puck is at the bottom of his pad, and the puck appears flat against his pad which is behind the goal line. The more I look at it, the more it looks like a good goal. The contact point is behind the line with the puck at the bottom of the pad so an optical illusion appears unlikely to me.

Kirk Muller is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 02:47 PM
  #80
jiggs 10
Registered User
 
jiggs 10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hockeytown, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
Nope, it wasn't in. From the overhead camera (which is the one the league uses the most), the puck was CLEARLY kicked out of the crease area before it even started entering the net. The ABC angle from the high-up game camera makes it look like it might be in, but remember the puck was about 4 inches in the air, so you lose perspective, especially from that angle. And how can anyone say if it WAS a goal, that it would have been a Cup winning goal? You mean Tampa might NOT have scored again? How do you know they wouldn't have? It's all moot now, and the league does NOT have it in for the Flames. They have just gotten so used to breaking the rules in these playoffs, they can't believe it when a penalty is called on them. THAT is the fault of the NHL, not a conspiracy against Canadian teams. If there was one of those, there would have been a heckuva lot of suspensions handed out to Flames' players for all their tackling, slashing, spearing, etc.

jiggs 10 is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 03:19 PM
  #81
CaptainCrunch
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 38
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiggs 10
They have just gotten so used to breaking the rules in these playoffs, they can't believe it when a penalty is called on them. THAT is the fault of the NHL, not a conspiracy against Canadian teams. If there was one of those, there would have been a heckuva lot of suspensions handed out to Flames' players for all their tackling, slashing, spearing, etc.


100% pure B.S.

Boy can you people ever whine!

Calgary breaks the the rules no more than any other team they have played against, it is only your bitterness, biasness or utter ignorance that makes you think so.

CaptainCrunch is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 03:26 PM
  #82
Lobstertainment
Registered User
 
Lobstertainment's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,288
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Lobstertainment
I HAVE PROOF THAT IT WAS INDEED A GOAL

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x bulin's xxxxxx
xx pad xxxxx .|||||||
xxxxxxxxxx. . .|||||||
xxxxxx . . . . . |||||||
xx .QQQ . . . .|||||||
. QQQQQ . . ..| red |
.Q puck Q . . .| line |
. QQQQQ . . . |||||||
. . QQQ . . . . |||||||

Lobstertainment is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 03:40 PM
  #83
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 17,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSJTOM
I HAVE PROOF THAT IT WAS INDEED A GOAL

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x bulin's xxxxxx
xx pad xxxxx .|||||||
xxxxxxxxxx. . .|||||||
xxxxxx . . . . . |||||||
xx .QQQ . . . .|||||||
. QQQQQ . . ..| red |
.Q puck Q . . .| line |
. QQQQQ . . . |||||||
. . QQQ . . . . |||||||
About as good as any other I've seen

triggrman is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 03:42 PM
  #84
quat
vapid but stately
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,022
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nash13
From my uneducated eye, Khabbys pad is on the ice, the puck is at the bottom of his pad, and the puck appears flat against his pad which is behind the goal line. The more I look at it, the more it looks like a good goal. The contact point is behind the line with the puck at the bottom of the pad so an optical illusion appears unlikely to me.

Well this still shot can't give you all the information you need to make this judgement.

The whole point being of course they need conclusive evidence, and this angle can't provide it. Most posters here are saying it's inconclusive, not that it's in or that it's out...

quat is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 03:45 PM
  #85
quat
vapid but stately
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,022
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSJTOM
I HAVE PROOF THAT IT WAS INDEED A GOAL

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x bulin's xxxxxx
xx pad xxxxx .|||||||
xxxxxxxxxx. . .|||||||
xxxxxx . . . . . |||||||
xx .QQQ . . . .|||||||
. QQQQQ . . ..| red |
.Q puck Q . . .| line |
. QQQQQ . . . |||||||
. . QQQ . . . . |||||||

LOL actually, that angle would be correct as it is drawn directly above the ice...

quat is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 03:50 PM
  #86
quat
vapid but stately
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 9,022
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSJTOM
I HAVE PROOF THAT IT WAS INDEED A GOAL

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
x bulin's xxxxxx
xx pad xxxxx .|||||||
xxxxxxxxxx. . .|||||||
xxxxxx . . . . . |||||||
xx ......... . . .||||||| QQ
............ . . ..| red | QQQQ
............... . .| line |QpuckQ
. ............ . . ||||||| QQQ
. . ...... . . . . |||||||

Doh!

quat is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 04:11 PM
  #87
Sonik
Registered User
 
Sonik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Proud Habs Land
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
I saw a picture in the newspaper this morning. It shows that the puck must have crossed the line. I'll try to find it.

Sonik is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 04:19 PM
  #88
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
People can think that the puck completely crossed the line, and have a decent theory trying to prove it too.

However, under NHL rules, theory cannot be used to prove the puck completely crossed the line. Only 100% conclusive video evidence can be used. The angle in which the puck appeared to have possibly crossed the goal line, needed to be backed up by a camera angle with no possibilities of optical illusions. There was no such backup.

It's not about judgment, it's about physical evidence, and the only angle that shows an un-obstructed view of the puck is not sufficient physical evidence.

Under NHL rules, it is no goal, and the right call was made.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 04:29 PM
  #89
Impossibles
Registered User
 
Impossibles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Langley, BC
Country: British Antarctic Territory
Posts: 6,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Joe
Inconclusive, therefore it shouldn't be ruled a goal, but they should have reviewed it for more than 15 seconds.
How do you know they weren't reviewing the play while play was going on? I think the next wistle was 2 minutes later.

Impossibles is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 05:10 PM
  #90
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossibles
How do you know they weren't reviewing the play while play was going on? I think the next wistle was 2 minutes later.
I don't know if it was a whole two minutes until the first stoppage, but you're right. As soon as a close play at the net happens, the guys in the video booth are reviewing it.

ABC had time to get the replay, enhance it and show it to its TV audience during the stoppage in play. Obviously, the guys in the ABC TV truck had the replays set up long before the first stoppage in play. If you don't think the NHL staff was watching what ABC was doing with the replays before the first stoppage, I'll leave you to think about that.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 05:23 PM
  #91
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,668
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
People can think that the puck completely crossed the line, and have a decent theory trying to prove it too.

However, under NHL rules, theory cannot be used to prove the puck completely crossed the line. Only 100% conclusive video evidence can be used. The angle in which the puck appeared to have possibly crossed the goal line, needed to be backed up by a camera angle with no possibilities of optical illusions. There was no such backup.

It's not about judgment, it's about physical evidence, and the only angle that shows an un-obstructed view of the puck is not sufficient physical evidence.

Under NHL rules, it is no goal, and the right call was made.
Are you saying that if it looked even further across the line that evidence would be inconclusive as well? Only a top view or hitting the back mesh or possibly hitting the ice when viewed from this position would allow this view to be conclusive on it's own?

Is this your opinion of the rules or are the rules clearly written this way?

My own opinion is that math, geometry and knowledge of the exact position and characteristics of the camera lense could pinpoint the puck's position of the puck within a millimetre after a frame by frame analysis. I think this is outside of the scope of a video judges expertise but I would love to have seen what they were doing as play continued.

My personal opinion is that they were watching the hockey game!

Crosbyfan is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 06:09 PM
  #92
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
 
The Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Here is another view, I still say it is no goal, because I don't think the WHOLE puck crossed the line by the time Khabibulin save it with his pad. I think it was 75% in, BUT that isn't all in which can only classify a goal.


The Bob Cole is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 06:20 PM
  #93
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,668
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toddzilla44
Here is another view, I still say it is no goal, because I don't think the WHOLE puck crossed the line by the time Khabibulin save it with his pad. I think it was 75% in, BUT that isn't all in which can only classify a goal.

Was this on it's way in, or on it's way out?

Crosbyfan is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 06:23 PM
  #94
Sonik
Registered User
 
Sonik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Proud Habs Land
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
That's the pic I was talking about.

IMO, whether it was on his way in or out, it was a goal.

Sonik is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 06:34 PM
  #95
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosbyfan
Are you saying that if it looked even further across the line that evidence would be inconclusive as well?
I don't care about "what if" scenarios, and neither does the NHL. That's not what this is about. This is about what did happen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosbyfan
Only a top view or hitting the back mesh or possibly hitting the ice when viewed from this position would allow this view to be conclusive on it's own?

Is this your opinion of the rules or are the rules clearly written this way?
Since there was no goal called on the play, there must be 100% conclusive video evidence that the puck completely crossed the line for a goal to be awarded.

It is black and white. If there is no sufficient evidence, a goal cannot be awarded. And since on the only angle showing the puck has even the slightest possibility of optical illusion, it cannot be considered as sufficient evidence.

It is that simple.

Game 7 starts in half an hour.

I move for this thread to be closed as it is now irrelevant.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 06:45 PM
  #96
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van

I move for this thread to be closed as it is now irrelevant.
while i might be inclined to agree, i'm going to leave it open..because should tampa win this game, there's going to be a whoooole lot of people bringing the "no goal" up, sadly

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 06:55 PM
  #97
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
while i might be inclined to agree, i'm going to leave it open..because should tampa win this game, there's going to be a whoooole lot of people bringing the "no goal" up, sadly
Then you could just merge it with the whining and crying thread.

Personally, I think I'm staying off this site tonight. If Tampa wins, some Flames fans will try to ruin Tampa's party. If Calgary wins, it'll be "in spite of the conspiracy".

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 07:09 PM
  #98
rocketlives
Registered User
 
rocketlives's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 793
vCash: 500
No goal

Gélinas skated into the puck and it is his forward movement with both skates extended in a parrallel fashion in the same direction that caused the puck to go in, if it really went in. No goal just the same. It looked like a nice "head" but with the skates.

Even if it wasn't kicked in per se, it wasn't accidental either. You just can't score a goal like that. Hockey isn't soccer. The puck never touched Gélinas' stick.

I can understand that the goal crease rule was ridiculous when Brett Hull scored his controversial Stanley Cup winner in 1999, but there's a limit how far we can go to the other extreme.

Also Gélinas deserved a 2-minute goalie interference penalty for driving all that snow in Bulin's face.


rocketlives is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 07:20 PM
  #99
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketlives
Even if it wasn't kicked in per se, it wasn't accidental either. You just can't score a goal like that. Hockey isn't soccer. The puck never touched Gélinas' stick.


Also Gélinas deserved a 2-minute goalie interference penalty for driving all that snow in Bulin's face.

1. You are allowed to intentionally direct the puck into the net with your skate. You just cannot do it with a distinct kicking motion.

2. Gelinas stopped to avoid hitting Khabibulin, and you think he should get a penalty? I'll leave you to think about that one.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 09:44 PM
  #100
littleHossa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 500
Has anyone seen the ABC 3D model that they made of the no-goal picture? The puck was still clearly on the red line, even though from that angle it was over the line, which was only an optical illusion. Anyway, if someone has the clear picture, some people will be able to make up the 3D image in their head and see if the puck didn't really cross the line.

Another things: If the puck is over the line, passing Khabbi's right pad,
#1 why would a goaltender who isn't interfered with be inside his own goalie line
# 2 maybe Khabbi's right pad is where it is because he got pushed into his own net by a Calgary player = interference

You know Khabbi has perfect positioning, you can bet that he knows where the goal line is and to position himself in front of it. If he was inside his net, someone must of pushed him probably, if he wasn't inside his net, the puck wasn't over the goal line.

littleHossa 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 07:36 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.