wow...get over it and quit whining. That goal was no more "in" than Keane's goal was "in" against the Flames in game 7 of round 1. So one goes Calgary's way and one goes against them. That's how it goes. The better team won the stanley cup and Tampa deserves full credit.
Well it doesn't matter now, the series is over but here's my two cents anyways.
I don't understand how anyone can say the puck didn't cross the line. Hockey Night in Canada showed it perfectly, zoomed in and highlighted, that puck was across the line.
As for if it was kicked in, Gelinas had to stop to avoid hitting the goalie. No kicking motion at all. It was a lucky bounce that it hit his skate.
NHL dropped the ball again.
So Sutter, Iginla and Gelinas are just trying to be the bigger men? Or was their concession that it was NOT a goal...a computer-generated scheme by the United States to once again bilk Canada of the cup?
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.
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.
So what you are saying is that this camera angle cannot ever be used? Or just when in your opinion it cannot be used? When exactly does it become credible to use this camera angle, position, lense characteristics etc. My point is that that would be a judgement call. I doubt that the rules describe exactly how much evidence is sufficient for all cases.