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
06-07-2004, 10:13 PM
  #101
HFXMooseHabs
Registered User
 
HFXMooseHabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,085
vCash: 500
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.

HFXMooseHabs is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 10:25 PM
  #102
incawg
Registered User
 
incawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canuckland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,009
vCash: 500
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.

incawg is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 10:29 PM
  #103
littleHossa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by =CH=
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.
Again pictures can lie, your avatar is the picture, rotate that net in your head and you'll see the puck isn't over the red line. And hurray Tampa won!! No whining needed anymore

littleHossa is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 10:30 PM
  #104
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 30,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by =CH=
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?

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 10:30 PM
  #105
BCCHL inactive
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country:
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by =CH=
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.
Good god, how many times do the words, "possibilities for optical illusion" have to be said for people to understand just what the **** it is?

I moved for this to be locked before Game 7, I now second my own motion.

BCCHL inactive is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 10:41 PM
  #106
HFXMooseHabs
Registered User
 
HFXMooseHabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
So Sutter, Iginla and Gelinas are just trying to be the bigger men?
In my opinion, Yes, they were trying to be bigger men. If I were them I'd do the same. You don't need that sick feeling of knowing you should have won going into Game 7.

HFXMooseHabs is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 10:47 PM
  #107
HFXMooseHabs
Registered User
 
HFXMooseHabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
Good god, how many times do the words, "possibilities for optical illusion" have to be said for people to understand just what the **** it is?

I moved for this to be locked before Game 7, I now second my own motion.
A thread should be locked because I gave my opinion??? In MY opinion, the puck was in. If you think otherwise, fine.

BTW, I don't believe in this optical illusion nonsense. If I see another angle of it that proves I'm wrong, I will admit it, no problem at all.


And you guys who disagree with me sound like YOU'RE whining.

That's it for me. Obviously a sensitive issue.

HFXMooseHabs is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 10:51 PM
  #108
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 30,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by =CH=
A thread should be locked because I gave my opinion??? In MY opinion, the puck was in. If you think otherwise, fine.

BTW, I don't believe in this optical illusion nonsense. If I see another angle of it that proves I'm wrong, I will admit it, no problem at all.


And you guys who disagree with me sound like YOU'RE whining.

That's it for me. Obviously a sensitive issue.
what you're failing to understand is that a goal CANNOT be awarded if it looks like it MIGHT be a goal. even in your avatar...i'll say this:

if the puck is flat on the ice...it's a goal.

if it's in the air...it's probably not a goal.

It could be a goal!

but it also could NOT be a goal! Do you see my reasoning? If there's reasonable doubt, you cannot award a goal under those circumstances, and overwhelmingly...there is more than reasonable doubt.

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 11:15 PM
  #109
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
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.

Not black and white. Certainly not in this case.

Crosbyfan is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 11:17 PM
  #110
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
what you're failing to understand is that a goal CANNOT be awarded if it looks like it MIGHT be a goal. even in your avatar...i'll say this:

if the puck is flat on the ice...it's a goal.

if it's in the air...it's probably not a goal.

It could be a goal!

but it also could NOT be a goal! Do you see my reasoning? If there's reasonable doubt, you cannot award a goal under those circumstances, and overwhelmingly...there is more than reasonable doubt.

Crosbyfan is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 11:24 PM
  #111
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
what you're failing to understand is that a goal CANNOT be awarded if it looks like it MIGHT be a goal. even in your avatar...i'll say this:

if the puck is flat on the ice...it's a goal.

if it's in the air...it's probably not a goal.

It could be a goal!

but it also could NOT be a goal! Do you see my reasoning? If there's reasonable doubt, you cannot award a goal under those circumstances, and overwhelmingly...there is more than reasonable doubt.
This makes sense where reasonable doubt is left to the video judge's discretion, perhaps in consultation with the referee/s.

Crosbyfan is offline  
Old
06-07-2004, 11:32 PM
  #112
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 30,880
vCash: 500
i left this thread open for the sake of the poll, but with the series over, only one thread to discuss the goal\no goal controversy is necessary(if that.)

barrytrotzsneck 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 05:34 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.