<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Oh jesus scorers have been shut down in series before regardless of sports. Tampa has been aided in this series. ABC's angles clearly showed that puck cross the line. I mean whether it is on the ice or in the air, you can't hide a puck totally being over the line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
perhaps you are right...I did not see ABC's angles...I was watching CBC 'Hockey night in Canada'....
They did not have any angles showing it over the line...in fact the announcer's agreed it was inconclusive....Maybe the officials only had access to CBC's angles...
nonetheless...as sad as it makes me...I have seen way worse in terms of errors in a game....
to me the early 5-3 in Game 4 which FU CKED the flames was more agregious than this non call...JMHO...
[This message was edited by SportSavant on June 06, 2004 at 04:21 PM.]
perhaps you are right...I did not see ABC's angles...I was watching CBC 'Hockey night in Canada'....
They did not have any angles showing it over the line...in fact the announcer's agreed it was inconclusive....Maybe the officials only had access to CBC's angles...
nonetheless...as sad as it makes me...I have seen way worse in terms of errors in a game....
to me the early 5-3 in Game 4 which FU CKED the flames was more agregious than this non call...JMHO...
[This message was edited by SportSavant on June 06, 2004 at 04:21 PM.]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lander:
I think Vinnie suffered a concussion after that bording call.
He hasn't looked like the great player that he was all year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Vinny was awesome last night on the intangilbles.
His bruising face-offs wore the Flames out last night.
Many of the BOLT players fed off his energy and some mentioned that in the postgame interviews.
SS- Exactly, inconclusive!!
I think Vinnie suffered a concussion after that bording call.
He hasn't looked like the great player that he was all year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Vinny was awesome last night on the intangilbles.
His bruising face-offs wore the Flames out last night.
Many of the BOLT players fed off his energy and some mentioned that in the postgame interviews.
SS- Exactly, inconclusive!!
The thing is ..
the wall's pad was 6 inches behind the goal line, and he made a pad save ..
given that the puck is only what - 3"? I fail to see how this is even an issue.
The puck MUST have crossed the line. This isn't some Music City Illegal Forward Pass illusion.
the wall's pad was 6 inches behind the goal line, and he made a pad save ..
given that the puck is only what - 3"? I fail to see how this is even an issue.
The puck MUST have crossed the line. This isn't some Music City Illegal Forward Pass illusion.
there is NO WAY you are going to award a team the Cup on THIS kind of play/goal.
was it a goal? if you are a flames fan (or bettor) - YES
if you are a bolts fan/bettor - NO!
as we all know - the puck has to be 100% across the line - and there is no way to tell with 100% accuracy if it was - or not.
was it a goal? if you are a flames fan (or bettor) - YES
if you are a bolts fan/bettor - NO!
as we all know - the puck has to be 100% across the line - and there is no way to tell with 100% accuracy if it was - or not.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EveryGamblersDream:
You could draw a straight line on top of the back of the line & clearly see the puck is fully over it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats BS!
The angle is not near what it should be to make that assumption.
You need to be looking DIRECTLY down the line.
This is not the case here.
You could draw a straight line on top of the back of the line & clearly see the puck is fully over it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats BS!
The angle is not near what it should be to make that assumption.
You need to be looking DIRECTLY down the line.
This is not the case here.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by winkyduck:
there is NO WAY you are going to award a team the Cup on THIS kind of play/goal.
was it a goal? if you are a flames fan (or bettor) - YES
if you are a bolts fan/bettor - NO!
as we all know - the puck has to be 100% across the line - and there is no way to tell with 100% accuracy if it was - or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
BS
I had no money on the game or a big fan interest in either. I know what I & other people saw. The puck was in. Only a fool can't look at that picture & tell!
there is NO WAY you are going to award a team the Cup on THIS kind of play/goal.
was it a goal? if you are a flames fan (or bettor) - YES
if you are a bolts fan/bettor - NO!
as we all know - the puck has to be 100% across the line - and there is no way to tell with 100% accuracy if it was - or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
BS
I had no money on the game or a big fan interest in either. I know what I & other people saw. The puck was in. Only a fool can't look at that picture & tell!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FISHHEAD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EveryGamblersDream:
You could draw a straight line on top of the back of the line & clearly see the puck is fully over it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats BS!
The angle is not near what it should be to make that assumption.
You need to be looking DIRECTLY down the line.
This is not the case here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Far from it! The puck is in. This one is pretty damn clear!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EveryGamblersDream:
You could draw a straight line on top of the back of the line & clearly see the puck is fully over it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats BS!
The angle is not near what it should be to make that assumption.
You need to be looking DIRECTLY down the line.
This is not the case here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Far from it! The puck is in. This one is pretty damn clear!
CALGARY - Craig Conroy calls Martin Gelinas "the Eliminator."
And Gelinas almost eliminated the Lightning Saturday night in Game 6 of the Stanley Cup final.
Gelinas, who owns the NHL record with three series-ending overtime goals, almost had the Cup clincher on his skate blade with about seven minutes left in the third period, but a video review by NHL director of hockey operations Colin Campbell concluded that Nikolai Khabibulin stopped the puck short of the goal line, denying Gelinas the biggest goal of his career.
The sequence started on a Calgary breakout when forward Oleg Saprykin knifed in on Khabibulin from the right and attempted to center to Gelinas, who was crashing the goal.
Khabibulin sprung from the crease to obstruct the pass, which bounced against Gelinas' right skate and toward the goal line. Because Gelinas was not making a kicking motion when the puck struck his blade, it would have counted had it crossed the line. The puck struck Khabibulin's right pad where it bends over the skate, however, and video replays showed how close it came to crossing the line, though no direct overhead shot was available.
After Khabibulin's stop, play continued as fans in the Saddledome groaned at the missed scoring chance.
"We thought we had the big play," Flames coach Darryl Sutter said.
NHL spokesman Frank Brown said the play was reviewed from multiple angles, but because the angle that showed the puck was from high over Khabibulin's shoulder, and because the puck was on edge and in the air, there was not enough evidence to rule it a goal.
As with all goal decisions in the playoffs, the final judgment was made by Campbell in Toronto. Campbell said during an intermission interview with the CBC that replays were inconclusive and a goal could not be awarded.
Though the nongoal was a source of controversy within the Canadian media, the Flames had not had time to see the replay or chose not to address it after the game.
Sutter said the replays he saw convinced him it was not a goal.
"No, I looked at it, and that's got to be a conclusive play," Sutter said.
"I looked at it at two different angles, and to make that call it has to be conclusive."
Gelinas said he was not aware there was a controversy until asked about it after the game.
"They would have called us back if it was a goal," Gelinas said. "He made the save.
"They have so many cameras they would have called down if it went in."
But what if they got it wrong? What if there were insufficient camera angles.
"That would be pretty tough," Gelinas said. "It would be pretty tough, with just a few minutes left. Shame on them if that's the case."
Lightning forward Tim Taylor didn't think it was a goal to begin with, and saw another problem with the play.
"I thought it was directed in by a skate," Taylor said. "He was going right toward the net and stopping on it. So that wouldn't have been a goal."
Either way, the Eliminator was denied.
Associated Press
And Gelinas almost eliminated the Lightning Saturday night in Game 6 of the Stanley Cup final.
Gelinas, who owns the NHL record with three series-ending overtime goals, almost had the Cup clincher on his skate blade with about seven minutes left in the third period, but a video review by NHL director of hockey operations Colin Campbell concluded that Nikolai Khabibulin stopped the puck short of the goal line, denying Gelinas the biggest goal of his career.
The sequence started on a Calgary breakout when forward Oleg Saprykin knifed in on Khabibulin from the right and attempted to center to Gelinas, who was crashing the goal.
Khabibulin sprung from the crease to obstruct the pass, which bounced against Gelinas' right skate and toward the goal line. Because Gelinas was not making a kicking motion when the puck struck his blade, it would have counted had it crossed the line. The puck struck Khabibulin's right pad where it bends over the skate, however, and video replays showed how close it came to crossing the line, though no direct overhead shot was available.
After Khabibulin's stop, play continued as fans in the Saddledome groaned at the missed scoring chance.
"We thought we had the big play," Flames coach Darryl Sutter said.
NHL spokesman Frank Brown said the play was reviewed from multiple angles, but because the angle that showed the puck was from high over Khabibulin's shoulder, and because the puck was on edge and in the air, there was not enough evidence to rule it a goal.
As with all goal decisions in the playoffs, the final judgment was made by Campbell in Toronto. Campbell said during an intermission interview with the CBC that replays were inconclusive and a goal could not be awarded.
Though the nongoal was a source of controversy within the Canadian media, the Flames had not had time to see the replay or chose not to address it after the game.
Sutter said the replays he saw convinced him it was not a goal.
"No, I looked at it, and that's got to be a conclusive play," Sutter said.
"I looked at it at two different angles, and to make that call it has to be conclusive."
Gelinas said he was not aware there was a controversy until asked about it after the game.
"They would have called us back if it was a goal," Gelinas said. "He made the save.
"They have so many cameras they would have called down if it went in."
But what if they got it wrong? What if there were insufficient camera angles.
"That would be pretty tough," Gelinas said. "It would be pretty tough, with just a few minutes left. Shame on them if that's the case."
Lightning forward Tim Taylor didn't think it was a goal to begin with, and saw another problem with the play.
"I thought it was directed in by a skate," Taylor said. "He was going right toward the net and stopping on it. So that wouldn't have been a goal."
Either way, the Eliminator was denied.
Associated Press
FUNK-
Your killing me dude.......YOUR STILL LOOKING AT A BAD ANGLE!!!
If you were to look STRAIGHT down the line, I would venture to say you would see the puck touching the line!!
OBVIOUSLY the bottom part of the puck is in, but the gut of the puck is hanging on the line.
INCONCLUSIVE!!!
BAD ANGLE!!
Do you think the NFL rules touchdowns from this kind of angle?....NO, they look straight down the line...........simple physics.
Your killing me dude.......YOUR STILL LOOKING AT A BAD ANGLE!!!
If you were to look STRAIGHT down the line, I would venture to say you would see the puck touching the line!!
OBVIOUSLY the bottom part of the puck is in, but the gut of the puck is hanging on the line.
INCONCLUSIVE!!!
BAD ANGLE!!
Do you think the NFL rules touchdowns from this kind of angle?....NO, they look straight down the line...........simple physics.
egd,
fish is right, the pictures in this thread offer ZERO proof that the goal was in...the puck is up in the air & this angle does not show us...We need a top down angle...
when u look at it real close the higher in the air the puck would have been the more the puck would have been in the white area & appear to have been a goal...HOWEVER it stil would not have meant it was a goal....
fish is right, the pictures in this thread offer ZERO proof that the goal was in...the puck is up in the air & this angle does not show us...We need a top down angle...
when u look at it real close the higher in the air the puck would have been the more the puck would have been in the white area & appear to have been a goal...HOWEVER it stil would not have meant it was a goal....
