NeverForgetMac25

Looks like we'll have to. That's interesting though.

Gee, I can't imagine why some people hate Red Wings fans. :nonono: The thing that bugs me is that there's plenty of Red Wings fans that exhibit class and respect for other teams and their fans. I apologize on behave of Red Wing Nation for those that act as if they're superior simply because "their" team is doing well.

No, you're correct. Mac probably won't even be on the ice the same time Ribeiro is given their lines-situation. There will probably be a decent legal hit on him, but no one will get in a fist fight with him.

If thats the case, than I agree. Keep in mind I said this was a goal from the beginning. What I'm saying now is that (1) from that new picture that has surfaced a possible second question could arise based on the angle the picture was taken and (2) basic geometry can't always be used in determining a goal. In this situation it would be quite easy to use basic geometry to determine that this was a goal, but technology isn't there yet to determine exactly what angle the puck is on to make an exact geometric determination of any and all possible goals. For example: Do you watch tennis at all? In the 4 majors they now have video challenges similar to those in Football. The difference is that human decision-making is taken out of the equation. They have cameras that are able to take pictures of the tennis balls but they literally can only get one shot at best of the ball touching/not touching a line, and even with that it is difficult to tell if part of the ball did in fact hit the line. What they do is an Apple computer animates the ball and shows "where" the ball lands plus or minus a couple of millimeters. My point is that they aren't able to pinpoint the exact location of the ball on the line based on their cameras, and the same can be said about hockey simply based on the technology that we have today. The only way I see this working is if there are sensors on the goal line.

I never said the number was retired, but the report I remember stated that Gretzky took the number out of contention for that years Olympics alone.

How can you be sure it was flat against the ice with a topographical camera. Unless the camera was ice level you can't be sure the puck was flat. I hear what your saying and like toby said, if the puck wasn't flat then geometry would be even more helpful in *this* goals case, but what about the other goals where the puck isn't flat and just barely close to/over the line? You can't assume geometrically that you have the right angle, hence the ability to draw the correct distance on the covered side of the puck.

From the bottom of the puck its clearly in, but the puck it self is laying on its side. If the angle had been from directly from the side it would clear things up 100%, but we don't have such an angle. Again, I do believe this was a goal......just playing devils advocate.

Completely agree and I mentioned that earlier in the tread. Some form of sensors within the puck may or may not be necessary if they can get cameras in the goal posts developed well enough.

Yeah, but then you'll have an argument that the puck broke the plane but the goalie's pads were covering it. You basically just move it from being behind the line to just breaking over it.

The Crosby pic is a good example of it most likely being flat, but the majority of the situations like this have the puck on edge. The point I'm making is that unless the puck is flat, which is hard to prove with limited camera angles being used, you can't be sure you're drawing the diameter correctly.

I see what you're saying in that regards, and I will admit to being wrong in this instance. That being said, we are all noticing the puck on edge in this picture. We can all clearly see the white between the "bottom" of the puck (the part touching the ice) and the goal line. If you were to turn the angle to being directly on the goal line, the right "side" of the puck might just be touching the goal line. Keep in mind, I do feel this is a goal....just trying to get people to understand the other POV.

You're assuming they can precisely match up the covered distance of the puck, when it in fact may not be flat which would then change the diameter of the puck when viewed from any different angle.

No it wouldn't. As you got closer to the goal line and past it the puck would start to look closer and closer to being on and then touching the goal line.

If that were the case, they would've ruled it a goal. It was pretty much clear as crystal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but its not as though the paint underneath the ice loses its color much. If it was the end of the period, then I can see an argument for not being able to clearly identify the paint, but the lack of clarity would be due to snow/shavings being above the ice. While I agree that there needs to be some revision to the rule, I just don't know a good way to do it without sensors in the puck. If the league were to revise the current rule to mention that if a puck is clearly over, but you can't see it due to the goaltenders glove (or whatever else covering it) then it will be counted, than you take away the all or nothing approach and start making it a "feel" approach. I think that's just as much, if not more dangerous because you've got people that will scream conspiracy. While I agree with you toby that something needs to be done, I personally feel sensors in the puck and along the goal line should remedy the problem.

The goal line is painted.

Balls had nothing to do with it. It's the *rules* of the NHL that made it a no goal.

First and foresmost, I completely agree that it was a goal, however like you said (and how the rules are set up) unless they can cleary see the puck over the line they have to go with the ruling on the ice. I don't mean to add fuel to the fire here because again, *I do feel that it was a goal*, but this angle can also be a little deceiving given that its from the front of the goal. If this same picture was taken the same distance behind the goal line, it would look completely the opposite.

If he could see Fleury get hit in the head out of the corner of his eye there's no reason he couldn't catch the angle Orpik was forcing Briere to go.

Well played!

Nothing other than the call that was made, but its pretty hard to miss the events that led up to the Fleury head hit. Orpik held Briere way too long and then forced his route into Fleury. If the refs saw the hit to Fleury, he should've noticed Orpik forcing his path.

Last night the refs were poor and definitely favored the Pens, but it isn't always like that. People just use a Crosby/Poster Boy conspiracy as a scapegoat.

Every single team has groups of fans that feel any other particular team aside from their own has the refs "in their pockets" and that their team keeps getting screwed out of calls. You generally hear these things when your team is losing. Gofigure that Dallas and Philly are making these comments. Edit: (Kelsey) Grammar

:nonono: Why would you want anyone to play dirty? Gritty is great, dirty doesn't belong.