Crosby's No Goal

[toby91_ca 620]

I missed the first half of the Pens game last night due to my own game and didn't actually see this or any of the replays, but when reading this article and looking at the picture attached to the article, I wonder how they could not have called that a goal. I understand the logic of "we know the puck is in, but we can't call it a goal because we can't see it actually across the line due to the goalie's glove" but surely you have another angle, like this picture that would show it.

Then again, I think this picture was taken from one of those photographers sitting by the glass and they may not have had video evidence with the same angle.

http://timesonline.com/articles/2008/05/12...53629091394.txt

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

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.

[lets go pavel 2]

yeah, that wasn't an angle they had, at least from what they showed on air ... i was watching, and while the replays made it pretty obvious that the puck crossed, none of then actually showed the puck across ... with the on-ice call being no-goal, i guess they had to go with that ...

[Wings_Fan_In_Exile 3]

Yeah... that pic shows it was.. but the angles on video were inconclusive to over-turn the on ice call.

Plus the Penguins had soooooo many other calls in their favor/against Philly that I don't feel one bit bad for them. I despise the Flyers and I still think they got jobbed on some bad calls.

[StevieY9802 6]

Yeah I think it was a goal but from the VIDEO you can't tell for sure. Biron's glove covers it just as it, probably, crossed the line. And the rule says you have to see it and you couldn't for sure. Not like it matter too much, Pens won anyway.

[Real1 2]

Everyone knows that it was in but no one had the balls to admit it.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Everyone knows that it was in but no one had the balls to admit it.

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

[wingslogo19 281]

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.

I'am with you that I think it was a goal as well.. I think the goal line needs to be painted, because you can barely see it. Don't know if it would help, but im thinking it would

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I'am with you that I think it was a goal as well.. I think the goal line needs to be painted, because you can barely see it. Don't know if it would help, but im thinking it would

The goal line is painted.

[toby91_ca 620]

The goal line is painted.

He probably means "a fresh coat", but I don't think that was the problem here anyway.

I definately think they need to change the rule. In this case, it didn't really matter, but what about the next time? I know it seems like a rare occurrence, but I have seen the same type of call often enough that I think they need to change the rule.

[Krystal 41]

My husband and I sat watching it as it was being reviewed. He was insistent that the Pens were going to get it - and I just kept shaking my head. He was under the impression they could use the mathematic approach to it by figuring the angle of the puck and the diameter and would then be able to figure out if it was in the net. I had to politely remind him that their video review was nothing more than some guys watching film going "hm. I dunno...."

That being said, despite feeling fairly certain they would disallow the goal, I don't agree with it. The puck was clearly over the line, it was just some quick reflexes by Biron and his glove that erased any evidence that may have existed via video review.

[Gizmo 21]

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

I'll have to look for it, but I recall that a couple of years ago the NHL altered the rule to allow such scenarios (like a glove or pad blocking a clear view) were you can logically be certain that the puck is over the line to be enough to call it a "goal" in review.

[zata40 3]

should have been a goal.

It's a good thing the pens won that game, or I'm sure their fans would be furious.

[toby91_ca 620]

I'll have to look for it, but I recall that a couple of years ago the NHL altered the rule to allow such scenarios (like a glove or pad blocking a clear view) were you can logically be certain that the puck is over the line to be enough to call it a "goal" in review.

If there were such a rule, it would have been a goal, therefore, I don't think there is such a rule.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

He probably means "a fresh coat", but I don't think that was the problem here anyway.

I definately think they need to change the rule. In this case, it didn't really matter, but what about the next time? I know it seems like a rare occurrence, but I have seen the same type of call often enough that I think they need to change the rule.

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.

He probably means "a fresh coat", but I don't think that was the problem here anyway.

I definately think they need to change the rule. In this case, it didn't really matter, but what about the next time? I know it seems like a rare occurrence, but I have seen the same type of call often enough that I think they need to change the rule.

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.

[RedRockit 0]

I remember seeing a video replay taken from overhead later in the game that clearly showed it was in-- a blind person could have seen it. I can only think that the officials didn't have access to this particular vid at the time they were making their decision: although why they WOULDN'T have it to review is something I have a hard time understanding. Maybe a tech glitch or something.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

I'll have to look for it, but I recall that a couple of years ago the NHL altered the rule to allow such scenarios (like a glove or pad blocking a clear view) were you can logically be certain that the puck is over the line to be enough to call it a "goal" in review.

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

[Gizmo 21]

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.

Not really... We know the puck is circular and more than half the puck was exposed sticking out of Biron's glove flat on the ice. All a goal judge would have to do is draw the missing outline of the puck and reference the "completed" puck with the visable goal line. No conspiracy needed.

If the NHL follows the rule that "you must see white" in order for it to be called a goal, then a goalie can have his pads two feet back into the net and as long as he's got part of the puck covered, then it's "no goal" if reviewed.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Gizmo

[Opie 308]

Haven't we as a society advanced enough technologically that someone could put a chip in the puck and sensors in the posts/goalline so that the goal light would be automatic when then puck makes it across the line!

[OsGOD 3]

Wow umm yeah seeing how that is behind the line in that shot (even as forshortened as the gap is)... when you turn the camera to be more along the goal line the puck would only appear to be further behind the line... that was a goal and luckily the game didn't hinge on that play.

Edited May 12, 2008 by OsGOD

[Glubki 17]

I dont understand why they can't insert tiny goal-line cams inside the posts - especially for the playoffs. Two mini-cams on each side ought to do it - one low and one at medium height. I mean it's not like the cost of the cameras would bankrupt the league....

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Wow umm yeah seeing how that is behind the line in that shot (even as forshortened as the gap is)... when you turn the camera to be more along the goal line the puck would only appear to be further behind the line... that was a goal and luckily the game didn't hinge on that play.

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.

[Opie 308]

After staring at that photo for awhile I went cross eyed, then I refocussed, when the camera turns(if the camera could turn) I believe it would get harder and harder to tell if that right hand edge of the puck is on the line or past it.

From that angle it looks like the puck is just barely over the line, then if you could turn the camera it would get really difficult to call it.

[OsGOD 3]

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.

As an example...

Take two picture frames place them one in front of each other about 5" apart... start looking directly down at them then slowly angle down towards the front so you are looking at the front. Keep an eye on the top edge of the frames... the gap will get smaller because the angle is making it forshortened. Same deal is if you are rotating along a Vertical item... aka the post.

As you rotate more the the left (in that picture) the gap would become more prevalent because you are looking at the gap true size and shape and not forshortened as you are now..

Not that I expect those reviewing to be drafters and know how to view things on angles.. thats a curse that will forever haunt me now i guess ah well it didn't affect the wings at all so

Edited May 12, 2008 by OsGOD

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Not really... We know the puck is circular and more than half the puck was exposed sticking out of Biron's glove flat on the ice. All a goal judge would have to do is draw the missing outline of the puck and reference the "completed" puck with the visable goal line. No conspiracy needed.

If the NHL follows the rule that "you must see white" in order for it to be called a goal, then a goalie can have his pads two feet back into the net and as long as he's got part of the puck covered, then it's "no goal" if reviewed.

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.