Crosby's No Goal

[toby91_ca 620]

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.

A flat puck would create the greatest diameter, so in terms of calling it a goal, it would be even more conclusive if it were on an angle, like the Crosby example.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

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. Saw 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

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.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

A flat puck would create the greatest diameter, so in terms of calling it a goal, it would be even more conclusive if it were on an angle, like the Crosby example.

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.

[OsGOD 3]

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.

The do need some thing that will be able to add a plane from all three posts so that it can be told when the puck breaks the plane... maybe they need to adopt the NFL's way and just have it break the plane and its good.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

The do need some thing that will be able to add a plane from all three posts so that it can be told when the puck breaks the plane... maybe they need to adopt the NFL's way and just have it break the plane and its good.

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.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Never Forget Mac #25

[OsGOD 3]

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.

they need to develope a laser plane is the only way that will officially end all speculation

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

they need to develope a laser plane is the only way that will officially end all speculation

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.

[NHLrules? 32]

What about a chip in the puck and censors in the net.

We would know for sure whenever the goal crossed the line.

Seems to me they want this type of controversy in the game, especially seeing how easy the fix is.

[Graybeard 0]

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

Agree. The officials make a hundred calls/non-calls a night that do not actually hold the letter of the law of the rule book. Someone in the booth should have used a little common sense and done the right thing. Bad call by the ref on the ice. Probably not his fault because he didn't have the angle to see it. But when you know someone on your crew screws up and you have the opportunity to fix their mistake, just do it.

This coming from someone who really doesn't like the Pens much and won't shed a tear over it.

[eva unit zero 271]

Everyone here is saying 'that's absolutely a goal.'

I disagree.

Honestly, it is unclear even from that photo whether the ENTIRE puck has crossed the line. The right edge of the puck looks as if it may still be over the goal line.

And the fact that we don't have CONCLUSIVE, INDISPUTABLE evidence (the NHL standard for such things) then we have to accept the ruling on the ice as correct.

It's not whether or not we think the puck probably went in (or didn't). It's whether it can be proven conclusively. If not, as in this case, the goal doesn't count. Or as in the case in the 2001 playoffs, when Mark Faucette called a goal on the ice in favor of Jozef Stumpel and the LA Kings. Even though replays showed that the puck PROBABLY didn't cross the line, they didn't show that conclusively, as the puck was obscured and MIGHT have crossed the line while under Chris Osgood's pads. As it was called a goal on the ice, the ruling of 'it probably didn't go in, but we aren't sure' meant the goal counted.

For a referee to be overruled by video review, there must be CONCLUSIVE and INDISPUTABLE evidence of the correct call. That is often not the case, regardless of what 'probably' happened.

[pavyaz19 1]

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.

okay, i understand angles, but look at the paint instead. the puck is clearly on the other side of the red goal-line's paint. deceiving angle or not, the paint is the tell tale sign. this kind of stuff drives me crazy, why are there such goofy rules, the puck is obviously in. I blame Bettman, ha.

[Gizmo 21]

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.

In this case they could have. In the Versus slo-mo video from the overhead camera there was a clear frame of when Biron had the puck flat against the ice with this glove before he swept it out and the puck was the furthest away from the goal line. With the still frame, it would have been easy to "complete the circle" and see if it was inside the adjacent visible goal lines. I think in cases like this one, basic Geometry and be used to show that a partially covered puck was or wasn't over the line with clear certainty.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

okay, i understand angles, but look at the paint instead. the puck is clearly on the other side of the red goal-line's paint. deceiving angle or not, the paint is the tell tale sign. this kind of stuff drives me crazy, why are there such goofy rules, the puck is obviously in. I blame Bettman, ha.

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.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

In this case they could have. In the Versus slo-mo video from the overhead camera there was a clear frame of when Biron had the puck flat against the ice with this glove before he swept it out and the puck was the furthest away from the goal line. With the still frame, it would have been easy to "complete the circle" and see if it was inside the adjacent visible goal lines. I think in cases like this one, basic Geometry and be used to show that a partially covered puck was or wasn't over the line with clear certainty.

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.

[calfan 0]

I too think the puck was in, but I agree with the call and I agree with the rule. AND had the review taken place in 2004, many would argue my team would have lost the Stanley Cup because of that rule.

The on-ice official has primary responsibility for making the call. He indicated no goal. Because of that, the off-ice official can only override the call if he can clearly see that the puck was over the line, which means that they have to see the whole puck or see that whatever is obstructing the puck is fully across the line. In this case, Biron's glove would have had to be completely across the line. The on-ice official makes a judgment call based on what he has observed. I don't think it should be overridden because the off-ice official "thinks" he was wrong.

[Gizmo 21]

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.

Because it's pretty darn near impossible to pin a puck down with a glove on a sheet of ice other than one of two ways: 1) On its edge, or 2) Flat. Seeing that it didn't appear to be in state #1, it was in #2. If that isn't good enough, you can go back to the circle concept. If the exposed part of the puck doesn't fit in a circle, then it's not flat and will be 2D shape will be elliptical. If it does fit in a circle, then it was flat. Basic Geometry again.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Gizmo

[Izzy24 44]

How come no one has complained about how Crosby is whiny and gets too much media attention, and that Ovechkin is actually the better player?

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Because it's pretty darn near impossible to pin a puck down with a glove other than one of two ways: 1) On its edge, or 2) Flat. Seeing that it didn't appear to be in state #1, it was in #2. If that isn't good enough, you can go back to the circle concept. If the exposed part of the puck doesn't fit in a circle, then it's not flat and will be 2D shape will be elliptical. If it does fit in a circle, then it was flat. Basic Geometry again.

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.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Never Forget Mac #25

[Kp-Wings 3]

How come no one has complained about how Crosby is whiny and gets too much media attention, and that Ovechkin is actually the better player?

Say what?