Refs/Toronto video room blow another game

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Actually I could point out quite a few that I have ignored, CT. You're just beginning to sound like a child now.

Doggy, you have to give it up. Clearly CT is a martian. I don't understand half the stuff he says. Most of the time its just a garbled mess of gibberish. Sometimes I picture him sitting in his spacecraft with his cliff's notes guide to the English language, trying desperately to leaf through the pages quickly enough to respond with one of his 'witty', albeit completely nonsensical rebuttals.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Seeing that it WAS Crosby who happened to be the one who deflected the goal, ofcourse I'm gonna take the opportunity to make a Bettman/Crosby love comment. This doesn't mean that I intended this to be a Crosby hate thread and I STILL would have made the thread regardless of who it was that deflected the goal. When I originally saw the game on TV, the play looked like it was an obvious no goal, and I got upset enough to vent on the boards. Since everyone is crying, whining, and basically just flipping out and accusing each other of this and that, JUST CLOSE THE DAMN THREAD.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Watched it several times, and it's too inconclusive. With that, they called it a goal as they would have done with anyone.

[chrisdetroit 189]

Sorry but I don't agree. I hate the Pens as much as anybody but you have to be objective.

From the replays it was damn near impossible to tell if the stick was above the cross bar. Remember that the video was taken with the camera above the ice.

There was a referee right in line with the stick and he clearly was looking directly at the puck as it was deflected. He called it a goal. Now it's possible that he blew the call but being that he was in perfect position and looking right at the play, it's unlikely that he missed the call.

There were no replays shown on VS with an angle that indicated otherwise and certainly none that showed indisputable evidence.

It's a good goal.

You shouldn't be such a Homer.

[lets go pavel 2]

This right here is why these threads always end up with bickering over Crosby:

Even a fan like me who'll watch whatever game is on Versus gets sick of seeing Crosby everywhere. Anyone who says "good goal" on that play needs to get slapped.

What the hell does being "sick of seeing Crosby everywhere" have to do with this call? It's called OBJECTIVITY, folks. If you want to talk about whether the correct call was made, great. But talk about the goddamn play on the ice, not how much Crosby is on TV, or how much you "hate crosballs", or how much he whines to the refs, or dives, or sleeps with Bettman, or plays dirty, or wears ladies underwear, or gets all his assists on empty-net goals. All this crap does is lead to arguments with those of us who actually subscribe to logic and reason.

[egroen 384]

Unless Crosby is 5'2 that was definitely above the crossbar.

This is pretty conclusive proof, IMO. From the various angle replays (at 1:09 and 1:16 of the video posted you can see it exactly), you can easily see Crosby makes contact within the far post. If he had made contact exactly at the far post, as the picture above shows, he would have been exactly lined up with the crossbar. However, he was inside of it by at least a foot. No goal.

The "War Room" sucks.

Edited December 23, 2008 by egroen

[Guest Shoreline]

From the replays it was damn near impossible to tell if the stick was above the cross bar. Remember that the video was taken with the camera above the ice.

There was a referee right in line with the stick and he clearly was looking directly at the puck as it was deflected. He called it a goal. Now it's possible that he blew the call but being that he was in perfect position and looking right at the play, it's unlikely that he missed the call.

There were no replays shown on VS with an angle that indicated otherwise and certainly none that showed indisputable evidence.

It's a good goal.

You shouldn't be such a Homer.

Agreed 100%.

After seeing it a dozen times there's just no way it's obvious one way or another.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[Reds4Life 51]

Crosby's shoulder are clearly above the net construction, his stick was slightly above his shoulders.. it's pretty easy to determine it was not a legal goal. If Tomas Holmstrom was there, would that goal count? I don't think so.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Reds4Life

[Lidstromrules16 7]

looked like a high stick to me/

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Crosby's shoulder are clearly above the net construction, his stick was slightly above his shoulders.. it's pretty easy to determine it was not a legal goal. If Tomas Holmstrom was there, would that goal count? I don't think so.

Actually if you look a the screen caps, it's pretty clear his stick is below his shoulders.

Either way, it was a close call, but was signaled a goal on the ice. It's gonna stand as a goal unless it's a pretty obvious high stick, no matter who tipped it in.

[b.shanafan14 733]

I saw this last night at the bar, everyone there was saying "no way, high stick, no goal" and at the same time laughing that since it was Sid it'll count and he'll end up some star of the night for it. The best is seeing just how reluctant the ref is to signal the goal.

[Guest Shoreline]

Actually if you look a the screen caps, it's pretty clear his stick is below his shoulders.

Either way, it was a close call, but was signaled a goal on the ice. It's gonna stand as a goal unless it's a pretty obvious high stick, no matter who tipped it in.

I dunno what you're talking about -- in section 2 of the CBA and Section 4359423 of the Gary-Takes-It-Up-The-Ass fanbook it clearly states that in every situation Sidney Crosby will be given the benefit of the doubt and the goal counted no matter what. This is why people are in such an uproar against Crosby. 100% legitimate.

I saw this last night at the bar, everyone there was saying "no way, high stick, no goal" and at the same time laughing that since it was Sid it'll count and he'll end up some star of the night for it. The best is seeing just how reluctant the ref is to signal the goal.

You lie, that would never happen as all refs are on Crosby's side. He was just making it look like he was hesitant just to trick people into thinking he is unbiased. f*** Bettman and Crosby!

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[Doc Holiday 0]

WE NEED BETTER CAMERA ANGLES WE NEED BETTER CAMERA ANGLES WE NEED BETTER CAMERA ANGLES

[CrossoverThrash 0]

Its becoming apparent to me that you spend the majority of your time perusing YouTube looking for Penguins/Crosby highlights. You should take this stuff over to the Pens board - you'll get more of a reaction. Like I said in your Crosby thread from earlier, its getting tiring over here.

Are you serious? I spenda minute amount of my time worrying about crosby, if you actaully pay attention I have a few hit threads with videos of hits i've compiled from each week, that takes a majority of my time, I will reoply to a "Crosby" thread if i think it is worthy of a relopy, people like you are getting really annoying because you play along with so called "crosby bashers" You are no better than me.

[Bluedevils_13 0]

Some one show me the video where teh ref signaled it a goal on the ice. Because he didnt. The Vs announcer even comments on that fact.

That said I think it was a good goal myself.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Some one show me the video where teh ref signaled it a goal on the ice. Because he didnt. The Vs announcer even comments on that fact.

That said I think it was a good goal myself.

(borrowed from a post at hfboards)

Or you can watch the goal highlight on NHL.com. The Youtube clip cuts away, but the ref clearly signals goal.

Edited December 23, 2008 by haroldsnepsts

[HomeNugget 2]

I saw this last night at the bar, everyone there was saying "no way, high stick, no goal" and at the same time laughing that since it was Sid it'll count and he'll end up some star of the night for it. The best is seeing just how reluctant the ref is to signal the goal.

I didn't see the replay, but I doubt the ref was reluctant. If he thought it was no goal he would have signaled no goal after the puck went in.

[Chunkylover 26]

Has anyone ever tried to deflect a puck traveling at that kind of speed? It's nearly impossible. The goal was called good. One of the finest ways to score a goal in my opinion is the intentional, sharp-angle deflection.

[Legendary D In 03 50]

Unless Crosby is 5'2 that was definitely above the crossbar.

This is pretty conclusive proof, IMO. From the various angle replays (at 1:09 and 1:16 of the video posted you can see it exactly), you can easily see Crosby makes contact within the far post. If he had made contact exactly at the far post, as the picture above shows, he would have been exactly lined up with the crossbar. However, he was inside of it by at least a foot. No goal.

The "War Room" sucks.

To me, this shows that it was a good goal. It went off the shaft of his stick - NOT the blade, and this illustration kind of demonstrates that where the puck deflected, that part was below the crossbar.

Word,

LDi03

[CrossoverThrash 0]

(borrowed from a post at hfboards)

Or you can watch the goal highlight on NHL.com. The Youtube clip cuts away, but the ref clearly signals goal.

good catch, you cant tell that from the non hd you tube video, I agree its too close to call but my gut reaction is that it was no goal, that ref did get a good view though. It had nothign to do with crosby, not that i ever said it did in the first place.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

Has anyone ever tried to deflect a puck traveling at that kind of speed? It's nearly impossible. The goal was called good. One of the finest ways to score a goal in my opinion is the intentional, sharp-angle deflection.

Actually this was a slowish knuckler, although crosby did have a nice between the legs deflection goal one time, i think some of the goal you see the wings deflect are the best you can get, Homer atually practices tips, i think crosby is a skilled enough player that he can just get it when he has the opportunity.

[egroen 384]

To me, this shows that it was a good goal. It went off the shaft of his stick - NOT the blade, and this illustration kind of demonstrates that where the puck deflected, that part was below the crossbar.

Word,

LDi03

You have to take his point of contact in correlation with the net into context, however:

I have added a line in black which shows his actual position - again, clearly over the crossbar.

[Guest Shoreline]

Some one show me the video where teh ref signaled it a goal on the ice. Because he didnt. The Vs announcer even comments on that fact.

(borrowed from a post at hfboards)

Or you can watch the goal highlight on NHL.com. The Youtube clip cuts away, but the ref clearly signals goal.

Maybe he was just sticking his arm out for no reason at all. It's a "fact" that "he didn't" signal goal. Pwnt.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[Yzerfan1999 81]

Are you serious? I spenda minute amount of my time worrying about crosby, if you actaully pay attention I have a few hit threads with videos of hits i've compiled from each week, that takes a majority of my time, I will reoply to a "Crosby" thread if i think it is worthy of a relopy, people like you are getting really annoying because you play along with so called "crosby bashers" You are no better than me.

I'm not the one conjuring up conspiracy theories here.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

I'm not the one conjuring up conspiracy theories here.

Neither am I