Refs/Toronto video room blow another game

[HomeNugget 2]

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.

So we have two pictures with two different lines. One showing that stick was above the crossbar, and another showing the stick was below the crossbar. I have created a third picture to break the tie.

This picture clearly illustrates to me that the stick was in fact below the crossbar.

[Guest Shoreline]

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

Just for reference here are the two conspiracy theories, starting with the OP's:

Anyone else catch the end of this one? Crosby deflected a goal OBVIOUSLY with his stick above the cross bar, and they called it a good goal. Bettman must have called immediately to make sure the goal counted for his little boy scout. I'm pissed off and I'm not even a Buffalo fan.

.. and this wasn't any better..

Yeah, I was watching it. Clearly above the crossbar, but there's no way the NHL was going to take a goal, a game-winning one at that, away from Crosby.

Then a few more went on to basically say they hate Crosby and that's why it should be no goal. At least they were honest -- these two weren't and try to use conspiracy theories to make their anti-Crosby fanaticism seem logical in the slightest.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[egroen 384]

Homenugget: I have absolutely no idea what you are doing with that third line. If you check the video at 1:09 and 1:16 you can see Crosby's position where his stick makes contact with the puck - it was closer to the center of the net than the far post. My "dot" was conservative in placement and clearly shows his point of contact on the stick was clearly above the crossbar.

[HomeNugget 2]

Homenugget: I have absolutely no idea what you are doing with that third line. If you check the video at 1:09 and 1:16 you can see Crosby's position where his stick makes contact with the puck - it was closer to the center of the net than the far post. My "dot" was conservative in placement and clearly shows his point of contact on the stick was clearly above the crossbar.

It was just a sarcastic post. My point is you can't determine where his stick was by drawing lines on a picture in photoshop.

[Guest Shoreline]

Homenugget: I have absolutely no idea what you are doing with that third line. If you check the video at 1:09 and 1:16 you can see Crosby's position where his stick makes contact with the puck - it was closer to the center of the net than the far post. My "dot" was conservative in placement and clearly shows his point of contact on the stick was clearly above the crossbar.

No idea what you're talking about as it is still not obvious one way or another. I can easily argue it's under as well, and have as much validity. It's too ambiguous to tell, and far too stupid to split hairs over. The call on the ice was the right one, as was deferring to the call made there.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[CrossoverThrash 0]

Homenugget: I have absolutely no idea what you are doing with that third line. If you check the video at 1:09 and 1:16 you can see Crosby's position where his stick makes contact with the puck - it was closer to the center of the net than the far post. My "dot" was conservative in placement and clearly shows his point of contact on the stick was clearly above the crossbar.

I think homenugget was looking at it form a 2d and not 3d perspective

[egroen 384]

Is physics an absolutely foreign concept to you? Do they measure a skyscraper by climbing to the top and dropping down a ruler?

Come on, this is basic stuff! It took all of two minutes to show that was not a goal... why can't the "War Room" do the same?

Edited December 23, 2008 by egroen

[Guest Shoreline]

And MS Paint is physics? Where are the measurements and angles, if you want to take it that far over something clearly ambiguous. The ref had by far the best view of the situation and called it the way he saw it. And looking at the replay I'm sure most people would have called it the same. The war room made a judgment call that goes with whatever goes on the ice, and they weren't wrong either. There's no way to tell, and the incredulous assertion that one knows better than all of them is pretty funny to me.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[egroen 384]

And MS Paint is physics? Where are the measurements and angles, if you want to take it that far over something clearly ambiguous. The ref had by far the best view of the situation and called it the way he saw it. And looking at the replay I'm sure most people would have called it the same. The war room made a judgment call that goes with whatever goes on the ice, and they weren't wrong either. There's no way to tell, and the incredulous assertion that one knows better than all of them is pretty funny to me.

Then why review it at all?

It was incredibly easy to show that was clearly above the crossbar, if you bother to do anything at all more than "eyeball it".

[Guest Shoreline]

Then why review it at all?

It was incredibly easy to show that was clearly above the crossbar, if you bother to do anything at all more than "eyeball it".

It was incredibly easy to show that because it's incredibly easy to show you have a pre-determined judgment of the call. Every other logical person here is suggesting it's too close to call, because it is. Yet you cite physics. Last I checked, physics is a science which has formulas to back up an assertion. What physics were used in your MS Paint job, since "eyeballing" it clearly doesn't show enough.

[egroen 384]

It was incredibly easy to show that because it's incredibly easy to show you have a pre-determined judgment of the call. Every other logical person here is suggesting it's too close to call, because it is. Yet you cite physics. Last I checked, physics is a science which has formulas to back up an assertion. What physics were used in your MS Paint job, since "eyeballing" it clearly doesn't show enough.

I did? Go ahead and check my history for anti-crosby posts... I actually spend more time defending him around here. I was curious if it was a goal or not. Actually taking the brief time to draw out the angles and look at Crosby's position relative to the net from the various angles in the video (again, 1:16 of the videa shows it very clearly) was easy to do and shows that it was really not even that close, and certainly not close enough to measure angles. I think what I showed is much more accurate than simply eyeballing it. Why do you care so much that it should be a goal?

Edited December 23, 2008 by egroen

[Guest Shoreline]

I did? Go ahead and check my history for anti-crosby posts... I actually spend more time defending him around here. I was curious if it was a goal or not. Actually taking the brief time to draw out the angles and look at Crosby's position relative to the net from the various angles in the video (again, 1:16 of the videa shows it very clearly) was easy to do and shows that it was really not even that close, and certainly not close enough to measure angles. I think what I showed is much more accurate than simply eyeballing it. Why do you care so much that it should be a goal?

You showed nothing other than it's clearly ambiguous. If you had suggested the Crosby punches were unfair and his punishment regarding that, I'd agree, but you are citing physics here. Or are you just pulling that out of your ass as there's simply no physics that can be taken from a screen? I can draw lines with MS Paint as well but I didn't in my screencaps because it doesn't mean a damn thing. I care that it should be a goal no matter who scored it because that was the call on the ice. If you want to scrutinize in the manner you are with validity, especially when citing physics, actually try using physics, which isn't merely an assertion of "physics shows". And just like you can scrutinize the NHL's call, I can scrutinize yours.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[CrossoverThrash 0]

edit

Edited December 23, 2008 by CrossoverThrash

[Sergeiwasmyfav 0]

This thread wouldn't exist if Crosby was not involved. It wasn't obvious. Get over the obsession.

I think it's kind of unfair to assume that the OP made the thread simply because the play involved Crosby. This was the featured game on VS last night, and it ended in what could be considered a controversial manner. I was watching as well, and personally felt that it was too close to be called no goal. However, I could see why someone else would feel that it should not have been a goal. Since the NHL has had somewhat of a history of making controversial calls on plays like this in the last few seasons, it seems like a perfectly legitimate topic to create a thread about. I realize that the OP did take the opportunity to poke fun at Crosby and Bettman, but really, who cares? The thread itself was legitimate, IMO, for the reasons I stated above, regardless of whose stick the puck went off of, and the only reason it became a Crosby thread is because people had to make a fuss out of the OP's joking remark.

[egroen 384]

I'm still not sure what you think is inaccurate about my arbitrary "lines" then? Where am I off? Because I do not even see it being that close. Do you think my angle of the ice is off to a large degree? Crosby's position? You are certainly taking a lot of time to defend this goal, so try and be a little more helpful in you scrutinizing.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

I think it's kind of unfair to assume that the OP made the thread simply because the play involved Crosby. This was the featured game on VS last night, and it ended in what could be considered a controversial manner. I was watching as well, and personally felt that it was too close to be called no goal. However, I could see why someone else would feel that it should not have been a goal. Since the NHL has had somewhat of a history of making controversial calls on plays like this in the last few seasons, it seems like a perfectly legitimate topic to create a thread about. I realize that the OP did take the opportunity to poke fun at Crosby and Bettman, but really, who cares? The thread itself was legitimate, IMO, for the reasons I stated above, regardless of whose stick the puck went off of, and the only reason it became a Crosby thread is because people had to make a fuss out of the OP's joking remark.

QFT

[Guest Shoreline]

I'm still not sure what you think is inaccurate about my arbitrary "lines" then? Where am I off? Because I do not even see it being that close. Do you think my angle of the ice is off to a large degree? Crosby's position? You are certainly taking a lot of time to defend this goal, so try and be a little more helpful in you scrutinizing.

Your "angle" is just as arbitrary as your assertion. I thought that was clear. I'm not the one suggesting the angle is right or wrong, but clearly made up. But remember, it's you who cited physics, but I don't see any physics being used. I'd be more than happy to join your side if your criticism was anything but as arbitrary as the calls made. You've shown it's just the same. The difference is, I trust the people who have more than one or two camera angles, as well as the refs on the ice, to make a call rather than an observer not there.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[egroen 384]

Turns out the placement is even closer to the center of the net than I thought... it is a 'no-goal' by an even wider margin.

Edited December 23, 2008 by egroen

[chrisdetroit 189]

Your "angle" is just as arbitrary as your assertion. I thought that was clear. I'm not the one suggesting the angle is right or wrong, but clearly made up. But remember, it's you who cited physics, but I don't see any physics being used. I'd be more than happy to join your side if your criticism was anything but as arbitrary as the calls made. You've shown it's just the same. The difference is, I trust the people who have more than one or two camera angles, as well as the refs on the ice, to make a call rather than an observer not there.

My two cents. To do this correctly you would have draw this line perpendicular to the cross-bar. To do that you have to know the angle of the camera. Drawing a line on a still photograph taken from a camera that was at an angle to the cross-bar using photoshop is not very scientific.

It is physics but we are missing some vital pieces of information required to make an aboslute conclusion.

I don't know how anyone could look at this and say it either isn't or is a goal with any certainty.

[egroen 384]

My two cents. To do this correctly you would have draw this line perpendicular to the cross-bar. To do that you have to know the angle of the camera. Drawing a line on a still photograph taken from a camera that was at an angle to the cross-bar using photoshop is not very scientific.

It is physics but we are missing some vital pieces of information required to make an aboslute conclusion.

I don't know how anyone could look at this and say it either isn't or is a goal with any certainty.

It's half-assed physics for sure, but I think it shows pretty easily it was not even close. And is certainly more accurate than just watching the replay.

Edited December 23, 2008 by egroen

[chrisdetroit 189]

Turns out the placement is even closer to the center of the net than I though... it is a 'no-goal' by an even wider margin.

Move those lines by 1/2 of 1 degree and what do you get?

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Turns out the placement is even closer to the center of the net than I thought... it is a 'no-goal' by an even wider margin.

You're using lines drawn on an image that is shooting down and diagonal at the play. That doesn't clear it up at all. It's flawed analysis. Especially if you consider that the lens of the camera would compress the spatial relationship, depending on how zoomed in it was.

The only way it'd even be possible to draw conclusions like that from a still image would be if the camera were shooting at exact crossbar height. And even then, it's still going to come down to a judgement call.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Here's a shot closer at ice level. The pucks not at the stick yet, but to me it makes it an even closer call.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

they should put cameras in the refs helmets haha

[egroen 384]

I guess I am crazy, but it seems more accurate than just eyeballing it. The top of Miller's head in both pictures can also be used to measure the space, and seems to line up nicely.

Slide that first arrow in the first picture a little bit closer to the center of the net (like the second picture shows it should be) and it is a no-goal by quite a wide margin.

Either accurately review it or leave it to the on-ice officials.

Here's a shot closer at ice level. The pucks not at the stick yet, but to me it makes it an even closer call.

And the puck is going at an upward angle towards him -- doesn't look close at all to me, unless Crosby is 5'2 and his shouldres are no higher than the crossbar.

Edited December 23, 2008 by egroen