Refs/Toronto video room blow another game

[CrossoverThrash 0]

perhaps they should make the call if the blade of the stick is over then it is not goal because if lydman were closer he still might have been whacked by crosby's stick even if the puck hit the middle of the shaft.

[Guest Shoreline]

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.

Thank you for the logical post.

Says that's all that needs to be said.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[egroen 384]

EDIt

Edited December 23, 2008 by egroen

[Guest Shoreline]

And yet again, the screencap shows nothing -- can't tell. The only way to come to any conclusion is using presumptions about things you don't know, and as mentioned before by a wise poster, you don't have the information to make conclusions on. It's no more accurate than any other judgment call made from watching TV. Entirely useless.

The on ice call keeps looking better and better.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[egroen 384]

And yet again, the screencap shows nothing -- can't tell. The only way to come to any conclusion is using presumptions about things you don't know, and as mentioned before by a wise poster, you don't have the information to make conclusions on. It's no more accurate than any other judgment call made from watching TV. Entirely useless.

The on ice call keeps looking better and better.

Huh... it looks obvious to me. And I was just highlighting the lines on the ice (which I have a feeling are extremely accurate).

So you are basicaly saying reviewing a call is useless and the on-ice refs calls should be final? I am actually fine with that, but since they do review goals, using extremely rudimentary tools I can show that was a no-goal by a fair margin. Enough to over turn a call.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Unless he is lined up with the right post or that puck is going at a downward angle, that is a no-goal.

OMFG! people. The Brett Hull goal that won the friggin' Stanley Cup didn't generate this much controversy.

First off, that pic with the yellow lines all over it tells me nothing. All it does show is that at that specific point in time, the shaft of his stick is BELOW the bar. I don't know if the puck is rising, sinking, if his arms are moving upward or downward. If anything, those that would argue no goal shouldn't use that image to further their argument because it doesn't.

Secondly, the ruling on the ice has to have conclusive video evidence to overturn the on ice call right? Nobody here has shown conclusive evidence one way or the other so the call stands. The only thing conclusive to some folks here is that they think they know everything when clearly they don't. Only I know everything. Ok, so haroldspepsts knows alot too but that's beside the point.

Somebody show me a POINT OF CONTACT image where the puck is actually on the stick shaft, then show me a conclusive camera angle to go with it.

Toronto couldn't do it and nobody here has done it so people need to get over it and ingest a healthy dose of reality. No conclusive evidence to overturn the call. Maybe the refs blew it. But if they did, there was no conspiracy behind it. But until somebody has conclusive evidence, quit pawning off these magic bullet theories as "proof" its a no goal.

[MacK_Attack 108]

The "War Room" ruled that there was no conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the ice.

They made the right call in the short amount of time that they had. There wasn't an angle or replay available that I saw that showed that when Crosby touched the puck, his stick was over the crossbar.

[Frozen-Man 144]

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.

Right or wrong, good goal or not, all the lines look really cool and make me want to believe that you are right.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

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

If there's ne thing that people don't care about- it's questionable goals.

Only people who be h8tin' on Crosby care about questionable goals. Man- you nailed it.

[egroen 384]

For it to be a goal, the yellow lines would have to be the correct angle of the ice:

... seems a little "off" to me.

(I'm just having fun at this point)

[Guest Shoreline]

OMFG! people. The Brett Hull goal that won the friggin' Stanley Cup didn't generate this much controversy.

First off, that pic with the yellow lines all over it tells me nothing. All it does show is that at that specific point in time, the shaft of his stick is BELOW the bar. I don't know if the puck is rising, sinking, if his arms are moving upward or downward. If anything, those that would argue no goal shouldn't use that image to further their argument because it doesn't.

Secondly, the ruling on the ice has to have conclusive video evidence to overturn the on ice call right? Nobody here has shown conclusive evidence one way or the other so the call stands. The only thing conclusive to some folks here is that they think they know everything when clearly they don't. Only I know everything. Ok, so haroldspepsts knows alot too but that's beside the point.

Somebody show me a POINT OF CONTACT image where the puck is actually on the stick shaft, then show me a conclusive camera angle to go with it.

Toronto couldn't do it and nobody here has done it so people need to get over it and ingest a healthy dose of reality. No conclusive evidence to overturn the call. Maybe the refs blew it. But if they did, there was no conspiracy behind it. But until somebody has conclusive evidence, quit pawning off these magic bullet theories as "proof" its a no goal.

My screencap had the closest "impact" point so far and even that was entirely inconclusive. Simply put, blowing hot air. Didn't even need to draw arbitrary arrows to try and help me out either.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[hoogs 8]

100% the right call imo

[egroen 384]

Edited December 23, 2008 by egroen

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

Very entertaining thread! This kind of discussion used to bug me, cuz I thought "what's the point? It's not like the Wings are involved in a crucial game? How can these people really give this much of a s***?" But I finally came to my senses and realized people can give a s*** and discuss whatever they want. So now instead of aggravation, it's entertainment for me. Yeah, I know....big fat hairy deal. Thing is, both sides are presenting plausible arguments. And, as posted earlier, the lines and graphics are kind of cool. At least we're not baggin on Sammy or hating over enforcers.

[ShanahanMan 473]

Even though I have repeatedly said that I did not intend this to be a Crosby hate thread, I'm still getting quoted out of context and bashed. I suppose its my fault for putting that little Crosby/Bettman comment but given the situation happen to involve Crosby, how could I resist. I noticed watching the NHL network last night that even one of the "On the Fly" analysts flat out said, "different rules for different players". That said, I SOLELY intended this thread to be discussion based around the controversial goal last night, a legitimate topic, not how many ways we can say Crosby sux. Look at my history, I don't believe I've ever even participated in a Crosby bashing thread.

And to the one dude who called me a "homer".....what? I could give a rat's ass who won the game fairly, I just thought the goal looked bad. If the teams were reversed I STILL would have made the damn thread.....its worth discussing.

Geez

[HOCKEY MATTERS 167]

note: shanahanmanahan....not doggin you or the thread at all. just commenting on some of the posters and their posts.

[lets go pavel 2]

It's starting to look like something out of TRON ...

[Guest Shoreline]

It's starting to look like something out of TRON ...

If you notice, lines that are supposed to be parallel and perpendicular aren't. Now it's getting fun.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Shoreline

[dicksmack 33]

The "War Room" ruled that there was no conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the ice.

They made the right call in the short amount of time that they had. There wasn't an angle or replay available that I saw that showed that when Crosby touched the puck, his stick was over the crossbar.

Well said. It was a goal.

Crosby is justly criticized for being whiny because he is. but when it becomes blind hate, you clearly have bias creeping in.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

The lines are our friends! Stay within the lines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the moment there are no more threads about Crosby, I'm going to buy everybody a margarita and celebrate (FYI, I neither like or dislike him).

[RWK23 0]

Only at LGW.com will a simple debate about the validity of a game winning goal with absolutely no effect on the Red Wings spawn arguments regarding physics complete with different diagrams and pictures. What a great place.

[stormboy 47]

it appears to me to be a bad goad, and with those crazy diagrams, that seems to support the argument. however, it seems like in this case, and with the ducks OT winner against us, there is rarely a conclusive camera angle. hence:

Hopefully some way they get better camera angles in the future

i wonder why they don't install two cameras that are exactly at the level of the top of the goal and in line with the crossbar, similar to the cameras they have looking directly down on the goal. when your only looks at the play are from off angles, there's no way to get a definite look on a close play (very high sticks are obviously detectable with these angles). if there was a shot that was perfectly in line with the crossbar, it seems like it would make those calls a snap.

then again, how many times does this happen a year? right now i know of two game-winning goals, both of which i thought were bad, but couldn't prove conclusively. i'm sure there have been a few other non-ot goals, which nevertheless affect the outcome of the game. but i'm wondering if it's enough to get the league to set up new cameras in rinks.