Another sure to be goal controversy

[RedWings Gone Wild 6]

Okay, so the Kings just scored a goal that was initially waved off, but then got called a goal anyways... Unfortunately, i doubt there is footage on Youtube yet (though within the hour there is sure to be).... needless to say, they overturned a "no goal" with virtually no conclusive evidence of a goal, which I think finally proves that the NHL is just over the deep end in craziness (and yes, that is a unit of measure).

Not only are they calling the obvious goals no goal, but now they're calling inconclusive stuff goals?.... This league is as backwards as can be...

I will say one thing... There is a possibility that there is an angle of the goal that has yet to be shown on yahoo... but it's still worth a laugh.

[Datsyuk2Zetterberg 1]

the only logical question to be asked here is, is there any former or future penguins players currently on the kings roster?

[cnot19 191]

It was ruled a goal by a different ref. Vanmasenhoven simply blew the play dead, so the original ruling was a goal and th video could not CONCLUSIVELY overturn it.

[AtomicPunk 296]

The ref is less than a foot away from the back of the net, staring at the goalie's foot, which had the puck under it, feverishly calling "no goal" and making the arm gesture. Whistle has blown. They go to replay and call it a goal. I have still yet to see an angle where the puck is in. It is under Giguere's foot, but no one can see it to tell if it is under his heel (over the line) or toe (not over the line).

I've seen totally legitimate goals get called no goal, intent to blow, all that crap, and this one is plain as day no goal, and they call it a goal.

I just don't get it.

[hooon 1,089]

I was watching this when it happened... could not believe the call. There was no way that anybody with eyes could have possibly decided that was a good goal. Whether its incompetence or corruption, either way it is unacceptable. Carlisle's reaction was pretty priceless though.

[under_par_00 45]

the only logical question to be asked here is, is there any former or future penguins players currently on the kings roster?

Scuderi

[Pavel Hossyukstrom 2]

so we had the 8th seed for a whole 3 1/2 hours? whoopty doo!! Now that Islander game looks even that much more huge. f***

[TheOwl 77]

Here's the video of Carlyle's reaction. PRICELESS

Giguere looks his wife just left him.

Edited January 15, 2010 by TheOwl

[Pavel Hossyukstrom 2]

Here's the video of Carlyle's reaction. PRICELESS

Giguere looks his wife just left him.

GEEEEEEEEEE..... I wonder what he was saying????

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

GEEEEEEEEEE..... I wonder what he was saying????

Did he call him a f**king ape?

[CopenhagenWing 38]

And Bobby Ryan is a full-fledged Duck now after that late-game hit.

[esteef 2,679]

It was ruled a goal by a different ref. Vanmasenhoven simply blew the play dead, so the original ruling was a goal and th video could not CONCLUSIVELY overturn it.

Before everybody gets all huffy over this one read the above post, as it is correct. Nothing to see here...

esteef

[Shady Ultima 40]

Anyone have the video?

[hooon 1,089]

Before everybody gets all huffy over this one read the above post, as it is correct. Nothing to see here...

esteef

Pretty sure this is incorrect.

The ref who was DIRECTLY behind the goal, and had the only possible vantage point, was emphatically waving his arms and yelling NO GOAL. The other ref was waaay away from the play and could/would not have ruled on the goal at all. The call on the ice was NO goal.

[esteef 2,679]

Pretty sure this is incorrect.

The ref who was DIRECTLY behind the goal, and had the only possible vantage point, was emphatically waving his arms and yelling NO GOAL. The other ref was waaay away from the play and could/would not have ruled on the goal at all. The call on the ice was NO goal.

Jim Fox even said during the broadcast that they called Toronto during the intermission to get an explanation and that's exactly the story they were given. The call was correct. But what do I know, I was only watching the game live...

esteef

[hooon 1,089]

Jim Fox even said during the broadcast that they called Toronto during the intermission to get an explanation and that's exactly the story they were given. The call was correct. But what do I know, I was only watching the game live...

esteef

So was I, and in all the replays they showed, never once did I see either ref indicate a goal on ice (but did see the ref vehemently call NO GOAL numerous times). I'm not denying this is the explanation given, but I never saw any evidence of that actually happening, however the NHL has a history of making explanations that have little to no truth to them. I think we need a clip of this.

I thought the NHL had a recent history of making mistakes, but what do I know?

[Kat19 0]

Anyone have the video?

This is more about the fight than the goal, but you get the idea....

or

4 minutes in. Edited January 15, 2010 by Kat19

[hooon 1,089]

In that video you can clearly see that neither ref signaled a goal, and the ref behind the net signaled NO GOAL about 3 times.

[Kat19 0]

In that video you can clearly see that neither ref signaled a goal, and the ref behind the net signaled NO GOAL about 3 times.

Yup. They tried to explain it away by saying he was just "calling the play dead" and not waving the goal off. Toronto was only reviewing to get conclusive evidence that it did NOT cross the line.

Oooookay.

Whatevs...I'll take it.

[stormboy 47]

This is more about the fight than the goal, but you get the idea....

or

4 minutes in.

there were probably more angles that were edited out of that second clip (since it was just a highlights package) but from there, you clearly see the ref behind the goal emphatically say "no goal" and there is no conclusive evidence whatsoever of the puck crossing the line. there's another angle (i think in the first clip) that's shot from near center ice...you can't see the other ref the whole time, but you see him skate in from about the red line and never see him make anything that looks close to a "goal" gesture (i'm not saying it never happened, i've just seen nothing like it yet) and in any case, if he called "goal" and the other ref called "no goal," it's absurd to me that the ref at center ice would somehow trump the ref who was sitting on the net for that to be considered the "call on the ice" that has to have "conclusive evidence" to be overturned.

plus, i'm pretty sure he says that the replay showed the puck over the line. maybe. but again, i've seen nothing to suggest that and i find it hard (though not impossible) to believe that such an angle exists.

but, either way, it was the fourth goal in a 4-0 win for the kings. probably not much would have been different either way. *shrug*

[henrik40 76]

Regardless of the impact it had on the game, it still shows complete inconsistency from NHL refs. This is really getting frustrating.

[stormboy 47]

Regardless of the impact it had on the game, it still shows complete inconsistency from NHL refs. This is really getting frustrating.

no, i mean, i agree. they should get the call right in any case. i'm just saying that practically, as far as wins and losses go, as far as points and standings go, it didn't have a measurable impact. but you're absolutely right, and what if the next botched call decides whether a team gets into the playoffs or not or is in OT of game seven of some series. be faithful in the small things...

[PRStoetzer 1]

The referee clearly states that it was called a goal after conferring with the other referees and not because of the review. The ruling on the ice was a goal and there was certainly nothing on the video that could disprove that.

[esteef 2,679]

The referee clearly states that it was called a goal after conferring with the other referees and not because of the review. The ruling on the ice was a goal and there was certainly nothing on the video that could disprove that.

Exactly. I could f***in' care less either way, especially since it didn't affect the outcome ( and believe me, I LOVE ripping the NHL), but the LA broadcast did make sure to follow up and explain. Also, I thought they should've had more angles of the play on camera, I mean , c'mon it 's LA!

esteef

[HadThomasVokounOnFortSt 878]

That is really hard to tell because the puck is under his pad. The only thing I can think of is that the pad is over the goal line, so that should be a goal. I agree with the call.