Unbelievably bad goal.

[Majsheppard 203]

So what exactly is the point of video review?

Who knows, but Chicago won. Bulls***.

[Jasper84 333]

And there it is. NHL gives the hawks 2 points

[Majsheppard 203]

I want phone numbers of people in the NHL, anyone got access to them? Because that goal is bulls***. I want to complain on the phone to someone with at least Vice President in their title.

[R-Dizzle 119]

******* sickening.

[dropkickshanahans 463]

I want phone numbers of people in the NHL, anyone got access to them? Because that goal is bulls***. I want to complain on the phone to someone with at least Vice President in their title.

GET 'EM!

[zackisonfire 16]

That just made me sick to my ******* stomach. St. Louis played an honest game but to no avail.

Somebody PLEASE photoshop the trollface on to the blackhawks logo for me. Please, please, please.

[jollymania 162]

i hope the wings crush them the next two games and the stars win out, you know the stars will get some horrible reffing against them

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

I'm glad I'm not a Flames fan, because I'd be crazy angry.

[R-Dizzle 119]

i hope the wings crush them the next two games and the stars win out, you know the stars will get some horrible reffing against them

I doubt that will happen. Be ready to get jobbed by the refs in the next two games.

[mahimahi23 34]

Hossa definitely kicked the puck, which hit the post and rolled across the line to the other post, and was swept back by Legace, possibly without the puck ever crossing the line. He might have tapped it with his stick (thus negating the kicking motion), and Sobotka might have touched it as well.

The problem is that the ref on the ice (Good ole' Dan O'Halloran) signaled goal. Which means the War Room would have needed indisputable evidence of two things to overturn the goal. 1 - That the puck conclusively did not cross the line, and 2 - That neither Hossa, Sobotka, Polak or Legace touched the puck after it was kicked by Hossa but before it crossed the line.

The replays that I've seen suggest that no one touched it, and that the puck did not completely cross the line. But there's a difference between suggesting something and proving it.

Good post.

It was a questionable call, no doubt. And we may have gotten a break, but you people with your conspiracy theories are hilarious. It was one goal that made it 2-1. It wasnt the goal to win it, it was still 3-3 in overtime, but you think the refs GAVE us this game, and did this so we make the playoffs? What a joke.

The call on the ice was a goal, and there was not one replay that showed conclusivly that the puck didnt go in the net, so they couldnt overturn it. I did think they were going to disallow it because of the kicking motion, but maybe they seen somthing I didnt IE someone else hitting it, it was hard to tell.

[zackisonfire 16]

I doubt that will happen. Be ready to get jobbed by the refs in the next two games.

Yeah. They're going to call a penalty on Homer everytime he breathes.

[Hockeytown0001 7,652]

Good post.

It was a questionable call, no doubt. And we may have gotten a break, but you people with your conspiracy theories are hilarious. It was one goal that made it 2-1. It wasnt the goal to win it, it was still 3-3 in overtime, but you think the refs GAVE us this game, and did this so we make the playoffs? What a joke.

The call on the ice was a goal, and there was not one replay that showed conclusivly that the puck didnt go in the net, so they couldnt overturn it. I did think they were going to disallow it because of the kicking motion, but maybe they seen somthing I didnt IE someone else hitting it, it was hard to tell.

1. There's no "we". Chicago got a huge gift, you didn't.

2. You're correct in saying not one replay showed conclusively the puck didn't go in the net - ALL of them showed the puck not conclusively in.

[Jasper84 333]

Hossa definitely kicked the puck, which hit the post and rolled across the line to the other post, and was swept back by Legace, possibly without the puck ever crossing the line. He might have tapped it with his stick (thus negating the kicking motion), and Sobotka might have touched it as well.

The problem is that the ref on the ice (Good ole' Dan O'Halloran) signaled goal. Which means the War Room would have needed indisputable evidence of two things to overturn the goal. 1 - That the puck conclusively did not cross the line, and 2 - That neither Hossa, Sobotka, Polak or Legace touched the puck after it was kicked by Hossa but before it crossed the line.

The replays that I've seen suggest that no one touched it, and that the puck did not completely cross the line. But there's a difference between suggesting something and proving it.

What I don't understand is, why do we study physics in highschool and college if we can't put what we learn to use? So just because the video doesn't show whether a stick did or didn't hit the puck, we're supposed to completely ignore physics in this situation? The puck was on the line the entire time, and it's clear as day. If ANYTHING touches that puck, it is going to cross that line in one direction or another. I do not need a video showing me that something made contact with that puck, because I was taught at least some physics in school.

Note: I am not going off on you or anything. I am just furious with the league for this call, because it's just disgusting. And I understand what you're saying, that it's what the NHL is basing their ruling on, and thats why I'm making the comment I made.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Jasper84

[Buppy 1,720]

I'm glad they won. It makes the scenario that keeps them out that much sweeter from a Wing's fan perspective:

Anaheim hangs on and beats SJ tonight. Of course we hate seeing the Ducks win, but at least beating the Sharks is good. Plus it would officially eliminate Calgary. (Despite the VS announcers saying the Flames are already done, they're technically still alive.) This would give the Ducks 95 points and they win a tiebreaker against the Hawks. [CHECK]

Tomorrow, Dallas beats the Avs in regulation/OT. The rivalry maybe dead but still kind of fun to see the Avs lose. [CHECK]

Friday, Wings beat the Hawks in regulation. Self-explanatory. [bOO! ok, not the end of the world...]

Dallas beats Colorado again in regulation/OT. Again, fun. This give Dallas 95 points and keeps them in striking distance. [CHECK]

Well now we need Anaheim to pick up 2 points. [CHECK] And if Friday [CHECK] AND Saturday [bOO] Phoenix manages to beat the Sharks (with the Sharks getting no more than 1 point)[No bonus...]. This puts Phoenix in. [CHECK] We need the Preds to get a point [CHECK], and it sets up the coup de gras...

Wings beat the Hawks, in regulation, in Chicago, not officially eliminating them from the playoffs but paving the way [CHECK]. We then become huge Dallas fans as a Reg/OT win [RATS...] puts them in the playoffs and eliminates the Hawks.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Buppy

[Nightfall 871]

This is the replay that I saw. As a ref, just seeing that video means that Toronto should have reversed the call. Is it possible that Legace knocked the puck in the net when he reached back for it? Yup. If thats the case, then it is a good goal. I can understand it had to be irrefutable proof. So I can understand how that is a good goal. The Wings have benefited from gifts like this in the past. It would be different if the Wings NEVER got a gift like this. I say quit whining about it. Its hockey people. Sometimes, teams or players do get breaks.

[hooon 1,089]

This is the replay that I saw. As a ref, just seeing that video means that Toronto should have reversed the call. Is it possible that Legace knocked the puck in the net when he reached back for it? Yup. If thats the case, then it is a good goal. I can understand it had to be irrefutable proof. So I can understand how that is a good goal. The Wings have benefited from gifts like this in the past. It would be different if the Wings NEVER got a gift like this. I say quit whining about it. Its hockey people. Sometimes, teams or players do get breaks.

Please name me a time the Wings have benefited from a goal like this.

And good job completely ignoring the fact that the puck was clearly kicked into the net in your assessment.

[Jasper84 333]

This is the replay that I saw. As a ref, just seeing that video means that Toronto should have reversed the call. Is it possible that Legace knocked the puck in the net when he reached back for it? Yup. If thats the case, then it is a good goal. I can understand it had to be irrefutable proof. So I can understand how that is a good goal. The Wings have benefited from gifts like this in the past. It would be different if the Wings NEVER got a gift like this. I say quit whining about it. Its hockey people. Sometimes, teams or players do get breaks.

It's Conklin

And this shouldn't even get to the point where we debate whether the puck crosses the line or not. He clearly kicked it in, and I don't see how anyone can say otherwise.

[Nevermind 363]

That is really absolute bulls***. I guess the NHL decided Chicago might need some help to make the playoffs.

Either that, or the war room thinks about it like this...

• Kicking motion = no goal
• Not completely across the line = no goal

(negative)*(negative) = positive,

therefore, (no goal)*(no goal) = goal

Makes perfect sense now. Two negatives equal a positive.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Nevermind

[Buppy 1,720]

It's Conklin

Glad you said it.

I thought maybe I missed a memo explaining some new Wings insider joke...

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

I'm glad they won. It makes the scenario that keeps them out that much sweeter from a Wing's fan perspective:

Heh, that would be a lot of fun, but if the conditions for the Hawks missing the playoffs are both the Wings and Stars running the table, then I'd say the odds are in Chicago's favor.

[Nightfall 871]

Please name me a time the Wings have benefited from a goal like this.

And good job completely ignoring the fact that the puck was clearly kicked into the net in your assessment.

If the puck was swept in by Conklin, then it wouldn't matter if he kicked it or not. Good job ignoring that fact.

As for when the Wings benefited from this, this goal reminds me of that.

When I first saw this goal, I would have called it no goal as well if I was Toronto. Hossas was much more blatant, I will give you that. Still, you have to be a total homer to actually believe that Bert didn't kick that in.

It's Conklin

And this shouldn't even get to the point where we debate whether the puck crosses the line or not. He clearly kicked it in, and I don't see how anyone can say otherwise.

Sorry, Legace on the head.

From video, you can't tell if it crossed the line. The ref is the closest guy there. Maybe he saw Conklin push it in the net when he was trying to pull it out. Thats the best explanation I can give. As a ref, I have had to call goals like that before. He is in perfect position to see it, so no one here can debate that. The overhead camera doesn't show it thats for sure. Anyone have a inside the goal cam video they can post?

Point is this. No one here can actually say that the puck wasn't pushed across the line by Conklin when he reached back for it. The camera doesn't show it. Hossa's blatant kick wouldn't matter then so that is off the table. So then it is all up to the ref that is down there and the camera in the net that Toronto has. If the ref screwed up and called it a goal when it wasn't, then that is on him. If he saw Conklin push the puck over the line when he reached back for it and then dragged it out, then it is a good goal.

[KillerB14 2]

This is the replay that I saw. As a ref, just seeing that video means that Toronto should have reversed the call. Is it possible that Legace knocked the puck in the net when he reached back for it? Yup. If thats the case, then it is a good goal. I can understand it had to be irrefutable proof. So I can understand how that is a good goal. The Wings have benefited from gifts like this in the past. It would be different if the Wings NEVER got a gift like this. I say quit whining about it. Its hockey people. Sometimes, teams or players do get breaks.

Yes. IF Conklin hit the puck in it would have been a good goal. Your allowed to speculate on that. Thing is, he didn't. His glove came around the puck to the back of it and swept it out. The puck had actually stopped moving before the glove came over it and there was no white in between the puck and the goal line. Never crossed. If Hossa's stick ever touched it, even slightly, it would have changed direction, even slightly. It didn't until it hit the other side.

I'm not screaming conspiracy. I decided years back that there's two options, 1) Conspiracy. 2) They are just that terrible. We are reminded game after game of any teams playing how badly the refs and Toronto is. Yay NHL.

[ACallToArms 270]

Wow, just watched this video after hearing about this call. If anything calls into question the credibility of the NHL officials, and the boys in Toronto, its got to be this. I'm getting ready for a playoffs full of horrendous calls.

[Yak19 303]

Good post.

It was a questionable call, no doubt. And we may have gotten a break, but you people with your conspiracy theories are hilarious. It was one goal that made it 2-1. It wasnt the goal to win it, it was still 3-3 in overtime, but you think the refs GAVE us this game, and did this so we make the playoffs? What a joke.

The call on the ice was a goal, and there was not one replay that showed conclusivly that the puck didnt go in the net, so they couldnt overturn it. I did think they were going to disallow it because of the kicking motion, but maybe they seen somthing I didnt IE someone else hitting it, it was hard to tell.

No conspiracy just a shameful lapse in integrity for marketing purposes.

But like most Hawks "fans" you have only been watching hockey for 2 or 3 years.

[Jasper84 333]

Pang reports on twitter that Hossa tells Kopy that it wasn't a goal.

There is maybe like 8 people who believe that was a goal, and the person credited with the goal isn't one of those 8.