Holmstrom96 347 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 What a terrible call. 100% certainty should have been called back for either one of two reasons: 1) The puck never actually crossed the goal line 2) It was kicked in with a very distinct kicking motion One of the worst video replay decisions I have ever seen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Holmstrom96 347 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 Hossa kicked it in. Not reviewable. Call on ice was goal. No reversible evidence. /discussion Kicking is reviewable. The puck clearly didn't go in. Both are reviewable and proven in the replays. [discussion] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Howard He Do It?! Report post Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) The puck sits on the goal line but never crosses it. The ref must have insisted to Toronto that he saw the puck cross the line underneath Conklin's glove when he attempted to pull it out. At that point Toronto does not have conclusive video evidence to overturn the goal and must give way to the ref's call on the ice. Hossa's kick of the puck wouldn't matter at that point because Conklin put the puck in the net himself. I'll bash the ref on this one but not Toronto. Edited April 7, 2011 by Howard He Do It?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jersey Wing 1,521 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 Blues goalie Ty Conklin on #Blackhawks’ reviewed goal: “Do we really have to make it that obvious that the league wants them in?” http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/hockey/comments/video-_its_a_goal._or_is_it/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
legaleaglewingsfan 75 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 This I can also agree with as a possibility. Be careful man, people will say you are trolling because you have a different opinion than the majority. Thanks for that total exaggeration of the facts. Its obvious you don't want to bring this to IM for some reason. Maybe your epeen needs a little growth or something. Just let it go man. People are going to have different opinions than you have. Belittling them is childish. Debate it. As a ref, I thoroughly enjoy this discussion because I am involved in this aspect of the game. Can't handle it? Then don't come in and whine about it. Very true. I thought he was closer than that. Would be nice to know at what point in the play this picture was taken. Does it matter much, its very unlikely that Dan was skating away from the play while calling goal. He was unable to see ANYTHING. And I also find your trolling troublesome, but I am pulling for you guys to make the playoffs, I really am. I hope you beat the Canucks I really do, and then we will put you all out like the garbage you are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACallToArms 270 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 This is soooo photoshop war bait. 1 wingnut40 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 Blues goalie Ty Conklin on #Blackhawks' reviewed goal: "Do we really have to make it that obvious that the league wants them in?" http://www.kuklaskor...goal._or_is_it/ I love Conks. O'Halloran is a hack. We've known it for years. Which means he'll get rewarded with a bunch of playoff games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntax 359 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 I didn't think I could stomach watching this...and then I did. This goal basically got s***cago into the playoffs, or at least eliminated Calgary? I hope s***cago gets swept by Vancouver. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RedWingsExpert1988 8 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 What if it was Chicago Vs. Pittsburgh? Which way would the call go then? hmm... 1 esteef reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wingslogo19 281 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 What if it was Chicago Vs. Pittsburgh? Which way would the call go then? hmm... The Pens even if Crosby isn't playing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 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. This. It's a terrible, terrible goal but people shouldn't confuse stupidity with conspiracy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jasper84 333 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 The puck sits on the goal line but never crosses it. The ref must have insisted to Toronto that he saw the puck cross the line underneath Conklin's glove when he attempted to pull it out. At that point Toronto does not have conclusive video evidence to overturn the goal and must give way to the ref's call on the ice. Hossa's kick of the puck wouldn't matter at that point because Conklin put the puck in the net himself. I'll bash the ref on this one but not Toronto. I don't agree with this at all, and I'll explain why. You can see it best in that slow motion video posted earlier in this thread. It couldn't be more clear, that Conk's glove is swooping in from the back and drags his glove outwards. At no point of that video, do you see Conk's glove stopping on top of that puck, dragging it in and back out. It's one solid motion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jersey Wing 1,521 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 What if it was Chicago Vs. Pittsburgh? Which way would the call go then? hmm... You raise an interesting question along the lines of 'can god make something so heavy even he can't lift it' thinking. Hmmmm, as they say in England a real poser. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
egroen 384 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) The best angle: You can clearly see Hossa whiff and the reason the puck has a miniscule chance in trajectory is because it bounced off the post rolling on it's side before Whobbling and leveling off. Both Hossa and Sharp have stated they did not believe it was a goal. These botched no-goal/goal/intent to blow calls infuriate me and have really made the sport less enjoyable for me. I am literally at a point where I just wish they would get rid of instant replay and the overhead camera angle as I would be happier in ignorance. What is the point in having it if the NHL refuses to use it to correct poor on-ice calls (on goals)? Malik recently posted this topic actually came up at a GM meeting, but the idea of reviewing calls such as when a whistle was blown after the puck was in the net was turned down because they do not like taking decisions away from the on-ice officials. In other words, the officials' ability to make incorrect calls is something they feel the NHL should go out of their way to protect. Wonderful. Edited April 7, 2011 by egroen 3 mjlegend, edicius and Majsheppard reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Majsheppard 203 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 The best angle: You can clearly see Hossa whiff and the reason the puck has a miniscule chance in trajectory is because it bounced off the post rolling on it's side before Whobbling and leveling off. Clearly the puck doesn't get touched by his stick. It went over his stick and bounced. This is lame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toefuzz 58 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 These are the plays that give me nightmares when trying to explain the rules of hockey to my son. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wingnut40 176 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 Normally I'm all for Hossa scoring, but this didn't even go IN the net. It didn't look like he kicked it on purpose. But then you can't say it was kicked in because, again, it didn't even go in the net. This is a terrible, terrible call. Leave it to O'Halloran to screw it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown_Ryan 119 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) The best angle: I kinda see the puck waffling on edge near the far post....(behind Conklin) If it was on edge over the goal line that is a goal is it not? And if Hossa wanted to kick it in the net he had a ass-load of space.. was the kicking motion toward the net? Edited April 7, 2011 by Hockeytown_Ryan Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MTU_Huskies963 398 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 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. Wait physics can be used in the real world The problem with instant replay is the use of logic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Howard He Do It?! Report post Posted April 7, 2011 I don't agree with this at all, and I'll explain why. You can see it best in that slow motion video posted earlier in this thread. It couldn't be more clear, that Conk's glove is swooping in from the back and drags his glove outwards. At no point of that video, do you see Conk's glove stopping on top of that puck, dragging it in and back out. It's one solid motion. The video does not show conclusively that the puck did not cross the line. We can infer and speculate but that is not how the rule is written. If conclusive video proof does not exist then the call on the ice stands. I understand that there is a 99% likelihood that the puck never crossed the line and I don't think it did but that 1% still exists and that's what the ref on the ice prescribed to. I kinda see the puck waffling on edge near the far post....(behind Conklin) If it was on edge over the goal line that is a goal is it not? And if Hossa wanted to kick it in the net he had a ass-load of space.. was the kicking motion toward the net? It would not be a goal because the last deliberate action on the puck was the kick by Hossa. It doesn't matter if the kicking motion was towards the net or not. If the puck enters the net as a result of a kicking motion then it is not a goal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HankthaTank 1,100 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 2 out of Hossa's last 3 teams this is a goal. I'll let you take a guess as to which one it isn't a goal for Honestly though, if anyone thinks the NHL actually HAD credibility before this is just being foolish. This only confirms it and truly makes me sick to my stomach. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hockeytown0001 7,652 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 Blues goalie Ty Conklin on #Blackhawks’ reviewed goal: “Do we really have to make it that obvious that the league wants them in?” http://www.kuklaskorner.com/index.php/hockey/comments/video-_its_a_goal._or_is_it/ Love it. Although we can expect Conks to get fined for that. Reading a bit on HFBoards - even the majority of Chicago fans are in shock. A poster copied/pasted a few comments from the Chicago board - 3/4 of them were along the lines of "Wow, we got a major gift there". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RusDRW 155 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 2 out of Hossa's last 3 teams this is a goal. I'll let you take a guess as to which one it isn't a goal for Honestly though, if anyone thinks the NHL actually HAD credibility before this is just being foolish. This only confirms it and truly makes me sick to my stomach. What bothers me even more is that I'll still be watching NHL... Tried to jump off the hook two times already. First time after game 5 of SCF in 2008, then after 2009 final series. I can't. There are no alternatives even with such kind of biased officiating. Looks like I'm the perfect fan of this new NHL. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Namtaru 57 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 Ok, heres my issue... To anyone (mostly hawks fans on other forums) saying call on ice was a goal and it was inconclusive so it remained a goal. Does this ring a bell? Call was NO goal, review was inconclusive, yet reversed. 2 Majsheppard and Gordie Howe hat trick reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Majsheppard 203 Report post Posted April 7, 2011 Ok, heres my issue... To anyone (mostly hawks fans on other forums) saying call on ice was a goal and it was inconclusive so it remained a goal. Does this ring a bell? Call was NO goal, review was inconclusive, yet reversed. IF I think about both of these events at the same time... well it just makes my head explode. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
