222 replies to this topic

[zackisonfire]

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]

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]

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 by Jasper84, 06 April 2011 - 10:08 PM.

[Buppy]

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 by Buppy, 10 April 2011 - 07:29 PM.

[Nightfall]

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]

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]

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]

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 by Nevermind, 06 April 2011 - 10:26 PM.

[Buppy]

It's Conklin

Glad you said it.

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

[Heroes of Hockeytown]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Nightfall]

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.

How can you be sure he didn't? He could have hit is with the bottom edge of his glove and it squirted over the line. The pocket of the glove hand does have mesh on it, and the ref could have seen the puck move through the mesh part of the glove.

Here are the things we know.

1. The ref is in perfect position to see it.
2. The camera angles we have on youtube cannot see it

Conspiracy theorists can speculate all they want. Hell, as a ref, I have been told the same thing come playoff time and a team thinks they got screwed on a goal or no goal call.

Since we don't have a camera angle inside the net or under the ice, we have to rely on the referee. If the ref screwed up, then the bad call is on him. If the ref saw the puck cross the line entirely when Conklin reached back for it and just knocked it in enough before he brought it out, then it is a good goal.

I am NOT saying that the goal is good. I am just saying that the ref's eyes are there and he has to make the call. I understand the call if everything I said is true, but I don't agree with it if the ref screwed up or the kick in went over the line. Anyone saying that the NHL fixed the game or something really is talking out of their ass. They have to understand that it COULD BE a good goal.

[R-Dizzle]

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.


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.

Seriously? Hossa's was FAR more blatant that Berts.

[KillerB14]

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.

I remember that goal and yes I thought for sure it would be called back. The thing is with that goal, it was ruled a goal because "kicking backwards" wasn't a kicking motion, only forward. Which sounded so dumb to me at the time and still does. Still, that is how the league ruled on that play. Later in the season a goal stood against the Wings with the same idea cause his foot moved backwards, not a "forward kicking motion."

Not the same thing, Bertuzzi's was allowed to stand because of how the league interprets the rule NOT because the league decided to overlook the fact he kicked it.

[Nightfall]

Seriously? Hossa's was FAR more blatant that Berts.

Do I have to bold the part where I said that in my original post? Or should I just call you captain obvious for repeating what I said?

I remember that goal and yes I thought for sure it would be called back. The thing is with that goal, it was ruled a goal because "kicking backwards" wasn't a kicking motion, only forward. Which sounded so dumb to me at the time and still does. Still, that is how the league ruled on that play. Later in the season a goal stood against the Wings with the same idea cause his foot moved backwards, not a "forward kicking motion."

Not the same thing, Bertuzzi's was allowed to stand because of how the league interprets the rule NOT because the league decided to overlook the fact he kicked it.

As you said though, it makes no sense. It should have been called back just based on common sense alone. Yet, it was allowed to stand. I am just pointing out that the Wings HAVE BENEFITED from a call like this before. Yet, when I point it out, and you say it was a kicking motion, all of a sudden it "is not the same thing"? Come on now. Seriously?

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck. In the case with Hossa's "goal", the ref is the main player in this. I wish there was a inside the net and an under the ice camera angle we could see.

Edited by Nightfall, 06 April 2011 - 10:57 PM.

[KillerB14]

As you said though, it makes no sense. It should have been called back just based on common sense alone. Yet, it was allowed to stand. I am just pointing out that the Wings HAVE BENEFITED from a call like this before. Yet, when I point it out, and you say it was a kicking motion, all of a sudden it "is not the same thing"? Come on now. Seriously?

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, its a duck. In the case with Hossa's "goal", the ref is the main player in this. I wish there was a inside the net and an under the ice camera angle we could see.

No, it's not the same. For Bertuzzi, it's the league applying the rule, as dumb as it is (say intent to blow), it's still the rule and they applied it.

Here's the league ruling from the St. Louis Dispatch

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hockey/professional/article_e8c5a6e4-c5dd-5e5d-8513-d20461653139.html

"Chicago's Marian Hossa appeared to kick the puck toward the net, and a replay didn't show conclusive evidence that the puck crossed the goal line. Nonetheless, after a lengthy review, the NHL's war room ruled that Hossa hit the puck with his stick after kicking it. No explanation was given about the puck going in."

So league chose to say Hossa's stick touched it, even though it would have caused it to change direction, even if a little bit. It didn't move it didn't fully cross the line. We'll never know unless we can get different angles. Some will cry conspiracy, I'll stick with my opinion. The league is just that bad at this stuff.