Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

Unbelievably bad goal.


  • Please log in to reply
222 replies to this topic

#121 wingsfaninMA

wingsfaninMA

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 54 posts

Posted 07 April 2011 - 05:16 AM

Hossa kicked it in. Not reviewable.

Call on ice was goal. No reversible evidence.

/discussion

kicking is reviewable dude. how can you not know that? it happens all the time

#122 clearlybetter11

clearlybetter11

    Prospect

  • Member
  • 45 posts

Posted 07 April 2011 - 05:26 AM

if this was a goal than why didn't they count all the other shots that didn't go in?

#123 BigWillieStyle

BigWillieStyle

    1st Line Sniper

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Location:Lapeer, MI

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:21 AM

So, I think that we are all in agreement that the puck was kicked?? OK.

So that kicked puck when it hits the inside edge of the post would put what type of spin on it? Any curlers or pool players here? Even bowlers would understand when a ball starts to bite. The puck would naturally generate a spin that would spin towards the net. Possibly right about the spot where Eva says Hossa's stick touched it. Also, it's almost 8 minutes into the period, how flat and even is a goal crease at that point of game? The puck could be going in any direction at that point. Goalies sure do a great job of roughing the surface in there, don't they.

So, the puck travels across the goal line to the goal post where we can see that it is still visibly on the line. At this point Conklin reaches his glove back and pulls it forward off of the goal line. And from comparing the videos to the still photo presented, we are to assume that O'Halloran saw the puck behind the goal line from approximately 12 feet away, while being slightly above the goal line, and apparently being able to see through a 2" thick steel goal post, and the solid web part of the net that is in that spot right next to the goal post on every net I've ever seen used in the NHL.


Sounds like someone was a little too anxious to call a goal. I don't see how, from his position, that he could be so emphatic that that was a goal. Maybe Oscar Goldman had a bionic eye put in him too, as well as Steve Austin!!!

I feel that the best thing to do in the future, would be to not make any calls on the ice and go to video review on any close or questionable calls. Toronto has a problem with overturning on ice calls, as we have witnessed on several occasions. So maybe they should have the refs not make a call and take it to review. The ref can state his point to Toronto, They can look at the play and see if they see what the ref thought he saw. And then make a ruling based on several eyes looking at the play in question, make a call, without, making the on ice official look bad. It may slow the game down, it may change the tempo, but making the right call in the first place should be the leagues top priority. Without that, it just continues to look like the bush league that it has become. And it's only getting worse.

#124 Jersey Wing

Jersey Wing

    Watching Eastern Conference hockey before it was cool...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Location:Jersey City, NJ

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:31 AM

The "We can't disprove it didn't cross the line" comment is a LIE. It's more CYA for an on-ice official's blown call.

Anyone with working eye sockets could plainly see it never crossed the line. That shouldn't be hard to overturn IF you're not playing CYA.

14767451334_8f0d14d8cb_o.jpg


#125 Yellowknife Redwing

Yellowknife Redwing

    3rd Line Checker

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Location:Calgary, AB, Canada

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:33 AM

Hossa kicked it in. Not reviewable.


It's impressive how you can be so arrogant with your post, yet so wrong at the same time.

Edited by Yellowknife Redwing, 07 April 2011 - 06:33 AM.


#126 Holmstrom96

Holmstrom96

    Banned Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • Location:Warren, MI

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:36 AM

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.

#127 Holmstrom96

Holmstrom96

    Banned Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,605 posts
  • Location:Warren, MI

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:41 AM

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]

#128 Howard He Do It?!

Howard He Do It?!

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,417 posts
  • Location:Hockeytown

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:44 AM

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 by Howard He Do It?!, 07 April 2011 - 06:46 AM.

Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image


Round 1: Red Wings (4) vs. Coyotes (0)
Round 2: Red Wings (0) vs. Sharks (0)


#129 Jersey Wing

Jersey Wing

    Watching Eastern Conference hockey before it was cool...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Location:Jersey City, NJ

Posted 07 April 2011 - 07:18 AM

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/

14767451334_8f0d14d8cb_o.jpg


#130 legaleaglewingsfan

legaleaglewingsfan

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 07 April 2011 - 07:21 AM

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.

#131 ACallToArms

ACallToArms

    1st Line Sniper

  • Gold Booster
  • 862 posts
  • Location:Royal Oak, MI

Posted 07 April 2011 - 07:22 AM

Posted Image


This is soooo photoshop war bait.

#132 edicius

edicius

    Professional drinker.

  • HoF Booster
  • 25,212 posts
  • Location:Budd Lake, NJ

Posted 07 April 2011 - 07:40 AM

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.

ABV_sig.png

                     Can't listen live? Check out MoreLikeRadio.org for show archives!


#133 syntax

syntax

    Join the Empire!

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,885 posts
  • Location:Flint, MI

Posted 07 April 2011 - 08:37 AM

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.
The Vladinator He earned the NHL Plus/Minus Award in 1995-96, with a plus/minus difference of plus-60. The +60 has been the highest rating a player has finished with in the past 20 seasons, since Wayne Gretzky finished with a +70 in the 1986-87 NHL season

Pavel Datsyuk > x (where x is the name of any active hockey player)

#134 RedWingsExpert1988

RedWingsExpert1988

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 83 posts
  • Location:Macomb, MI

Posted 07 April 2011 - 08:43 AM

What if it was Chicago Vs. Pittsburgh?

Which way would the call go then? hmm...

#135 wingslogo19

wingslogo19

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,234 posts
  • Location:Victoria BC Canada

Posted 07 April 2011 - 09:20 AM

What if it was Chicago Vs. Pittsburgh?

Which way would the call go then? hmm...

The Pens even if Crosby isn't playing
IPB Image

#136 Drake_Marcus

Drake_Marcus

    Pariah

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,335 posts
  • Location:Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 07 April 2011 - 09:25 AM

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.
Dedicated to lulz once lost:
Posted Image
Thanks TeeMan!

"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas
of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage" --H.P. Lovecraft

#137 Jasper84

Jasper84

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Gold Booster
  • 2,739 posts

Posted 07 April 2011 - 09:34 AM

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.

#138 Jersey Wing

Jersey Wing

    Watching Eastern Conference hockey before it was cool...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Location:Jersey City, NJ

Posted 07 April 2011 - 09:40 AM

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.

14767451334_8f0d14d8cb_o.jpg


#139 egroen

egroen

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Gold Booster
  • 4,619 posts
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 07 April 2011 - 09:52 AM

The best angle:

Posted Image

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 by egroen, 07 April 2011 - 09:55 AM.

Red Kelly #4 and Larry Aurie #6 belong in the rafters!!!

"For my game, I don't need to score the goal," Konstantinov once explained. "I need someone to start thinking about me and forgetting about scoring goals."

#140 Majsheppard

Majsheppard

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,512 posts

Posted 07 April 2011 - 10:23 AM

The best angle:

Posted Image

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.
"It is a lot easier to be an ******* to words than to people"-xkcd

Tootoo does NOT belong on this team. He is classless and I would rather see the Wings be bad than classless. I feel the same way about Bertuzzi as well, but he at least CAN make the team better. With Tootoo the team becomes worse and in danger of being classless. Would you have liked Claude on the team? Or Roy? No. So why would you be okay with that POS.

This thread has been closed due to emotions being higher than people's ability to read, interpret, and properly respond to simple posts.





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users