222 replies to this topic

[Toefuzz]

These are the plays that give me nightmares when trying to explain the rules of hockey to my son.

[wingnut40]

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.

[Hockeytown_Ryan]

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 by Hockeytown_Ryan, 07 April 2011 - 10:49 AM.

[MTU_Huskies963]

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.

[Howard He Do It?!]

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.

[HankthaTank]

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.

[Hockeytown0001]

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".

[RusDRW]

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.

[Namtaru]

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.

[Majsheppard]

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.

[Crashnburnluder]

Are we really all that surprised....

If this hasn't been the trend since the 08 finals... Watching some of the calls in the 08 finals and the entire 09 Playoffs in favor of a certain team. Then Last year with certain calls going for another certain team, both ended up leading the team to a Stanley cup. Of course the NHL wants the Hawks to "Defend their Cup." Yes, I think its going to be a pretty miserable attempt. Let em make it get a lower draft pick and embarrassed by some team in the playoffs. Just hope they face Vancouver I think they want to make a statement. Let em make it against the Hawks and not the entire playoff run. The NHL is about ratings, and if that means hurting the reputation of the league to the fans that aren't going any where because they love the sport, to bring more fans in and more money. The league will do it.

crash

[Howard He Do It?!]

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.

One situation does not create the rule for all other situations. We don't need videos to know that the NHL is inconsistent in just about everything it does.

[MGreenberg]

Just watched the video, what a horrible call. But I guess you can just look at the Chicago game against the Wings and see how much the Refs helped them out. I mean when the kick is that obvious like that you know that the NHL is rigged.

Edited by MGreenberg, 07 April 2011 - 12:44 PM.

[Lovin Jiri Fischer]

Maybe one of the War Room guys had money on the game. That is the only logical explanation.

[rick zombo]

Maybe one of the War Room guys had money on the game. That is the only logical explanation.

Maybe he and Turco went splitzies on the game

[Howard He Do It?!]

Maybe one of the War Room guys had money on the game. That is the only logical explanation.

Turco War Room Rules!

[redwingmachine]

 Hawks Win.jpg   69.75K   59 downloads

[Namtaru]

Turco War Room Rules!

Post of the day.

[SouthernWingsFan]

These people are so incompetent sometimes it's more funny than anger from me.

[eva unit zero]

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 wobbling and leveling off.

Both Hossa and Sharp have stated they did not believe it was a goal.

That's the thing; you can't. More than half of his stick his hidden from view by his leg when it would be hitting the puck. If he even nicks the very edge of the puck in that moment, it's still a goal. While you say that he said he didn't think it was a goal, it's not conclusive evidence and was called a goal on ice. But he sure thought it was a goal when it happened.