Clear Pic of Crosb's "non-goal"

[brwi]

One huge misconception about NHL video replay that most announcers and fans make is that they think it's like the NFL. It's not. There isn't anything that states anywhere that the evidence must be conclusive enough to override the ref's call on the ice. That's how the NFL does it but that isn't the case in the NHL. One might can argue that in practice that is how the NHL is trying to do it, but that isn't the rule at all, nor is it implied whatsoever. Benannati and Eliot were both way guilty of missing the boat on that last night, but they are hardly the only announcers to do such.

In the NFL, the official reviews the disputed footage and makes the final call. In the NHL, the final decision is made solely by the video goal judges in Toronto and it doesn't matter whatsoever if the ref ruled goal or no goal, kick, etc.

Maybe the NHL can get their PR dept to clarify this or change the rulebook to reflect that, OK, we're going to do it like the NFL does.

Brad

[pfim]

From what I saw on Vs, I didn't see any white between the puck and the goal line, but only because Biron's glove was blocking the view. But from where the puck was, one could use logic to figure out that, Biron's glove in the way or not, the puck had to be over the goal line. The only way it wouldn't have been over the line would be if the puck were the shape of a hoagie, which it is not. For the people in Toronto to call that shot inconclusive was ludicrous.

They can't assume the puck is over the line, that opens up a huge can of worms. They must see the puck over the line.

So by this rationale, a player can glove the puck, jump into the net and back out and as long as they never "see" the puck in the net it's no goal. I know that's how the rule is written and it needs changed, there is no cans of worm. Soemone can easily develop software to run a scan on where the puck is and where the goal line is and overlay the CAD image on top of the video.

Yes, I guess you proved me wrong with your ridiculous hypothetical that doesn't even remotely apply to last night's situation.

It couldn't be called a goal given the current rules and camera angles, to blame some guy watching TV in Toronto is asinine.

[DelPen]

From what I saw on Vs, I didn't see any white between the puck and the goal line, but only because Biron's glove was blocking the view. But from where the puck was, one could use logic to figure out that, Biron's glove in the way or not, the puck had to be over the goal line. The only way it wouldn't have been over the line would be if the puck were the shape of a hoagie, which it is not. For the people in Toronto to call that shot inconclusive was ludicrous.

They can't assume the puck is over the line, that opens up a huge can of worms. They must see the puck over the line.

So by this rationale, a player can glove the puck, jump into the net and back out and as long as they never "see" the puck in the net it's no goal. I know that's how the rule is written and it needs changed, there is no cans of worm. Soemone can easily develop software to run a scan on where the puck is and where the goal line is and overlay the CAD image on top of the video.

Yes, I guess you proved me wrong with your ridiculous hypothetical that doesn't even remotely apply to last night's situation.

It couldn't be called a goal given the current rules and camera angles, to blame some guy watching TV in Toronto is asinine.

There is no can of worms. Just because Biron's glove covers the goal line doesn't mean you couldn't see the puck over the line last night. There were two shots that where you saw the puck in the net it was clearly a goal. It's not like we ever lost sight of the puck completely, at some popint you could always see part of it it, mainly the edge that was 4 inches on the other side of the line.

Maybe the war room didn't have the in net camera or the side angle. From above the net you culdn't tell.

[ChiTraderRob]

Don Cherry made a good comment on ESPN...Yes, it was a goal, but it might have been easier to make that decision if you could actually see the goal line more clearly.

[KG]

I thought the NHL put out a mandate that the pens have to get every call because they are going to the finals? guess not!

I thought that was a goal. The zoom replay on VS I thought clearly showed that it was in. Even the color guy thought it was a goal. Bennati obviously did not

[drtofu66]

Benannati and Eliot were both way guilty of sucking

FYP

Why is it that the Pens/Flyers series gets the B team? At least Emerick brings some enthusiasm. Benannati sounds like the NHL 2k1 announcer for PS2.

[relantel]

From what I saw on Vs, I didn't see any white between the puck and the goal line, but only because Biron's glove was blocking the view. But from where the puck was, one could use logic to figure out that, Biron's glove in the way or not, the puck had to be over the goal line. The only way it wouldn't have been over the line would be if the puck were the shape of a hoagie, which it is not. For the people in Toronto to call that shot inconclusive was ludicrous.

They can't assume the puck is over the line, that opens up a huge can of worms. They must see the puck over the line.

So by this rationale, a player can glove the puck, jump into the net and back out and as long as they never "see" the puck in the net it's no goal. I know that's how the rule is written and it needs changed, there is no cans of worm. Soemone can easily develop software to run a scan on where the puck is and where the goal line is and overlay the CAD image on top of the video.

Yes and no. Only time I have seen them "assume" when the puck is covered by the goalie's glove is if they determine the whole glove was over the line.

As for the Tico line shot, I am not sure that conclusively proves it was over either, as one can't tell where that front edge of the puck is vertically. Though it looks like the near post goes down further, and the new line resultant would appear to be a better case.

[Krom]

I thought the NHL put out a mandate that the pens have to get every call because they are going to the finals? guess not!

I thought that was a goal. The zoom replay on VS I thought clearly showed that it was in. Even the color guy thought it was a goal. Bennati obviously did not

The referrees and the replay experts are going to get big fines from the league for not helping the Pens win.

[TheHammer24]

Totally off topic to this post, but I dont want to start a new topic.

Since when are short-handed goals called "shorties?"

I never heard it called that until one of the VS. idiots called it that. Then I heard Jon Burton call is a shorty on Channel 4 last night and then Benz this morning.

This is like the Seinfeld episode where everyone started eating candy bars with knives and forks.

My solution - Death to the next announcer that calls a shorthanded goal a "shorty." That will stop this epidemic.

(It is nice to be winning and to have to look for thing to b*tch about!!)

Since when have they not been referred to as shorties? I have heard that term for years.

[steelhammer]

this wouldn't even be an issue if they would just bring back that glowing puck from when Fox used to cover the NHL. BRING IT BACK

[Odd Man Rush]

From what I saw on Vs, I didn't see any white between the puck and the goal line, but only because Biron's glove was blocking the view. But from where the puck was, one could use logic to figure out that, Biron's glove in the way or not, the puck had to be over the goal line. The only way it wouldn't have been over the line would be if the puck were the shape of a hoagie, which it is not. For the people in Toronto to call that shot inconclusive was ludicrous.

That is 100 percent on the money!

By the logic the NHL brass in Toronto used, a shot could be saved by the goalie and then he could fall into the net. However, because the puck is out of view it would be inconclusive as to whther or not it was a goal even though the player himself is lying in the goal.

Bizarre call!

I understand that we won the game and that its all water over the dam now but that was an absolutely ridiculous ruling, IMHO.

[JDJ8766]

this wouldn't even be an issue if they would just bring back that glowing puck from when Fox used to cover the NHL. BRING IT BACK

It's your lucky day!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnis ... rthy_N.htm

[steelhammer]

this wouldn't even be an issue if they would just bring back that glowing puck from when Fox used to cover the NHL. BRING IT BACK

It's your lucky day!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnis ... rthy_N.htm

wow! you made my day. i'm not joking, i like the glowing puck. BRING IT BACK!!!

[peterleefan]

Since replay reviews are done in the warroom in Toronto, why is there a video replay official in attendance at each arena?

[Doogs]

If we would have lost the game 2-1 in OT, that would have sucked. Fortunately, all the sucking was being done by the Flyers and it was a non-issue.

[shmenguin]

Don Cherry made a good comment on ESPN...Yes, it was a goal, but it might have been easier to make that decision if you could actually see the goal line more clearly.

i thought cherry said that he had no idea if it was a goal or not.

plus, the line could have been pitch black, you'd still get t he same results from toronto. they had their balls removed before reviewing that video, clearly afraid of the outcry if they call a goal where no white was showing.

[ChiTraderRob]

this wouldn't even be an issue if they would just bring back that glowing puck from when Fox used to cover the NHL. BRING IT BACK

It's your lucky day!

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnis ... rthy_N.htm

wow! you made my day. i'm not joking, i like the glowing puck. BRING IT BACK!!!

NO!

[burghsportsguys]

From what I saw on Vs, I didn't see any white between the puck and the goal line, but only because Biron's glove was blocking the view. But from where the puck was, one could use logic to figure out that, Biron's glove in the way or not, the puck had to be over the goal line. The only way it wouldn't have been over the line would be if the puck were the shape of a hoagie, which it is not. For the people in Toronto to call that shot inconclusive was ludicrous.

They can't assume the puck is over the line, that opens up a huge can of worms. They must see the puck over the line.

So by this rationale, a player can glove the puck, jump into the net and back out and as long as they never "see" the puck in the net it's no goal. I know that's how the rule is written and it needs changed, there is no cans of worm. Soemone can easily develop software to run a scan on where the puck is and where the goal line is and overlay the CAD image on top of the video.

Yes, I guess you proved me wrong with your ridiculous hypothetical that doesn't even remotely apply to last night's situation.

It couldn't be called a goal given the current rules and camera angles, to blame some guy watching TV in Toronto is asinine.

His "ridiculous hypothetical" is exactly what you are arguing. Unless they can see the ACTUAL PUCK in the goal, you're saying they can't call it a goal.

It could have and should have been called a goal given the rules (which I believe state that a goal is awarded when the entire puck crosses the line). The puck clearly and unequivocally crossed the line. The fact that Biron's glove "blocked" the view doesn't magically make it no goal. It's in the net, it's a goal. It was a terrible call, but this team is good enough to get over it. This call is actually worse than allowing Drury's highstick goal to stand even though both are based on the same idiotic premise.

[Pitts]

Totally off topic to this post, but I dont want to start a new topic.

Since when are short-handed goals called "shorties?"

I never heard it called that until one of the VS. idiots called it that. Then I heard Jon Burton call is a shorty on Channel 4 last night and then Benz this morning.

This is like the Seinfeld episode where everyone started eating candy bars with knives and forks.

My solution - Death to the next announcer that calls a shorthanded goal a "shorty." That will stop this epidemic.

(It is nice to be winning and to have to look for thing to b*tch about!!)

I like shorties!

[shmenguin]

From what I saw on Vs, I didn't see any white between the puck and the goal line, but only because Biron's glove was blocking the view. But from where the puck was, one could use logic to figure out that, Biron's glove in the way or not, the puck had to be over the goal line. The only way it wouldn't have been over the line would be if the puck were the shape of a hoagie, which it is not. For the people in Toronto to call that shot inconclusive was ludicrous.

They can't assume the puck is over the line, that opens up a huge can of worms. They must see the puck over the line.

So by this rationale, a player can glove the puck, jump into the net and back out and as long as they never "see" the puck in the net it's no goal. I know that's how the rule is written and it needs changed, there is no cans of worm. Soemone can easily develop software to run a scan on where the puck is and where the goal line is and overlay the CAD image on top of the video.

Yes, I guess you proved me wrong with your ridiculous hypothetical that doesn't even remotely apply to last night's situation.

It couldn't be called a goal given the current rules and camera angles, to blame some guy watching TV in Toronto is asinine.

His "ridiculous hypothetical" is exactly what you are arguing. Unless they can see the ACTUAL PUCK in the goal, you're saying they can't call it a goal.

It could have and should have been called a goal given the rules (which I believe state that a goal is awarded when the entire puck crosses the line). The puck clearly and unequivocally crossed the line. The fact that Biron's glove "blocked" the view doesn't magically make it no goal. It's in the net, it's a goal. It was a terrible call, but this team is good enough to get over it. This call is actually worse than allowing Drury's highstick goal to stand even though both are based on the same idiotic premise.

unfortunately, there was nothing "unequivocal" about the available camera angles last night. I've only seen them call that situation a goal once, ever (whitney had a shot last year go into a goalie's glove, which dipped back in the net. shockingly, they called it a goal). i dont know why everybody's fussed about this. we won. the ref waived it off, there was not 100% visual proof. they could have called it a goal, but they didnt have to.

[The Snapshot]

From what I saw on Vs, I didn't see any white between the puck and the goal line, but only because Biron's glove was blocking the view. But from where the puck was, one could use logic to figure out that, Biron's glove in the way or not, the puck had to be over the goal line. The only way it wouldn't have been over the line would be if the puck were the shape of a hoagie, which it is not. For the people in Toronto to call that shot inconclusive was ludicrous.

Three points on that call:

1) I have seen a bunch of calls where the goalie makes a glove save and the glove is inside the net. The puck is obviously not visible, yet the goal is awarded based on "logic" - despite the fact that the puck is not visible. That same "logic" was out getting a beer and clearly out of the War Room at the time.

2) I love the resolve of this team. They do not look for excuses to lose, and they don't even accept them when they are hand-delivered to them. Their attitude is that they will just have to win by two.

3) What bothers me the most is that even when a critical call goes so badly against the Pens - that still doesn't stop the whining from the other team and their fans. I guess it shouldn't bother me, because it clearly shows that our opponent does not possess the steely-eyed conviction to finding reasons to win that our young team does.

Kudos to the coaches and every player in our room.

[Guinness]

Three points on that call:

1) I have seen a bunch of calls where the goalie makes a glove save and the glove is inside the net. The puck is obviously not visible, yet the goal is awarded based on "logic" - despite the fact that the puck is not visible. That same "logic" was out getting a beer and clearly out of the War Room at the time.

2) I love the resolve of this team. They do not look for excuses to lose, and they don't even accept them when they are hand-delivered to them. Their attitude is that they will just have to win by two.

3) What bothers me the most is that even when a critical call goes so badly against the Pens - that still doesn't stop the whining from the other team and their fans. I guess it shouldn't bother me, because it clearly shows that our opponent does not possess the steely-eyed conviction to finding reasons to win that our young team does.

Kudos to the coaches and every player in our room.

This. Well said, Snapshot.

I love their focus. It's about the current tilt and playing their game. Every interview they give credit to the opponent. This team is playing and behaving with class.

To me, the whinging from the opponent is, as Henry Hank said, the refrain of losers.

[burghsportsguys]

From what I saw on Vs, I didn't see any white between the puck and the goal line, but only because Biron's glove was blocking the view. But from where the puck was, one could use logic to figure out that, Biron's glove in the way or not, the puck had to be over the goal line. The only way it wouldn't have been over the line would be if the puck were the shape of a hoagie, which it is not. For the people in Toronto to call that shot inconclusive was ludicrous.

They can't assume the puck is over the line, that opens up a huge can of worms. They must see the puck over the line.

So by this rationale, a player can glove the puck, jump into the net and back out and as long as they never "see" the puck in the net it's no goal. I know that's how the rule is written and it needs changed, there is no cans of worm. Soemone can easily develop software to run a scan on where the puck is and where the goal line is and overlay the CAD image on top of the video.

Yes, I guess you proved me wrong with your ridiculous hypothetical that doesn't even remotely apply to last night's situation.

It couldn't be called a goal given the current rules and camera angles, to blame some guy watching TV in Toronto is asinine.

His "ridiculous hypothetical" is exactly what you are arguing. Unless they can see the ACTUAL PUCK in the goal, you're saying they can't call it a goal.

It could have and should have been called a goal given the rules (which I believe state that a goal is awarded when the entire puck crosses the line). The puck clearly and unequivocally crossed the line. The fact that Biron's glove "blocked" the view doesn't magically make it no goal. It's in the net, it's a goal. It was a terrible call, but this team is good enough to get over it. This call is actually worse than allowing Drury's highstick goal to stand even though both are based on the same idiotic premise.

unfortunately, there was nothing "unequivocal" about the available camera angles last night. I've only seen them call that situation a goal once, ever (whitney had a shot last year go into a goalie's glove, which dipped back in the net. shockingly, they called it a goal). i dont know why everybody's fussed about this. we won. the ref waived it off, there was not 100% visual proof. they could have called it a goal, but they didnt have to.

Based on the totality of all angles, there was a 0% chance that the puck didn't cross the line. To me, that is "unequivocal"... the position of Biron's glove is irrelevant, all that matters is where the puck is, and there is no doubt that it's totally across the line. You don't have to be able to see the entire puck to know this, you simply have to be able to use logic.

The problem is, they get caught up trying to answer the question "can we see the puck in the goal?" rather than "do we know the puck is in the goal?" Those are different questions and may have different answers, but the only question we need to answer in this case is the latter question.

The Pens won anyway, and that was great. But the call was still horrible. In hindsight, I'm elated they called no-goal because we had to fight harder for the win.

[farnham16]

Yeah, and Pittsburgh is getting all the breaks in this series...

[DelPen]

Am I the only person who remembers a game where Jagr got a goal, the ref ruled it a goal but it went to review. The people reviewing could not see the puck cross the line so they waived it off negating the call on ice. This is when the NHL said that reviews override calls on the ice.

The announcers saying it's like the NFL are the same people who say A's are for "Assistant" captains.