Clear Pic of Crosb's "non-goal"

[Corvidae]

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

There should be a special eye-roll smiley for things like these that is 150% more eye-rolly.

Or something like this:

[Dan H]

Here's the photo with a line I drew from the near post to the far post. I drew the line assuming that the near post ends exactly where the photo ends, even though the post surely ends lower, which would make the angle of the line even sharper, providing even more space between the puck and the goal line.

There's one gotcha with the angle in this image: since the puck is on edge, it's not sufficient that you see white ice between the puck and the goal line to call it a goal. You have to find the point on the puck that is furthest from the end boards, project that straight down to the plane of the ice, and see if that intersection point is completely over the goal line. If it is (and I suspect it was), the puck is completely over the goal line, and the goal should stand.
In other words, if the puck is on edge, a camera angled "into" the net can show white ice between the goal line and the puck even if the puck isn't all the way across the line.
I like the idea someone posted here in which there are two small wireless cameras in either goalpost, pointing along the goal line. The only real drawback, other than expense, is they'd frequently be blocked either by a goalie glove or by the little pile of snow goalies kick up at the posts.

[Matthew Monstar]

I have one question.

How is this great quality picture of the GOAL available to a penguins forum but Torontos Warroom doesnt get the call right.

You'd think they wouldve had this image and other angles. This obviously was available on some angle.

Freakin joke. We won anyways<3

[relantel]

I have one question.

How is this great quality picture of the GOAL available to a penguins forum but Torontos Warroom doesnt get the call right.

You'd think they wouldve had this image and other angles. This obviously was available on some angle.

Freakin joke. We won anyways<3

Simple answer - it was a newspaper photographer, not someone who would be in the pipeline for a review. Completely understandable.

[shmenguin]

I have one question.

How is this great quality picture of the GOAL available to a penguins forum but Torontos Warroom doesnt get the call right.

You'd think they wouldve had this image and other angles. This obviously was available on some angle.

Freakin joke. We won anyways<3

Simple answer - it was a newspaper photographer, not someone who would be in the pipeline for a review. Completely understandable.

yeah, not exactly rocket science. toronto had the same replays we did at the time

[DelPen]

I have one question.

How is this great quality picture of the GOAL available to a penguins forum but Torontos Warroom doesnt get the call right.

You'd think they wouldve had this image and other angles. This obviously was available on some angle.

Freakin joke. We won anyways<3

Simple answer - it was a newspaper photographer, not someone who would be in the pipeline for a review. Completely understandable.

yeah, not exactly rocket science. toronto had the same replays we did at the time

Maybe not, they have come out in the past saying they didn't see replays they showed on TV and would have made a different call had they seen them.

But in this case, it was a photo.

[ExPatriatePen]

The league was afraid that awarding a goal to the pens at that point would have started an goal scoring storm that would have ended with a 12-2 route.

They didn't give the Pens the goal because they wanting to make sure the Flyers had a "snowballs chance..."

There... it's settled.

[Lunatic Fringe]

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

There should be a special eye-roll smiley for things like these that is 150% more eye-rolly.

Or something like this:

[Admin]

That one smiley is clearly over the line.

[Henry Hank]

It's understandable that the video review judges wouldn't have this shot. It looks like something a photographer shot during the game. That wasn't a camera angle available to anybody.

Still, even from what was shown it was obvious that the puck crossed the line. This is one of those rules that is so stupidly stubborn and should be changed. Even if you don't have exact evidence that the puck crossed the line, if you have any conclusive evidence that it must have crossed the line, it should be a goal. If you can look at it and say that has to be a goal, it should be a goal.

But it's pretty hilarious to see the other team whining about not getting calls when they got the biggest break possible with this one. A 2-0 lead would have changed the whole complexion of the game because the Pens were dominating but not getting rewarded for it. Usually when that happens and the other team is able to weather it long enough, they get back in the game like Philly did.

[Admin]

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.

Exactly.

39.1 General Duties – The following are the general duties of the Video
Goal Judge:

(i) He will review replays of disputed goals when requested to do so by
the Referees.

(ii) He will review replays of disputed goals when he observes an
incident that was undetected by on-ice officials.

(iii) After viewing the incident he will promptly convey his decision directly
to the Referee at the penalty bench. When a play has been referred
to the Video Goal Judge, his decision shall be final.

(iv) During the review he may consult with a member of the League’s
Hockey Operations or Officiating department staff if latter is in
attendance at the game (or via telephone).

[marek]

http://timesonline.com/articles/2008/05/12/sports/doc4827cf4a84653629091394.txt

I thought the review on vs showed the puck over the goal, but no matter. It was good the Pens overcame the call and beat the Flyers.
I don't know if this link will copy the pic to the board but if you click on the link it clearly shows the puck & the glove beyond the goaline.

It was clearly a goal.
The sad truth is that the nhl wants a sunday afternoon primetime game so badly they will do whatever it takes to keep this series close.

The puck is 3" in diameter. The above view, the "inconclusive" one, was very obvious.

the only answer has to be that the geniuses in toronto at the nhl home office believe that Biron's glove is a black hole which distorts the space/time continuum... so when 3"of rubber is being grasped by him 6" behind the goal line, the puck actually stretches to 7" of eliptical reshaped rubber so that it still touches the line.


Any other professional league using instant replay would have overturned the on-ice officials call.

[tperko]

GOAL

PENS WIN 5-2

[bringitonhome]

the angle from behind the net or in the net(cant remember which it is) shows that when biron puts his glove over the puck you can see the puck for a split second through the webbing of his glove, and it is over the goal line. i watched it several times and wondered why no one was mentioning this.

[marek]

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.

Because they are homers for the flyers.

If you keep spouting bs eventually the audience begins to believe the bs.
I've never heard such lopsided broadcasting in my life.

Like in game one re: Malkin's "basket-hanging". A reasonable, fair-minded announcer would have called it this way "Oh...Malkin gets crushed by Richards in a great check and is slowly making his way to the bench, the Flyers skate it out... oh-man great play by Hossa turnover in the pens zone, breakout pass by Gonchar to Malkin who barely has the energy in his tank to skate..."

but nope... instead a great individual series defining moment is be-littled.

I wonder how Darren Pang would have called it for ESPN back in the day?

[relantel]

the angle from behind the net or in the net(cant remember which it is) shows that when biron puts his glove over the puck you can see the puck for a split second through the webbing of his glove, and it is over the goal line. i watched it several times and wondered why no one was mentioning this.

Even worse, the puck was still moving toward the back of the net as the glove obscured the view, and can be seen moving for a second before the glove stops it and brings it out. If it was already across before the glove, and it was sitll moving... seems pretty certain that it was all the way and then some.


You know, Crosby could have made the whole discussion moot by actually getting his stick on it...

[2438moose]

Flyer crybabies think that photo was photo-shopped.

What losers.

[bringitonhome]

the angle from behind the net or in the net(cant remember which it is) shows that when biron puts his glove over the puck you can see the puck for a split second through the webbing of his glove, and it is over the goal line. i watched it several times and wondered why no one was mentioning this.

this is the view i was talking about....i took this pic off of my t.v. with my cell phone so it might not be all that clear but it was a def. goal. you may not be able to see but there is white between the puck in his webbing and the goal line.

[shmenguin]

the angle from behind the net or in the net(cant remember which it is) shows that when biron puts his glove over the puck you can see the puck for a split second through the webbing of his glove, and it is over the goal line. i watched it several times and wondered why no one was mentioning this.

this is the view i was talking about....i took this pic off of my t.v. with my cell phone so it might not be all that clear but it was a def. goal. you may not be able to see but there is white between the puck in his webbing and the goal line.

well there yoiu have it. they now officially botched the call.

THAT is finally definitive evidence. you'd think they could have looked in the webbing in that 6 minutes.

[as246]

That was an obvious goal. They just needed conclusive evidence and they didn't have it. Or didn't think they had it. Anyways, they need to have a couple of ice-level cameras for situations like this, so we can have additional angles where something blocking the view from above wouldn't be a problem.

[WWGRD]

Here's the photo with a line I drew from the near post to the far post. I drew the line assuming that the near post ends exactly where the photo ends, even though the post surely ends lower, which would make the angle of the line even sharper, providing even more space between the puck and the goal line.

You're the man, great work.

[jay_caufield]

the angle from behind the net or in the net(cant remember which it is) shows that when biron puts his glove over the puck you can see the puck for a split second through the webbing of his glove, and it is over the goal line. i watched it several times and wondered why no one was mentioning this.

this is the view i was talking about....i took this pic off of my t.v. with my cell phone so it might not be all that clear but it was a def. goal. you may not be able to see but there is white between the puck in his webbing and the goal line.

well there yoiu have it. they now officially botched the call.

THAT is finally definitive evidence. you'd think they could have looked in the webbing in that 6 minutes.

Best photo I've seen of this, Madden just said on the air that a minor official told him, the overhead view was the puck in "mid air". I don't buy that for a moment. According to this photo the puck is a good 3 or 4 inches into the net. This was a botched call, carelessness. Besides the puck was never in mid-air as the offical told Madden.

[roller81]

Here's the photo with a line I drew from the near post to the far post. I drew the line assuming that the near post ends exactly where the photo ends, even though the post surely ends lower, which would make the angle of the line even sharper, providing even more space between the puck and the goal line.

That is a great edit..I guess the line is barely visible due to the ice being scraped up and stuff, but isnt there a way they could make the line bolder like that on the ice? football does the yellow line for a first down, why cant hockey do the same for the goal line. Would definately make it easier to see if the puck is truely over or not if you could actually see the line

[shmenguin]

Here's the photo with a line I drew from the near post to the far post. I drew the line assuming that the near post ends exactly where the photo ends, even though the post surely ends lower, which would make the angle of the line even sharper, providing even more space between the puck and the goal line.

That is a great edit..I guess the line is barely visible due to the ice being scraped up and stuff, but isnt there a way they could make the line bolder like that on the ice? football does the yellow line for a first down, why cant hockey do the same for the goal line. Would definately make it easier to see if the puck is truely over or not if you could actually see the line

the line could have been the brightest shade of red you ever saw and they still would have called it the same way last night. i've never heard of a goal review tainted by weak paint. you could see the line last night, it was biron's glove that was the problem

[WWGRD]

Sidney Crosby-
Career Disallowed Playoff Goals: 2