Clear Pic of Crosb's "non-goal"

[Geezer]

http://timesonline.com/articles/2008/05 ... 091394.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.

[JDJ8766]

[MWB]

Wow, that is a great pic. Too bad VS didn't have a camera at that spot.

[jamespensfan]

I agree great pic. Clearly a goal.

Thankfully we won.

[Stalazini]

I still don't get the why the instant replay decision has to come from Toronto? Every other sport that does instant replay makes a decision from someone on site. Who knows what angles they were looking at? I think everyone including the league knows that was a goal.

We won so I shouldn't complain but fork over a couple bucks and send someone to the respective venues to have the decision made there.

[DelPen]

I expect the war room will issue an apology as they have done in the past for blowing a call.

A really do wonder what they have available to review.

[shane613]

that was rediculous, how anyone could call that a non-goal is beyond me

[jamespensfan]

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!!)

[Xgen]

[lowedog]

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!!)

We called them "shorties" in my playing days years and years ago.

[drnort]

I still don't get the why the instant replay decision has to come from Toronto? Every other sport that does instant replay makes a decision from someone on site. Who knows what angles they were looking at? I think everyone including the league knows that was a goal.

We won so I shouldn't complain but fork over a couple bucks and send someone to the respective venues to have the decision made there.

id MUCH rather have it the way it is now.

in the NFL, its up to ONE guy and his opinion on the play.

at least in the NHL, you have a room of people, supposedly top officials, making the call. they should have access to every camera angle, and should have every rule right there in front of them in case they arent sure.

in theory...the NHL replay system should result in more calls being right than the NFL's sytem.

[Loaf31]

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!!)

We called them "shorties" in my playing days years and years ago.

They have been called "shorties" for as long as I can remember. Whats the big deal about it though?

OT: Classic Senifeld reference though...

[pfim]

I still don't get the why the instant replay decision has to come from Toronto? Every other sport that does instant replay makes a decision from someone on site. Who knows what angles they were looking at? I think everyone including the league knows that was a goal.

We won so I shouldn't complain but fork over a couple bucks and send someone to the respective venues to have the decision made there.

I don't think it makes a difference where the decision is made, as long as the same angles are provided. This was obviously a still shot from the side boards, so not available to anyone.

[Tico Rick]

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.

[Kaizer]

At least its not like basketball, where you have some loser with a napolean complex calling technical fouls on people for laughing.

[penny lane]

somebody please show to Coach Stevens~ see you are getting
breaks. this non goal could have been a huge break in the series.

[brwi]

I still don't get the why the instant replay decision has to come from Toronto? Every other sport that does instant replay makes a decision from someone on site. Who knows what angles they were looking at? I think everyone including the league knows that was a goal.

We won so I shouldn't complain but fork over a couple bucks and send someone to the respective venues to have the decision made there.

id MUCH rather have it the way it is now.

in the NFL, its up to ONE guy and his opinion on the play.

at least in the NHL, you have a room of people, supposedly top officials, making the call. they should have access to every camera angle, and should have every rule right there in front of them in case they arent sure.

in theory...the NHL replay system should result in more calls being right than the NFL's sytem.

You're right, in theory it should. In practice, I'll take the NFL's instant replay challenges over the NHL every time. They usually get it right. I can't say the same for the NHL.

When the NFL first started review, it was a real mixed bag. Now it has evolved to the point that it has been improved in how/when it gets used and the myriad camera angles available that the NHL usually doesn't have.
Here's hoping the NHL can fine-tune this aspect because right now it's a lot of times just a delay in the game with no change or the wrong change in results.

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.

[jamespensfan]

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!!)

We called them "shorties" in my playing days years and years ago.

I have never played hockey. I have had season tickets in late 90s to about 2001. I honestly never heard it called a shortie.

I stand corrected, humbled and disgraced.

[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.

[Tico Rick]

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.

It's not an assumption in this case. Unless the puck were oblong-shaped, it had to be over the line.

[pfim]

How can they call it a goal if they can't see the puck? I can understand if the goalie is all the way back in the net with the puck, but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that they call it a goal in this instance, without benefit of this still shot which was not available to them.

It's a bad break. It happens.

[Tico Rick]

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.

[kovyman1127]

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.

Amen!!!!

[Tico Rick]

How can they call it a goal if they can't see the puck? I can understand if the goalie is all the way back in the net with the puck, but I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that they call it a goal in this instance, without benefit of this still shot which was not available to them.

It's a bad break. It happens.

This is not the same as a goalie having the puck in his glove and the glove being part way behind the goal line. They could see the puck, they could see the goal line, and they know the puck is round, not oval shaped. The logical inference is that the puck crossed the line.