NHL Games

[offsides]

Maybe Calgary will make a series out of this. Nobody has lost at home yet.

[NailedPenguin]

So strange. A captain that isn't Sidney Crosby who speaks with officials? That was wild...

[shmenguin]

Just catching up. How was that not called a goal? There was white between the puck and the goal line. That's completely definitive.

Edit...ah, puck was in the air. I see.

[shoeshine boy]

I still think it was clearly a goal. I totally get why it wasn't called on the ice because it was SO quick but looking at the replay there's no doubt in my mind that the puck was completely over the goal line.

[mikey]

https://vine.co/v/eZdKE0d53O9

Overhead view of the inconclusive no-goal from last night...

[Avyran]

Man, it's a shame that the NHL doesn't use 60 fps cameras. Or better in-goal cameras.

[mikey]

They used the cameras in the posts in Toronto, but predictably, they were blocked out by that guy that seems to do nothing but stand in the net all day...

Who is our resident physics professor here...? I'm sure they would agree with no goal call, yes?

[nocera]

Why isn't there technology in the puck that can sense when it has completely crossed the goal line? This exists in soccer, doesn't it?

[Avyran]

Why isn't there technology in the puck that can sense when it has completely crossed the goal line? This exists in soccer, doesn't it?

Has for a while. Leagues resisted it until the past couple years out of "tradition."

[nocera]

Why isn't there technology in the puck that can sense when it has completely crossed the goal line? This exists in soccer, doesn't it?

Has for a while. Leagues resisted it until the past couple years out of "tradition."

It's a shame that this misconceived notion of "tradition" is stopping progression in sports. This tech would literally end incorrect goal decisions. Even Wimbledon uses a version of this technology.

Getting the correct call through technology doesn't ruin the tradition of the sport. This tech, on the other hand...

[mikey]

Why isn't there technology in the puck that can sense when it has completely crossed the goal line? This exists in soccer, doesn't it?

Has for a while. Leagues resisted it until the past couple years out of "tradition."

The technology has been tinkered with for a quite a while now, but not perfected. The players complained that the pucks bounced and didn't lay flat nearly as much with the chips inside of them and it was determined to be too much of a detriment to the game for the 1 in 10,000 goals that it would actually effect...

[Avyran]

Yeah, and players complain about the visors impeding vision, being too much of a detriment for that 1 in 10000 chance that they get a puck to the eye. The superstition that surrounds the NHL, and its incredible clutching onto tradition and "old time hockey" is a bit ridiculous.

[Avyran]

Also, another / more HD-version of the no-goal. The gfy stops one frame too late, IMO, and it is more inside the net on the previous two frames. The puck is barely off the ground, largely because Anderson is kicking it out. But, oh well. Calgary still won.

Gfycat Video - Click to Play

It's not like this has happened before, or to Calgary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcAZT7CtAfE

[mikey]

Right...and just like that one, there's a pretty good chance it wasn't in...the last thing I want is NHL review to become a disaster like NFL review where they go back, review it, take a guess and overturn an on-the-field call for no certain reason...



I know you don't like refs or the league or whatever, Avy, but come on, don't let that drive you crazy...at least like physics...

[tifosi77]

My reaction when they made the no-goal call.

The announcers said something like, "Would you bet everything on this call one way or the other?"

Yes. Yes I would. It's a goal.

[Avyran]

*Shrug* No offense meant by this at all, mikey, but when the vast majority are saying the puck was in (check reddit, etc), and the only ones really saying it wasn't are Duck fans & folks like you who tend to defend the NHL's tradition whenever possible (I get why you do, no worries), to say it was a "pretty good chance" is a bit much. And when the technology is completely there to help prove it was or wasn't - hell, phone cameras have higher FPS & pixel ability than the stuff the NHL uses - well...

[mikey]

None taken, and I get your point as well. But doesn't it look like Gelinas' goal is in as well? I'm not sure if it was Reddit verified back in 2004, but then when you remove the illusion, it turns out it's not...can't that be the case here too, pretty reasonably actually...?

I'm not saying it's all perfect and everything...but I don't get why people claim it's 100% in, when it's not 100% in...it could be, possibly, maybe, even probably, I don't know what degree you want it at...but it's not 100% in or even 99% in, I'd settle for that, so it's not in...

[shmenguin]

If there's one thing that definitely should change, relating to last night, it's that shooting the puck over the boards should be treated like icing - not a penalty

There's no legitimate reason to keep the rule as is. Such a slam dunk fix.

[mikey]

Agree.

[Craig]

Lets talk about this.

Wild's Yeo on Blackhawks' Crawford: 'He's Brodeur. He's Roy' http://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/759615

[offsides]

Surprising TB, at least to me, scores first. Figures, I was routing for HCMT.

[Solidsnake]

Does Trotz always got a rub in?

[columbia]

TWSS

[Avyran]

Prust going for the "I'm just skating by, but I'll skate over your arm along the way while no one notices" maneuver on Bishop.

[meow]

Bad goal, Bishop