STANLEY CUP FINALS

[SDS]

And that overhead view is not truely overhead. Any other game, any other building, that one falls under the inconclusive label. I've seen that same exact thing a couple times and the goal doesn't count.

 

how so? you can clearly see the white between the puck and the line The angle is irrelevant.

[tom webster]

how so? you can clearly see the white between the puck and the line The angle is irrelevant.

 

 

Replay ruled against the Sabres earlier this year in similiar situation. The angle does make a difference because the puck is flipping in the air. A camera at an angle in front of the post will show white unless the puck is laying flat on the ice.

[VansTheMans]

What an unbelievable game.

 

Phenomenal hockey. Fast, hard hitting, VICIOUS.

 

Danny Briere :worthy: 24 Points in 20 games.

[carpandean]

Replay ruled against the Sabres earlier this year in similiar situation. The angle does make a difference because the puck is flipping in the air. A camera at an angle in front of the post will show white unless the puck is laying flat on the ice.

Yeah, it's disgraceful that they can call that an "overhead shot" when it's probably 3-5 degrees off of vertical. Get it high enough and a puck outside the line will show white between the puck and the line on the inside. It may have been in, but with that angle, it definitely could not be called conclusive. Since no other shot showed that it was definitely over, it should not have counted.

[Hawerchuk]

Great game. How unusual, Danny Briere with the game winning assist.

 

Anybody know why Philly's James van Riemsdyk didn't play tonight???

[wjag]

Great game. How unusual, Danny Briere with the game winning assist.

 

Anybody know why Philly's James van Riemsdyk didn't play tonight???

Numbers. It's either him or Carcillo.. Carcillo in for the attitude.

[BuffalOhio]

There's no way they can call that a goal.

 

Well if the IDIOT goal judge and IDIOT horn guy wouldn't have acted prematurely, then play would've continued and Carter would have scored. I hate when they do that! I was lining a Junior game and twice in the same period, the idiot goal judge ANTICIPATED the best player in the league scoring when in fact he did not. Talk about screwing up a game. Hey douche, there's no hurry in turning on your light. WAIT for the puck to actually cross the line.

 

I think we're talking about a different replay.

 

Anyway - what an awesome game. Hits, saves, anger, emotion, viciousness. LOVE IT! Go 7 games please!

[SwampD]

There's no way they can call that a goal.

I agree.

[LabattBlue]

Replay ruled against the Sabres earlier this year in similiar situation. The angle does make a difference because the puck is flipping in the air. A camera at an angle in front of the post will show white unless the puck is laying flat on the ice.

I agree that the angle is important when the puck is not flat on the ice.

 

I still don't understand why a miniature camera could not be installed inside the goalpost where it meets the crossbar at both upper corners.

[shrader]

how so? you can clearly see the white between the puck and the line The angle is irrelevant.

 

Here's a decent way of picturing it. Put a piece of paper or something like that on your desk to create a line. Now take a pen and hold it upright behind that line, but tilt it so that the top of the pen is hovering over the line. If you look at that line from directly over head, it isn't possible to see any of the desk. But if you move slightly in front of that line, you can see the desk, even though the pen is not completely across the line.

 

I agree that the angle is important when the puck is not flat on the ice.

 

I still don't understand why a miniature camera could not be installed inside the goalpost where it meets the crossbar at both upper corners.

 

I've been thinking about that one for a while. With all the technology out there they should be able to mount something inside the crossbar. I wonder if it might screw with the integrity of the crossbar though. What if pucks start to bounce slighly differently when they hit the bar?

[VansTheMans]

Don't understand how you guys can dispute it was a goal. :rolleyes:

[shrader]

Don't understand how you guys can dispute it was a goal. :rolleyes:

 

Yeah, it probably was a goal, but there was no video proof of that... unless they had another shot that was never shown.

[Stoner]

First of all, why didn't the first "goal" in OT count? The puck didn't cross the line initally, but the ref never blew the play dead. The puck was free and tapped into the net.

[Mbossy]

Call me a doubting Thomas. I don't believe this. Just don't. If this was true, they'd have a microphone in his face by now.

 

http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/clt/1773142424.html

 

Dustin's manhood for sale now on Craigslist.

 

I have in my possession the manhood of Chicago Blackhawks uber player Dustin Byfuglien.

 

It was found in a dumpster outside the Wachovia Center in South Philly last night after being taken by Chris Pronger of the Philadelphia Flyers during the course of Games 1, 2, and 3 in the Stanley Cup Final.

[carpandean]

First of all, why didn't the first "goal" in OT count? The puck didn't cross the line initally, but the ref never blew the play dead. The puck was free and tapped into the net.

He intended to?

[Stoner]

He intended to?

 

There was no frantic waving of the arms though, or emphatic call of any kind. It was one of those "fog of war" situations.

[Stoner]

Yeah, it probably was a goal, but there was no video proof of that... unless they had another shot that was never shown.

 

I tend to agree, but no-goal is a pretty tough call to make there. Imagine the horror here if the Sabres got jobbed on a replay like that.

 

Couldn't the camera be a little closer to the goal line?

[Stoner]

Well if the IDIOT goal judge and IDIOT horn guy wouldn't have acted prematurely, then play would've continued and Carter would have scored. I hate when they do that! I was lining a Junior game and twice in the same period, the idiot goal judge ANTICIPATED the best player in the league scoring when in fact he did not. Talk about screwing up a game. Hey douche, there's no hurry in turning on your light. WAIT for the puck to actually cross the line.

 

I think we're talking about a different replay.

 

Anyway - what an awesome game. Hits, saves, anger, emotion, viciousness. LOVE IT! Go 7 games please!

 

I don't see how the horn and/or light stopped play.

[shrader]

First of all, why didn't the first "goal" in OT count? The puck didn't cross the line initally, but the ref never blew the play dead. The puck was free and tapped into the net.

 

You know, I never paid attention for a whistle, but I think the blame falls on excessive horn guy there. The refs never signaled the first one as a goal, right? That would end the play too.

[shrader]

I tend to agree, but no-goal is a pretty tough call to make there. Imagine the horror here if the Sabres got jobbed on a replay like that.

 

Couldn't the camera be a little closer to the goal line?

 

If you bring the camera closer, you actually make the angle worse.

[Stoner]

If you bring the camera closer, you actually make the angle worse.

 

Poor wording on my part. I meant closer to the goal line on a horizontal plane. I don't know why so much of the inside of the net has to be visible.

[Stoner]

You know, I never paid attention for a whistle, but I think the blame falls on excessive horn guy there. The refs never signaled the first one as a goal, right? That would end the play too.

 

The horn drowned out the whistle? Possibly.

 

I don't understand your last sentence. Not signaling a goal would end the play?

[Stoner]

Check out the angle here. Better, but the netting obscures things a bit.

 

[Sabre Dance]

I don't see how the horn and/or light stopped play.

 

It used to be that when the goal light went on, the clock stopped. Don't know if that still applies as I've seen instances where the goal judge flipped the light on too early and turned it off right away and play continued. I guess in this case, since the puck did enter the net (after the play was dead, more or less) the goal light would have been turned on.

[Sabre Dance]

Poor wording on my part. I meant closer to the goal line on a horizontal plane. I don't know why so much of the inside of the net has to be visible.

 

The overhead camera angle is never directly overhead as the crossbar and net would then obscure the goal line. They set it up so that a little more than a puck's width of white ice is showing behind the goal line. That way, with the puck lying flat, you can see if it goes over the goal line completely. (You could angle the camera from the back of the goal, but again the net will obscure the view).