After Futher Review

[PTS]

I DVR every game and before I deleted this game from my recorder, I replayed that no-goal again. I am will to bet $1 million bucks that the puck was clearly in the net.

 

From the front camera angle, you clearly see the white ice -- ever so slightly -- between the puck and the redline.

 

From the overhead camera angle -- which kinda of sucks -- the puck was moving in and was on the edge of being a goal when the netting blocked the view. Add to that fact that the goal cam is slightly angled so a puck that slightly passed the goalline would appear to be on the line.

 

Finally, the best part is the referee on the phone saying "Are you sure, are you sure, I was right there."

 

I could care less about what would have happened as I already said we're get 4th place and we should be happy with that. Lets have our slump now and get it over it. Ottawa can have their slump in the playoffs like they always do.

 

BUT ... why God? Why does Buffalo always have to get screwed over by these horrid calls?

[deluca67]

I DVR every game and before I deleted this game from my recorder, I replayed that no-goal again. I am will to bet $1 million bucks that the puck was clearly in the net.

 

From the front camera angle, you clearly see the white ice -- ever so slightly -- between the puck and the redline.

 

From the overhead camera angle -- which kinda of sucks -- the puck was moving in and was on the edge of being a goal when the netting blocked the view. Add to that fact that the goal cam is slightly angled so a puck that slightly passed the goalline would appear to be on the line.

 

Finally, the best part is the referee on the phone saying "Are you sure, are you sure, I was right there."

 

I could care less about what would have happened as I already said we're get 4th place and we should be happy with that. Lets have our slump now and get it over it. Ottawa can have their slump in the playoffs like they always do.

 

BUT ... why God? Why does Buffalo always have to get screwed over by these horrid calls?

 

There was more evidence that it was a goal then the "Save" Marty made that was ruled a goal. You have to move the NHL offices out of Toronto. It is clear they can't handle the pressure. I wonder if they were playing a US team if it would have been ruled a goal?

[Stoner]

The "war room" is one of the worst ideas in officiating history. It just feeds the perception that the league has teams it "wants" to win. It's (probably) a ridiculous conspiracy theory, but, hey, when some suit in the league office makes the call... what are people going to say?

 

The NFL, which has a very good replay system, would have had the referee, not the suit, make the call. The ref would have said to himself, "the call on the ice was a goal... now let's see if there's conclusive evidence that it wasn't a goal." And after 90 seconds, the replay process would have been ended, because, clearly, if it can't be determined in that time, it's NOT CONCLUSIVE. The NHL takes the decision out of the hands of the ref, and the suits spend over five minutes trying to prove it's ACTUALLY A GOAL. And even though it's clearly inconclusive, given how long they spent looking, they overturn the call on the ice.

 

You just have to laugh. I love Brad Riter's take. "It was inconclusive, but the NHL got the call right."

[GreenDice]

The "war room" is one of the worst ideas in officiating history. It just feeds the perception that the league has teams it "wants" to win. It's (probably) a ridiculous conspiracy theory, but, hey, when some suit in the league office makes the call... what are people going to say?

 

The NFL, which has a very good replay system, would have had the referee, not the suit, make the call. The ref would have said to himself, "the call on the ice was a goal... now let's see if there's conclusive evidence that it wasn't a goal." And after 90 seconds, the replay process would have been ended, because, clearly, if it can't be determined in that time, it's NOT CONCLUSIVE. The NHL takes the decision out of the hands of the ref, and the suits spend over five minutes trying to prove it's ACTUALLY A GOAL. And even though it's clearly inconclusive, given how long they spent looking, they overturn the call on the ice.

 

You just have to laugh. I love Brad Riter's take. "It was inconclusive, but the NHL got the call right."

 

I agree with you.

 

Copied from another post I made:

 

I don't care if they follow the HNL protocol to call Toronto, a 5-minute review is too long. You can always find a excuse if you keep looking for it.

 

The puck was rolling and doing a dance before finally landing flat on the ice possibly touching the goal line. Now can anyone tell me if the puck EVER cross the goal line BEFORE it laying on the ice flat? I definetly think so. I think they ruled it a goal based on the time when the puck ws completely flat on the ice.

 

Since it was already very close when it finally stays flat, simple geometry should tell you that the puck has crossed the line while most of the puck still was in the air. Based on this, I think all replay angles were inconculsive, therefore GOAL.

[bob_sauve28]

I think it was a goal simply because the puck was bobbling. What I mean is that it kicked up almost on end away from the goal line which must have made it all the way over the line. Anyway, I just can't understand how they could have taken that away on those replys. I try not and get so pissed off but that call made me want to go out to a bar and start a fight---with someone who was smaller than me :P