GDT: Buffalo @ Dallas, 8:30 pm est, 1-26-2017

[Jsixspd]

I haven't watched this game yet - but it appears from the comments and the links posted there were two good goals scored by Buffalo which the NHL's "review" process inanely didn't confirm as goals, including a late one by O'Reilly,  and Franson accidently tapped the winning goal into the Sabres net, whereas he could have easily pushed it safely away and prevented a goal.     And when peeps here are saying the penalty calls were lopsided against Buffalo, I believe it! 

Buffalo won this game, then, despite the score.  That's how the team ought to feel.   If I were one of those hockey millionaires on the Sabres, I'd take a little 10k fine to absolutely blast the NHL and the officiating and rip 'em a new one!     

Edited January 27, 2017 by Jsixspd

[inkman]

I have yet to see visual proof that that was a goal.

If swamp is saying this, I don't think anyone has an argument. I haven't seen it eeither.

[Randall Flagg]

Your logic is sound, and if you piece the angles together, one can tell it was a goal. However, does the NHL video review system allow for the piecing together of multiple angles to reach a conclusion? I know the NFL allows for that. Maybe the NHL requires a single shot that shows indisputable proof.

 

Either way, it was a bogus no goal call, in my view.

I don't think the NHL has ever done that. I think they should implement something so that goal counts next time though. Chips, sensors, something.

If swamp is saying this, I don't think anyone has an argument. I haven't seen it eeither.

Both photos I posted show two inches of white space between the puck and the goal line. The goal line is clear in both cases. Do you have poor vision?

[inkman]

I don't think the NHL has ever done that. I think they should implement something so that goal counts next time though. Chips, sensors, something.

Both photos I posted show two inches of white space between the puck and the goal line. The goal line is clear in both cases. Do you have poor vision?

Nice. I think I'm done for a while. I was referring to the last no goal BTW.

[Weave]

All I've seen of that goal is gif's on Twitter so far.  What I make of it is, under video review you cannot determine the location of the puck at the time the play was whistled dead.  All we can determine is where the puck was when the Dallas goalie got up after the play ended.  Is it reasonable to conclude that the puck was in the same location at the end of the play as it was when the goalie got up after the whistle blew?  Yes.  Can you conclusively call it a goal as a league official though.  I think not.  For that you have to have direct evidence of where the puck was when the whistle blew.

 

Sucks.  But it is how I would have called it.

 

No idea what the rest of you have been arguing.  I went straight to the end of the thread.  :blush:

 Do you have poor vision?

 

Two minutes for being a Marchand.

[bunomatic]

I watched the Dallas feed and the two ex players one of which was a goaltender stated that the players should have pushed the Dallas goaltender out of the net before he got up so as to also push the puck back over the line because it was clearly in the net. This from people paid for by the Dallas stars. That was a goal.

[Stoner]

Good to see that there are people who can take the blue and gold glasses off. Not one of the three video reviews was wrong. Brian Koziol whining about the NHL is rich. Technology is not perfect. In 2017, his radio station STILL can't broadcast the opening seconds of many, many periods. There's never going to be a laser or whatever in the puck. This isn't tennis.

 

But, Trump is still weighing in.

 

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 15h15 hours ago

 

Huge congrats to Buffalo Sabers on 5-3 win! Also Referees should speak United States. TERRIBLE!

[nfreeman]

I don't think the NHL has ever done that. I think they should implement something so that goal counts next time though. Chips, sensors, something.

Both photos I posted show two inches of white space between the puck and the goal line. The goal line is clear in both cases. Do you have poor vision?

 

Dude.  WTF.

 

Two minutes for being a Marchand.

 

Indeed.

[Eleven]

Well, at least I can start watching again.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Well, at least I can start watching again.

 

Sounds like a plan.

 

Are you wintering in TAS's cottage?

[SwampD]

Swamp, were you talking about the one wth 11 seconds left? Because if so then I agree with you. I've been referring to the first review.

That is the one I was talking about. Baffling how the one you showed pics of didn't get overturned.

 

I'm just glad we can score now. I'm still not big on the stretch passing and the conservative nature of our game, but I'd rather take a deep breath and not get emotionally involved in any sort of playoff push. I couldn't watch the rest of this game to be honest, I listened on the radio, and it was much better dealing with all this crap.

 

Just play some entertaining hockey, get Jack a lot of points, and get rid of as much dead weight as possible before next season. 7 points out now isn't looking great, not with a team that hasn't won 4 in a row in 5 years and failed miserably in their attempt to tonight. Still not sustainable enough hockey.

I hope next season can be better than this one has been.

 

BTW, doesn't the NBA come out and say they screwed up when stuff like this happens? That'd be nice.

 

They actually scored five goals tonight and would have won had they been allowed to count. Not sure how that is failing miserably. Edited January 27, 2017 by SwampD

[Stoner]

Crossbar camera still looks like a ###### goal.

That angle doesn't help much. It's not directly over the goal line. It's at a slight angle and allows for a distinct optical illusion.

 

We need to get chips in the puck then, or something. Pucks that cross the line should count. There's visual proof for this one, just not of the variety the NHL prefers, I guess. In a league that is trying to increase scoring (I think). 

I'm so tired of hearing about chips and lasers. It is 2017. If it were possible, we'd have it by now. Unless people can point to the technology that makes this feasible, I wish they'd stop throwing it in the league's face.

 

That is the one I was talking about. Baffling how the one you showed pics of didn't get overturned.

 

They actually scored five goals tonight and would have won had they been allowed to count. Not sure how that is failing miserably.

Wow, you changed your tune overnight.

[That Aud Smell]

Well, at least I can start watching again.

Sounds like a plan.

 

Are you wintering in TAS's cottage?

 

Ha. On the contrary, motherfunkster is working a helluva lot harder than me - by the sounds of things here.

[SwampD]

 

 

Wow, you changed your tune overnight.

Well, it was my birthday.

 

Martinis are a helluva drug.

[Eleven]

That angle doesn't help much. It's not directly over the goal line. It's at a slight angle and allows for a distinct optical illusion.

 

I'm so tired of hearing about chips and lasers. It is 2017. If it were possible, we'd have it by now. Unless people can point to the technology that makes this feasible, I wish they'd stop throwing it in the league's face.

 

Wow, you changed your tune overnight.

 

They had Fox Traxx in the 90s.  It's possible.

[Randall Flagg]

Nice. I think I'm done for a while. I was referring to the last no goal BTW.

Hey, that wasn't meant to be a jab or anything. It's legitimately tough to see the goal line. My dad couldn't. 

 

I agree that the last instance didn't look like a goal.

I'm sorry for what I said to inkman, seriously. No offense intended. I see why it was taken that way. 

[Iron Crotch]

Dear Gary Bettman,

 

Go ###### yourself!

 

Sincerely,

Terry Pegula

 

[Doctor of Philhousley]

That angle doesn't help much. It's not directly over the goal line. It's at a slight angle and allows for a distinct optical illusion.

 

I'm so tired of hearing about chips and lasers. It is 2017. If it were possible, we'd have it by now. Unless people can point to the technology that makes this feasible, I wish they'd stop throwing it in the league's face.

 

We've had the basic technology for 20 years.

http://thehockeywriters.com/foxtrax-laser-puck-10-year-anniversary-reflection/

I would prefer they just used something like this to tell me whether or not a puck went across the line and leave everything else to a live call. One ref on the ice should be able to tell us whether or not a goalie was interfered with right? 

[Rip Titwide]

The puck going 100% over the line has always bothered me.  If the puck were a uniform object (like baseballs and tennis balls are spheres), then it would be much more clear to see that it crosses the line completely.  But its a disc which can flip flop/stand on end/etc enough where it could possibly be the difference between a goal and not.  Or conclusive or not.  

I feel like the NHL would be better off adopting the football rule where any part of the oblong object penetrates the back of the goal line would count as a goal. 

Hell, it would increase scoring too and it would not change the game itself one bit,.. that I could conceive.

[LTS]

That angle doesn't help much. It's not directly over the goal line. It's at a slight angle and allows for a distinct optical illusion.

 

I'm so tired of hearing about chips and lasers. It is 2017. If it were possible, we'd have it by now. Unless people can point to the technology that makes this feasible, I wish they'd stop throwing it in the league's face.

 

Wow, you changed your tune overnight.

 

The technology does exist for this.  The question is wanting to implement it or it being economically feasible to do so given how many pucks go out of play.

 

The FoxTraxx was child's play compared to what they have at this point.  

 

Given that the NHL adopted a video review system it implies they wanted to improve over on ice officiating alone.  Now the question has to be, do they want to mostly right or almost completely right?  (I'm not allowing for 100% accuracy yet).

[pi2000]

The technology does exist for this.  The question is wanting to implement it or it being economically feasible to do so given how many pucks go out of play.

 

The FoxTraxx was child's play compared to what they have at this point.  

 

Given that the NHL adopted a video review system it implies they wanted to improve over on ice officiating alone.  Now the question has to be, do they want to mostly right or almost completely right?  (I'm not allowing for 100% accuracy yet).

 

Not that many pucks go out of play these days with the nets in place... and they wouldn't be much more expensive anyway.    A chip attached to some circuitry that runs along the perimeter of the puck... then use a hawk-eye type system of sensors to triangulate the puck's exact position in relation to the plane of the goalline.   It would be quite simple.   

 

They could also use this system to determine offsides... at least to the point of knowing exactly at what point in time the puck completely crosses the blue-line.   Many reviews are inconclusive because they can't tell exactly where the puck is. 

[Sabel79]

They have this exact technology in soccer for this exact reason. It's absolutely possible.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I do not want any tech stuff on the ice, or the football pitch.  I don't even want video review of goals.

 

Let the refs on the ice decide and let the chips fall where they may.

[Cityo'Rasmii]

Anyway, the NHL can't afford this technology...even with Marchand's $10,000 fine

 

 

...but methinks the collected fines go into a player's fund and punk Marchand should have received a suspension for his recent repeat offender infraction

Edited January 27, 2017 by tfighter

[Georgia Blizzard]

I do not want any tech stuff on the ice, or the football pitch.  I don't even want video review of goals.

 

Let the refs on the ice decide and let the chips fall where they may.

 

While were at it, let's do away with those funny looking things on their noses, you know glasses  :flirt: