You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
The thing that cracks me up is that after this year, they would have gotten rid of Skinner, contract expire. Then they go and trade for this fragile Jarry from Pens, and his injury riddled, sorry ass performance contract goes on for another 2-3 more years. They dug themselves into a deeper hole!
If I was McDavid, I'd jet out of town so fast after next year with this incompetent front office.
__________________
you can quote me on that
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemhg
Stay anonymous my friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp
Yes that's very different than the shit whitev70 has been spewing for years
in the last frame of 3:19 or first frame of 3:20, even though his skate is still blocking the view, you can see 80% of the puck. that's enough to simply draw a circle around it. otherwise, you can figure it out by math, geometry, logic, and deduction.
that's the thing though... up until now, you needed 100% visual proof of the puck crossing the line. that was the threshold to call it a goal. I think it's the correct call to say it's a goal but the parameters for making the call did not line up with what has happened historically. if we're suddenly allowed to fill in the blanks then the league needs to make that the rule, not the exception.
From what I've seen, if they can't see the puck in the glove, it's no goal. If they don't see white between the puck and the goal line, no goal. This is the first instance where they imagined the rest of the puck and deemed it a good goal.
is the rule that it can only be visually confirmed? if the rule is that the puck needs to conclusively cross the line, you can conclude it in various ways.
The situation room said the puck completely crossed the line, so even if it was ruled a no-goal on the ice, it would've been immediately overturned by the situation room, so the end result is still the same.
that's why I (and a heck of a lot of people online) have understood for years. that's why the debate exists right now. again, I'm not against the result of it being called a good goal, more about the process of how they got there compared to previous rulings.
I had thought puck in glove past the line counted. I remember seeing a review of that and the goal counted.
I just remember the one that I was particularly upset about was I think the Bruins crashing the net on a breakaway, they crashed into Luongo and both went into the net together with the puck and they counted the goal.
I had thought puck in glove past the line counted. I remember seeing a review of that and the goal counted.
That was my thought too
Quote:
I just remember the one that I was particularly upset about was I think the Bruins crashing the net on a breakaway, they crashed into Luongo and both went into the net together with the puck and they counted the goal.
So from what I can gather, after the real time moment, the referees gathered to discuss (without seeing review), they decided to called it a goal. Now on the review, they need conclusive evidence that the call on the ice was wrong ... namely, they needed evidence that it was NOT a goal and from those pictures and freeze frame ... pretty obvious that it was a goal even though you cannot see it 100% pass the line. That's the sequence of event.
Had they called it a no goal (after referee meeting), then they could have concluded that there isn't 100% evidence that the puck went over the line and maybe Oilers would have tied the series?
Thank you refs. Oilers please just leave after 1 round and rest, you've played a lot of hockey in the last 3 yrs and it's so obvious that you don't have the players, pieces, cast to win the SC this year. Team is actually worst than last year!
__________________
you can quote me on that
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemhg
Stay anonymous my friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp
Yes that's very different than the shit whitev70 has been spewing for years
well, as usual clarity and consistency in the NHL doesn't exist
It's the reason why I stopped watching. The last time I've really done anything was paying for Bieksa's retirement game. I haven't even watched highlights really since then and I wasn't invested in the playoffs in 2024 either
So from what I can gather, after the real time moment, the referees gathered to discuss (without seeing review), they decided to called it a goal. Now on the review, they need conclusive evidence that the call on the ice was wrong ... namely, they needed evidence that it was NOT a goal and from those pictures and freeze frame ... pretty obvious that it was a goal even though you cannot see it 100% pass the line. That's the sequence of event.
Had they called it a no goal (after referee meeting), then they could have concluded that there isn't 100% evidence that the puck went over the line and maybe Oilers would have tied the series?
Except that the situation room said it completely crossed the line, so an on-ice no goal call would've been overturned even if they continued play afterwards.
It should be consistent, but every situation needs to be addressed differently.
If the puck is obscured to the point you cannot visually create a definitive geometry around it, like it's partially in a goalie's glove, but you can't see where it is in the glove, and only part of the glove is behind the goal line, then you cannot call it a goal.
It's a different situation from here, where you can definitively visualize the geometry of the puck and the relationship of it to the goal line.
The other exception is if you can definitively locate where the puck is, like if it's under the boot of a goalie's pad and it can clearly be seen he dragged the entire boot into the net, or the puck is caught in the glove, but the entire glove is behind the goal line, etc. Then you don't need to actually see the puck per se, if you know definitively where it is, and the relationship of it behind the goal line.
The "must see white in between" only applies if the puck is completely unobscured, and that's just for being a definitive "rule of thumb" that can be applicable for situations where the puck is trickling in.
__________________
__________________________________________________ Last edited by AzNightmare; Today at 10:09 AM
In other words, they should use logic & common sense
__________________ Do Not Put Aftershave on Your Balls. -604CEFIRO Looks like I'm gonna have some hot sex again tonight...OOPS i got the 6 pack. that wont last me the night, I better go back and get the 24 pack! -Turbo E kinda off topic but obama is a dilf - miss_crayon Honest to fucking Christ the easiest way to get a married woman in the mood is clean the house and do the laundry.....I've been with the same girl almost 17 years, ask me how I know. - quasi
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
