Francis conveniently puts a pic for his story before the puck enters the net ..once a tool always a tool.
Best pic
The puck is 3 inches in diameter. The goal line is 2 inches wide. Tell me that the pad is not at least 2 line widths back if the goal line (i.e. 4 inches) in this pick, when the puck is clearly hitting it.
The Following User Says Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
I don't understand why the cameras in question don't have an extreme hi-def and zoom function...
Hell, I'm curious to know if a thermal camera might have caught something.
__________________ https://www.reddit.com/r/CalgaryFlames/
I’m always amazed these sportscasters and announcers can call the game with McDavid’s **** in their mouths all the time.
Tough to argue with their puck placement both in location and height compared to the reference photo. Looks about as accurate as you can get and the overhead shows that's a goal by about 1cm.
But...water under the bridge, since we won anyway.
Steinberg kept saying this on the Fan960.
"It doesn't matter... the Flames won"
It doesn't matter... right up until it happens again.
The fact that in 2015 the NHL isn't capable of making a definitive call in these situations is a joke,and it very much matters and is relevant. It needs to be fixed, not brushed under the rug.
The Following User Says Thank You to GoJetsGo For This Useful Post:
It doesn't matter... right up until it happens again.
Rob Kerr kept saying that in 2004 after the jersey was thrown on the ice in game 7 vs Vancouver too. Didn't want to discuss how ridiculous it was that it happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988
That doesn't look in, even on the original shot you can see it's not in. Not close to the Bennett one.
__________________ https://www.reddit.com/r/CalgaryFlames/
I’m always amazed these sportscasters and announcers can call the game with McDavid’s **** in their mouths all the time.
Rob Kerr kept saying that in 2004 after the jersey was thrown on the ice in game 7 vs Vancouver too. Didn't want to discuss how ridiculous it was that it happened.
I know he is trying to have fun, but he could have at least tried a few times until he got it closer to the real event. Maybe a Debbie downer, but I see myself as an old man trying to make these young whippersnappers work a little bit.
It doesn't matter... right up until it happens again.
The fact that in 2015 the NHL isn't capable of making a definitive call in these situations is a joke,and it very much matters and is relevant. It needs to be fixed, not brushed under the rug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ricosuave
Rob Kerr kept saying that in 2004 after the jersey was thrown on the ice in game 7 vs Vancouver too. Didn't want to discuss how ridiculous it was that it happened.
Yeah there's a pattern here. just like Kerr before him Steinberg is starting to get hard to listen to on overtime, unless it's his schanks buddys calling he shows no patience if he disagree's with callers and he absolutely doesn't let people finish talking before walking all over people.
Shut your trap Steinberg and listen once in a while.
That doesn't look in, even on the original shot you can see it's not in. Not close to the Bennett one.
It doesn't look in and the game said it was in. That was my point of the video because Bennett's goal was 6000% more obviously in and was determined a no goal.
The Following User Says Thank You to nickk382 For This Useful Post:
Now that cameras in the posts is possible I think the review procedures should be re-written.
1. Every regulation NHL net have 11 camera embedded into the posts. One on the bottom of each post along the ice surface; one 1/3 of the way up each of the post; one 2/3 of the way up the post; one in the corner where the post intersects the cross-bar which would give a 45 degree view; one 1/4 across the crossbar, one 1/2 across the cross bar, one 3/4 across the cross bar.
2. There be a camera positioned exactly above the crossbar/goal line above the net.
3. There be a camera positioned off ice along the goal line on each side of the net.
4. The call on the ice is irrelevant. The review is done to see if the puck was in the net or not.
5. If the net is knocked off the moorings rendering the call inconclusive, the call is construed against the team that knocked the net off. IE: If an attacker bumps a player into the net and the puck goes in but it's not conclusive, no goal. If a defender bumps the net rendering the call inconclusive, it's a good goal.
If the above procedure was followed, likely the review would be inconclusive (as the net was knocked off the moorings). However, where the net was knocked off the moorings by Anaheim it would have yielded a good goal for Calgary. However, if the cause of the net being bumped was due to a Flames player, it would have been (as it was) no goal.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Luckily, you don’t have to guess. After consulting with a collection of league officials, retired referees, and experts in quantum mechanics, we’ve put together this handy quiz.
forensic recreation of the goal on flames ice using same camera to prove how far in the puck was.
I think it's pretty obvious that it was in but the NHL doesn't want to hang their hat on what appears obvious. They are really stuck in their belief that only the overhead view matters.
