Brian Elliot not happy about Crosby goal

[bigrangy]

Originally Posted by normtwofinger

Tim & Sid saying there was no explanation provided on NHL.com when all other goals around the league were explained. Conspiracy?

I'm also watching T&S but if that's actually true that's hilarious.

I still think it should be a good goal, since the puck was already past Elliott before Crosby touched him, but to have no explanation for it is a total joke, but pretty expected for the NHL.

[normtwofinger]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

I'm also watching T&S but if that's actually true that's hilarious.

I still think it should be a good goal, since the puck was already past Elliott before Crosby touched him, but to have no explanation for it is a total joke, but pretty expected for the NHL.

Yeah they talked about it for about 5 minutes. They showed that every other challenged goal last night had a written explanation ​on NHL.com explaining the call. Crosby's was not. Tim and Sid suggested something fishy is going on.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by normtwofinger

Tim & Sid saying there was no explanation provided on NHL.com when all other goals around the league were explained. Conspiracy?

We got our 2 points and Crosby got closer to overtaking McJesus in the scoring race.

Win/Win.

[MisterJoji]

None of the camera angles gave concrete, conclusive evidence to rule one way or the other. Since it was called a good goal on the ice it stayed that way. I think if the official would've waved off the goal and Sullivan had challenged, he would lost as well.

[KingMoo]

I think the officials figured that they could call it either way and then looked at the score to determine which way they would call it
NO GOAL = Calgary wins
GOAL = Calgary still might win

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Rick M.

According to the Pittsburg broadcast team, it was a good goal because "Crosby's a magician".

Steigerwald and Errey's play by play causes cancer.

Along with the Altitude guys in Denver, I never lower myself to watching their broadcasts.

[TheAlpineOracle]

I think it should have been a goal, but i've seen that goal called the other way probably ten times this NHL season. That's what frustrates me. Why the hell do we have a centralized review if there is not going to be any consistency. Also, why does the ref on the ice get to make the call. He's obviously going to have a bias to not overturn his call. Toronto should be the one making the final decision.

At the start of this year, the standard was clear. You make contact with the goalie in his crease, no goal. Not sure now it can go either way. If they want to open it up to interpretation, fine, but don't turn back the next game and strictly call the rule book.

[MikeN]

Goal or not, we still got the win.