It was close enough, based on all this evidence, that the call on the ice would have to stand -- no matter how long they had to look at it. There's just no time in the heat of the moment for the kind of analysis we're seeing the day after -- even from the Toronto booth. It's like 4 guys looking at all the inconclusive angles we were, but without the data visualization tools that show it to be borderline.
And, yeah, it stings that 2 close calls went against the Flames. But in an ideal world, previous calls should have absolutely no bearing on a call under review. You can't have reviewers giving the benefit of the doubt to a team because it 'missed a close one' two nights ago.
Last edited by liamenator; 04-18-2017 at 06:05 PM.
|