Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I am not sure how you can assert that so strongly. The time descrepancy looked razor-thin to me; it seems plausible that the goal could have counted in a 0.1 second window.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
|
We know discrepancy is more than .1 because they put .2 back on the clock.
The overhead showed time had expired with the puck a foot from the goal line. I am making the assumption that the puck needed another .1 or .2 to make it across the goal line after the clock hit zero. Them adding .2 after all was said and done is why I think the discrepancy of just being .1 doesn't make sense to me.