WCQF: Edmonton Oilers [PAC2] vs LA Kings [PAC3] - Oilers Win 4-2

[JohnnyB]

What a delightful outcome.

When I first saw it I thought the puck had been touched. I seem to remember there being a replay angle that viewed it through the netting where it looked that way, but in all these replays with the puck in the foreground and stick in the background I find it impossible to tell if there was contact or not. I don't see how anyone could assess that as conclusive evidence of contact from the angles we keep seeing now.

Overall, the refs in the series so far are way more balanced than I had expected. They've made some weird calls and some bad calls, but not in a way that has seemed partial to one side. I had really been expecting the Kings to be penalized much more or for the Oilers to get away with much more, but the refs haven't been calling it that way. Good to see.

[dieHARDflameZ]

Originally Posted by YYC in LAX

If you focus on the stick and not watching the puck, the stick moves when the puck hits it. Happy with the result though. The play doesn’t affect the play in any way.

There is also one or two hands on the stick that have the ability to manipulate what the blade is doing.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Saqe

It's kind of like when a puck is in the goalie's pads and that pad is in the crease, if they can't see the puck in the pads they can't call it a goal. They need to see it. In this case you can't see the stick hitting the puck. So hey, maybe Newton's first law could be fallible

The puck wasn’t headed over the glass though. It was already wobbling by the time it got to Valiardi’s stick.

[Ashasx]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1649783446707765253

[GirlySports]

hockey is just too complex now for the common viewer.

What's offside?
What's possession?
What's a high stick?
What's a penalty?

How far can you go back in time for missed stopages?

[flylock shox]

Sorry, but "review culture?"

[WhiteTiger]

Some Coilers fans are now calling for "some kind of technology to track when the puck is in contact with a stick"...

[Paulie Walnuts]

They review any little play to call back a goal. Touch a goalie let's review. A second to fast let's review for offside.

I get it if it's a big mistake but we review every tiny detail.

It's a fast game things will be missed you can't get it perfect

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Sorry, but "review culture?"

Yes they’re trying to cancel the Kings goal

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

https://twitter.com/user/status/1649783446707765253

Reading Vilardi's body language, he sees the puck, notices it's gonna be a high stick, so he actually goes out of his way to move his stick away from the puck.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

They review any little play to call back a goal. Touch a goalie let's review. A second to fast let's review for offside.

I get it if it's a big mistake but we review every tiny detail.

It's a fast game things will be missed you can't get it perfect

It all started with terrible reffing and Matt Duchene. It was probably inevitable but it went from catching obvious errors like that to zooming in on a if a skate was a centimetre offside.

[Voodooman]

Looking at it from a dispassionate standpoint, it certainly looks like the Oilers got jobbed.

Isn’t it fantastic?

[Rejean31]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

That’s conclusively a high stick. The only way the puck can change rotation like that is by being acted upon by an outside force, and the stick is the only possibility. Airflow from the sticking waving close by isn’t enough. Surprised they let that stand.

Thank god though!

Look up the word conclusive in the dictionary.

[EldrickOnIce]

I would have expected the best player in the world to have at least 1 point 5v5 through 3 ganesq

[Strange Brew]

Time to scale back reviews. Only review goals and maybe offside if it directly leads to a goal.

Thanos snapping huge chunks of play out of existence is ridiculous. It would be similar to the NFL erasing a 10 play touchdown drive because of a bad spot on the third play.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Saqe

It's kind of like when a puck is in the goalie's pads and that pad is in the crease, if they can't see the puck in the pads they can't call it a goal. They need to see it. In this case you can't see the stick hitting the puck. So hey, maybe Newton's first law could be fallible

While this was a good call, I have in fact seen goals called where the puck was not visible but logic dictated it was in the net beneath a pad or glove.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

It changes from rotating up-down to side-side. The ability to see it hit the stick is inconclusive, but it conclusively had to have hit the stick.

https://twitter.com/josheggy/status/1649647216238252032

https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comm...puck_rotation/

That's why I find it odd that smarmy Woodcroft resorted to such a stupid argument. What an insufferable personality.

Perhaps this is why it got upheld though. Haven't seen a replay extend this far.

No it doesn't change. The up down rotation simply runs out of momentum at the apex.

But again, arguing over this silly potential, but inconclusive nudge on a stick, 30 seconds before the goal, completely misses the point that the Oilers gave the game away with a series of bad/stupid plays

[Zulu29]

I’ve watched the video about half a dozen times and still don’t see how it could have got hit by the stick. Just looks like it got flipped in the air then gravity took over. Oilers gonna oil.

[Toonage]

Back. And to the left.

Back. And to the left.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No it doesn't change. The up down rotation simply runs out of momentum at the apex.

But again, arguing over this silly potential, but inconclusive nudge on a stick, 30 seconds before the goal, completely misses the point that the Oilers gave the game away with a series of bad/stupid plays

Yup, if only I could photoshop a stick behind this coin and people would be making the same argument lol

https://www.vecteezy.com/video/17919...in-phantom-007