Another "inconclusive" no goal call

[P-DAZZLE]

I remember in 2011 when the Canucks were playing the Blackhawks Luongo slid into the net and you couldn't see the puck at all, but it was physically impossible for the puck not to have slid in with him. The NHL called that one a goal. I remember being very surprised since it wasn't conclusive considering you couldn't see the puck.
This one you could see the puck and it was the same sort of deal where there's no real way it wasn't in.
Also, what kind of overhead camera system is that. The bar is blocking the view?! The bar is always there. Figure it out.

[calgARI]

All the money flowing through this league and they don't have the technology and/or brainpower to be able to conclude that. Embarrassment.

[skudr248]

#### you nhl #### you

[InBurkeWeTrust]

Johnny says #### you NHL!

[Young Guns]

20 thousand of us at the Dome new it was in after the first replay was shown.
Unreal

[sureLoss]

[Finger Cookin]

Will the NHL show the view they had from the goal post cams installed for the playoffs?

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

45deg angle be damned. How can that honestly not be considered a legit angle to declare it a goal?? It's bloody in.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by P-DAZZLE

I remember in 2011 when the Canucks were playing the Blackhawks Luongo slid into the net and you couldn't see the puck at all, but it was physically impossible for the puck not to have slid in with him. The NHL called that one a goal. I remember being very surprised since it wasn't conclusive considering you couldn't see the puck.
This one you could see the puck and it was the same sort of deal where there's no real way it wasn't in.
Also, what kind of overhead camera system is that. The bar is blocking the view?! The bar is always there. Figure it out.

That was a Canucks v Calgary regular season game.

[Mofo]

nm

[FlamesNation23]

#### the nhl. That was so in

[The Swedish Flame]

[FanIn80]

How does Minnesota have a goal line angle for Crawford's save, but nothing here for these things.

[activeStick]

I guess the only way that's not in is if the puck is in the air

[powderjunkie]

NBC said the NHL said the goalpost cams didn't have a clear view of the puck, which I think is probably true.

My litmus test for this is how I'd feel if the call went against Calgary. I'd be no doubt pissed and hope for the NHL to #### up like this, but I'd have to admit there was enough white space between the puck and the line and accept it.

[powderjunkie]

^ It looks pretty evident that the puck is on the ice, or at least no more than 1cm off. It certainly looks flat, therefore a lot more clear than 04.

[troutman]

If the puck was in the air, the view is inconclusive.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by icarus

How the hell has tennis had Hawkeye for years and the NHL still can't figure out goal line technology?

Cause the NHL us cheap . Even cricket has hawkeye.

[Demaeon]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I guess the only way that's not in is if the puck is in the air

Exactly what I was about to say. If it's off the ice at all, then basing a decision off of that angle becomes very tricky. And it does look to be an inch or two off the ice surface when it hits his pad by the way it wobbles coming back out.

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That was a Canucks v Calgary regular season game.

Not the one I'm talking about. Was definitely during the Blackhawks-Canucks series. I do remember one against the Flames though. Not as well for some reason.