Just like there are in-pavement LED lights for pedestrian crossings, I'm guessing something similar could be developed for NHL nets with cameras embedded inside the crossbar looking downward.
Alternatively, I wonder if there's a way of embedding some sort of GPS technology inside of pucks.
Guys, this is extremely, EXTREMELY bad. We have full proof that this was a goal. We've seen what the room in Toronto looks like through 24/7 or whatever video you saw on YouTube. You know that they have every angle imagined and they can zoom in hard without losing any quality in their video surface content.
Oh and the fact that Getzlaf was rambling off to the referee after our OT goal is obnoxious. Like after that crap of our goal that was "inconclusively" one?
The Following User Says Thank You to nickk382 For This Useful Post:
As soon as it happened in real time I knew we were going to get screwed yet again. Literally the exact same play as in 04.
That was absolute deja vu and almost at the same time in the 3rd period. Gelinas' goal came with 6:57 left in the 3rd period. Bennett's goal came with 6:23 left in the 3rd period.
One of the worst blown calls I've ever seen. 20 years from now I'll still be bitching about it. I would love for the league to make a statement about it. No way in hell that shouldn't have counted, and the entire ''war room'' should be ashamed and someone fired.
Yep, and for 11 years we've been bitching about Gelinas blown call. Nobody was shamed or fired back then.
I don't know how you don't call that a goal. I will say I understand the 04 non goal though (though I do think it was in).
The 04 goal had two things against it this one didn't. First of all, most importantly, no one saw it in the building and it wasn't reviewed. This time the bench and fans caught it. Last time, they didn't. And I was there. In fact, the first time I heard about it was at home the next morning.
Secondly, the puck was on edge and the video wasn't great. Even though I believe it was in, I'd have a hard time saying it was conclusive.
This one however, hooboy! Hope they fire all the guys in the war room in Toronto! That's conclusive.
Both goals are conclusive. Gary Thorne on ABC thought the 2004 goal was in and so did the rest of the ABC crew working that game in the booth and in the truck. I seem to recall some fans mentioning on a post game show that they thought it was in.
So disappointed in the call. How can you not think something fishy is going on. Total bush league call by the NHL. Honestly, though, I am not surprised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
How does Minnesota have a goal line angle for Crawford's save, but nothing here for these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukes
Screw the NHL, simple as that, wonder how we'll get screwed the next game. An absolute indictment of Bettman wanting American teams to win. I have never believed in that crap before tonight. Complete horsesh%*!!!!
It's a conspiracy and the league is anti-Flames as they have screwed the Flames TWICE!
I just. I just don't understand. If we lost this game I wouldn't have slept for days. I don't understand how a human person with eyeballs can look at that video and not conclude that it crossed the line. It literally makes zero sense.
Exactly the same thing that you posted was said in 2004. Times are not changing. The league, the officials, and the war room in Toronto are full of feces.
Yes ABC definitely had HD in that game in 04 and the pics were seeing of Gelinas goal really aren't doing justice to just how clear it was at the time with higher resolution. John Davidson with the call, 'oh that puck is in.' It was clear as day. I don't think it was ever reviewed because I don't believe anyone at the time realized how close it was. I maintain to this day if Gelinas had raised his arms, they would've reviewed it, and probably the Flames win the Cup.
As for last night, I have no clue why the Toronto video room says they 'discounted' the 3/4 view and relied on the over the top view. I agree the 3/4 view can be deceptive, but really only for pucks in the air or on edge. If the puck is flat when it crosses (which you can tell it is in both Bennett and Gelinas' goals by seeing it's hitting the goalies pads at the very bottom of the pad), there's really nothing deceptive about it. It's past the line. I challenge them to put a puck lying flat on the ice touching the goal line and show us from a 3/4 view how it can look like it has completely crossed. I don't believe it's possible.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 2macinnis2 For This Useful Post:
I don't know how you can look at that picture and think it is flat on the ice. I see an inch of Anderson's pad under the puck in that picture.
It's not flat on the ice, but, as you say, it's only an inch off the surface. No way you see that much white in front of the puck when it's that close to the ice unless it's in.
