This post doesnt make any sense to me. How can a taller players have a lower average shoulder height then shorter players?
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The Following User Says Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
Those 2 photos posted show me nothing. One was from the stands(?) the other I can't even see the Ducks player but the stick appears to be almost horizontal. That the best you got?
Well, the second photo shows the puck is deflected at the height of Backlund's shoulders. Tell me, do you think Backlund's shoulders when standing are below the crossbar?
Those 2 photos posted show me nothing. One was from the stands(?) the other I can't even see the Ducks player but the stick appears to be almost horizontal. That the best you got?
Brian shouldn't have taken it so personally at the time. It's on him to be prepared for the worst, and bounce back. And who didn't see that decision coming given the previous game? He has got to have more composure.
Throwing his arm up at the next goal just confirms he was playing on emotion after that call, and no longer had his head in the game.
The Following User Says Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
__________________
"This has been TheScorpion's shtick for years. All these hot takes, clickbait nonsense just to feed his social media algorithms." –Tuco
Yeah, when Ron Maclean and his gang toed the company line and all agreed it was too inconclusive to overturn the call, I was honestly okay with it.
Then the NHL came out with their official statement and now I can't get over it. I'm livid. It wasn't the singular thing that cost the Flames this game but it was a big factor and a turning point.
A rule that is either not enforceable or sees something as obvious as last night upheld as a good goal should just be thrown out.
There is no high sticking the puck. That is far better than whatever this crap is.
Simple solution. Change the high sticking rule for goals to like it is everywhere else on the ice.
Greater than shoulder height is a high stick.
The NHL does not have the cameras placed in the right spots to conclusively review high sticking goals.
So while it was obviously a high stick from a logical perspective, it needs to be proven with video evidence. That is to say, there needs to be a camera at crossbar level that shows the puck and the crossbar in the same frame.
Now this rule change likely would result in it still being a goal, but at least we wouldn't feel so gutted from a logical high stick.
The nhl isn't in the logic business, they're in the conclusive evidence business, and they do not currently possess the technology and/or camera angles to conclusively review high stick goals.
The problem with those photos is that you can't see the crossbar in relation to where the puck contacted the stick. It appears to be a high stick but I'm in the camp that from the replays I have seen that it's not 100% conclusive. I still thing the no-goal in game two was worse because the puck was in and they lied about the call on the ice being goaltender interference.
The problem with those photos is that you can't see the crossbar in relation to where the puck contacted the stick. It appears to be a high stick but I'm in the camp that from the replays I have seen that it's not 100% conclusive. I still thing the no-goal in game two was worse because the puck was in and they lied about the call on the ice being goaltender interference.
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. You're relying on the video to show you that the stick is above the crossbar. All you have to see is that the stick is at his shoulders. By the definition of height, it's a high stick.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
The rule states the puck cannot be contacted above the crossbar and does not mention anything in regards to the puck being contacted at or above a player's shoulder.
The rule states the puck cannot be contacted above the crossbar and does not mention anything in regards to the puck being contacted at or above a player's shoulder.
But if the player is 6'5" on skates and hits the puck above his shoulder then it would stand to reason he likely has also contacted the puck above the 4 foot high crossbar.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to SofaProfessor For This Useful Post:
The rule states the puck cannot be contacted above the crossbar and does not mention anything in regards to the puck being contacted at or above a player's shoulder.
Yeah, and Nate Thompson's shoulders are above the crossbar. Deductive reasoning.
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
The Following User Says Thank You to kermitology For This Useful Post:
The nhl isn't in the logic business, they're in the conclusive evidence business, and they do not currently possess the technology and/or camera angles to conclusively review high stick goals.
First and foremost, they are in the sports business, and they effed up their business last night. And they do have the technology: every NHL employee has a set of eyeballs.
Every person with a set of working eyeballs (including the moron ref who called it a goal in the first place) can plainly see that it's a high stick. Of course it is.
Anyway, I don't go in for the conspiracy theories or that the league wants someone other than the Flames to win, but this was such a brutal call that it does make me question their motives.
John Shannon is an absolute NHL company asskisser. I've heard enough of him on radio and tv to confirm this. Bob McCown challenges him almost every afternoon on radio and exposes him.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post: