Yeah, and Nate Thompson's shoulders are above the crossbar. Deductive reasoning.
Maybe a lawyer can step in but that's not conclusive. In CFL or NFL if a player crosses the goal line in a mess of players with the ball under him, no TD call on the field despite the fact the ball is obviously over the line due to his body positioning, replay will not overturn if they can't see the ball relative to the goal line as to them it's not conclusive that the ball crossed the line. Same in this case. You are simply assuming that; a) it definitely was contacted at his shoulder height and b) that his shoulder height was above the cross bar because you can clearly see he's leaning in the first picture which means his shoulders are not at standing height. Simply too many variables to call it conclusive without the crossbar being in the picture.
Maybe a lawyer can step in but that's not conclusive. In CFL or NFL if a player crosses the goal line in a mess of players with the ball under him, no TD call on the field despite the fact the ball is obviously over the line due to his body positioning, replay will not overturn if they can't see the ball relative to the goal line as to them it's not conclusive that the ball crossed the line. Same in this case. You are simply assuming that; a) it definitely was contacted at his shoulder height and b) that his shoulder height was above the cross bar because you can clearly see he's leaning in the first picture which means his shoulders are not at standing height. Simply too many variables to call it conclusive without the crossbar being in the picture.
It's a hockey game, not a capital murder trial. You don't need lawyers to argue this out.
Nobody is assuming that the puck was contacted at shoulder height or that his shoulder was above the cross bar. We can see it happen, and when you see something happen, you aren't making an assumption. There's simply no way in reality that stick was 3-4 feet off the ice.
It was a ridiculous call. These things happen and you gotta move on, but it was wrong.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
It's a hockey game, not a capital murder trial. You don't need lawyers to argue this out.
Nobody is assuming that the puck was contacted at shoulder height or that his shoulder was above the cross bar. We can see it happen, and when you see something happen, you aren't making an assumption. There's simply no way in reality that stick was 3-4 feet off the ice.
It was a ridiculous call. These things happen and you gotta move on, but it was wrong.
They still interpret the rules as they are written and replay wasn't added so they could make assumptions based on bad camera angles.
The NHL is just not transparent and has no technology. So they can cheat.
Look at the review system in cricket (CRICKET! an ancient sport!)
First of all you can hear the entire conversation. NHL you can't.
The decision on the field is LBW (leg before wicket). The umpire has ruled that the batter blocked the ball from hitting the wickets (the three little sticks) with his leg. That's an out. The Indian batsman challenges
What to look for in a review
1. Does the bowler overstep the line. If not:
2. Does the batter gets any bat on the ball. If not:
3. Is the flight of the ball (using hawkeye) in a direct line and would it have hit the wickets? In this case 3 red lights means the call stands, 1 green light overturns the call.
In this case the bowler is requesting the review so again, needs 3 red lights.
See! It's the simple!
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
Grant Fuhr Verified account @grantfuhr 11h11 hours ago
More
Quote:
Somebody doesn't want Calgary to advance bad call on the high stick should have been no goal
Grant FuhrVerified account @grantfuhr 10h10 hours ago
More
Grant Fuhr Retweeted NHL Public Relations
Quote:
You got it wrong
Grant Fuhr added,
NHL Public RelationsVerified account @PR_NHL
#HockeyOps explains review of Thompson's goal at 11:14 of third period in @AnaheimDucks/@NHLFlames game. http://atnhl.com/2pw3CvR #StanleyCup
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
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.
Not true. MacLean said right away it was a high stick. Kypreos said there wasn't enough evidence to overturn, Hrudey agreed but then said that he thought it looked high. Friedman refused to comment and talked in a funny voice, they asked him why and he didn't answer. I can only assume he knows the league is a joke and didn't want to get in trouble.
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.
Come on! You are just being a troll. A 6 foot man on skates, slightly bent down, hits the puck above his shoulder. Do the math.
Grant Fuhr Verified account @grantfuhr 11h11 hours ago
More
Grant FuhrVerified account @grantfuhr 10h10 hours ago
More
Grant Fuhr Retweeted NHL Public Relations
Grant Fuhr added,
NHL Public RelationsVerified account @PR_NHL
#HockeyOps explains review of Thompson's goal at 11:14 of third period in @AnaheimDucks/@NHLFlames game. http://atnhl.com/2pw3CvR #StanleyCup
Forever a Flame!
The Following User Says Thank You to Johnny Makarov For This Useful Post:
Serious Question; you know that technology they use sometimes where they freeze the frame and then move/drag a player forward, etc....why can't they use that for these high stick cases? Can't they drag Thompson to the net and clearly show that he was above the bar??
None of these camera views we saw were at ice level anyways so they don't show anything definitive. The way the NHL is saying it was conclusive makes me wonder if they used a different angle we didn't see on TV.
The Following User Says Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
Grant Fuhr Verified account @grantfuhr 11h11 hours ago
More
Grant FuhrVerified account @grantfuhr 10h10 hours ago
More
Grant Fuhr Retweeted NHL Public Relations
Grant Fuhr added,
NHL Public RelationsVerified account @PR_NHL
#HockeyOps explains review of Thompson's goal at 11:14 of third period in @AnaheimDucks/@NHLFlames game. http://atnhl.com/2pw3CvR #StanleyCup
