Another "inconclusive" no goal call

[Coach]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

If it is off the ice at all (and when you click on that picture to blow it up, it definitely is off the ice), that 45 degree angle is completely meaningless. Try holding an object on your desk an inch above the edge of your desk. Look at it at a 45 degree angle and it is pretty easy to see "desk" in front of the object even if you are holding it well in front of the edge of the desk.

I wouldn't have been happy if they would have used that angle to reverse a call that gave them a goal.

I disagree that it's meaningless. If you consider the size of the puck in the frame and the knowledge that it was no more than 1/2 inch off the ice, I think you can still conclude that it is over the line. In order for that much white to show behind/underneath it while it was still on top of the line it would have to be higher in the air.

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

The thing I don't like about video review is the reliance on "the call on the ice" (or the call on the field in football. Obviously the ref was in no position to make any sort of reasonable call on that, so saying "well, the call on the ice was no goal, so we need conclusive evidence to overturn that" is just plain dumb.

All replays that go to the "war room" should have people making a judgement without previous knowledge of what the call on the ice was. The people who make the final call should never know what the call on the ice was - it immediately biases them. If they didn't know what the call on the ice was, they'd be way more objective and I think WAY more calls would be done correctly.

I think this is a great point and I've never really heard it brought it up.

[GGG]

We are missing the goal post camera view. As long as the NHL publishes those shots with an explanation of why the 45 is misleading and the goal post does show inconclusive I will be fine.

At least the NHL is consistant. Amazing how it was the identical spot on the ice.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm almost wondering if they need to have a review, then go to a panel in Toronto and vote. The vote isn't is it conclusive? Just goal or no goal based on what they are seeing.

Then you get away from having to prove something you know to be true, and into logic.

Almost like a court room with "reasonable" doubt, not complete doubt.

What the ref sees on the ice should count for something too. The technology is not there yet to say that the war room will always make the better call than a guy on the ice will with his eyes. If they ever get to that point with goal line technology, then they can start moving in that direction.

[Property Manager DB]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm not 100% sure. Is that the threshold?

I thought there was one view from left wing that suggested the puck was off the ice?

Puck was definitely an inch or two off the ice.

[Toonage]

My impression of the war room is that they spend the time convincing themselves its not a goal.

[Roof-Daddy]

When I saw the replay, I believed it was in.

At the same time, I was pretty confident they weren't going to overturn the no goal call.

So glad the Flames came back to win that game. I'd hate to have lament that call for years and years because it resulted in a loss.

[puffnstuff]

Actually, why dont they have the ref looking at a monitor? They do it that way in other sports. It would give the ref a chance to slow down what he thinks he saw and then help make the right call. Less reliance on 'the call on the ice'.

[EldrickOnIce]

Who was in the 'War Room'?
Can we at least add any controversy over this?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Actually, why dont they have the ref looking at a monitor? They do it that way in other sports. It would give the ref a chance to slow down what he thinks he saw and then help make the right call. Less reliance on 'the call on the ice'.

Does the NFL still even do that?
If so, I'm betting it's just for show and the call is made elsewhere.

[puffnstuff]

NBA, IIHF, NLL all have the refs looking at replays if I am remembering correctly.

[HartAttack]

What I saw was the puck flat (or close to) sliding along the ice until it hits Andersen's pad. At that point the puck deflects off his pad, up into the air. The freeze frames we are seeing are after it hits the pad. The puck was in.

[howard_the_duck]

I find it such a cop out that the league has these "goal post cameras" installed for the playoffs, yet no one else can see these shots but the league.

Why would these angles be withheld from the public? Is it perhaps that they aren't as conclusive as they've been made out to be? Seems to me it's a way of avoiding accountability.

"I know it looked like a goal, but we have these magic goal post cameras that no one else has access to and they showed the result is inconclusive. So you better trust us"

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Property Manager DB

Puck was definitely an inch or two off the ice.

I don't know if it was that much. From the one angle it definitely looks like when Bennett releases it, it is along the ice. I think when it starts to wobble is when it hits the pad.

[Poe969]

At this point it doesn't matter if it was in or not. It would have been good to see Bennett get another goal but I think it taught the young guys on the team a great lesson in adversity. Not only did they not give up, they pushed even harder to win. That's the kind of pressure situation that really builds character for these young players. You could just see the intensity in their faces. I'm glad they called it a no goal.

I do think it was in though.

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

The net was knocked partially off its moorings so maybe it wouldn't have been called a good goal anyhow?

Doesn't affect the validity of the goal, but ironically because the net is slightly off the pegs, the cross bar is moved, making the overhead unclear.
This is also why cameras in the cross bar would be also inconclusive. We tend to think of the cross bar as stationary, but that is not necessarily true.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

If it is off the ice at all (and when you click on that picture to blow it up, it definitely is off the ice), that 45 degree angle is completely meaningless. Try holding an object on your desk an inch above the edge of your desk. Look at it at a 45 degree angle and it is pretty easy to see "desk" in front of the object even if you are holding it well in front of the edge of the desk.

It's not meaningless at all from a mathematical standpoint. If the view that we're seeing is really from a 45 degree angle, the puck has to be past the line if the amount of white space that we can see "under" the puck is greater than the distance that the puck is from the ice. In this case, that is conclusively true.

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

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.

The dress is blue and gold!

[Winsor_Pilates]

I think it was in, but not surprised by the call at all and would probably make the same call if I was in TO.

The puck was off the ice, and that angel is inconclusive because of it. The real issue here is that they don't have a fricken angle or technology to properly look at these things like evert other sport out there.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm not 100% sure. Is that the threshold?

I thought there was one view from left wing that suggested the puck was off the ice?

Let's go with 'reasonable doubt'

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I think it was in, but not surprised by the call at all and would probably make the same call if I was in TO.

The puck was off the ice, and that angel is inconclusive because of it. The real issue here is that they don't have a fricken angle or technology to properly look at these things like evert other sport out there.

I said to my British buddy, this is like the England World Cup goal against the US. Except they actually have review and STILL call it back.