At the risk of incurring said wrath of mods, after all this time, I'm still not totally convinced one way or the other myself. I mean, I want to believe, but it has always screamed "inconclusive" to me, given that the puck isn't on the ice.
So in honour of the anniversary and for the benefit of people like me and OOTC, how about we litigate this again? Convince me. I want to be convinced.
Same here.
As much as I want to join the "it was in" party, I've never felt it's conclusive enough that it would ever have counted, even with review.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Winsor_Pilates For This Useful Post:
The only simulations I've seen for the Gelinas 04 goal showed it was in the air and on the line at best.
Realistically, I think the puck did go past the line in 04, but the angles are all inconclusive enough there's no way the NHL would have ruled it a goal had they done an official review.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
This whole Gelinas & Bennett putting pucks into the goalie's skate dragging behind the line thing is the worst. The same situation happened twice over a decade apart and each time a goal denied. Both are behind the line because the goalie's skate is at least a puck length behind the line in both cases before the puck makes contact with it, but the goalies kick out so fast both times that you simply don't have enough frames there on top of snow flying and the bad angle to see it "conclusively".
But when you tackle it from the standpoint of simple logic though, it's undeniable.
The Following User Says Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
This whole Gelinas & Bennett putting pucks into the goalie's skate dragging behind the line thing is the worst. The same situation happened twice over a decade apart and each time a goal denied. Both are behind the line because the goalie's skate is at least a puck length behind the line in both cases before the puck makes contact with it, but the goalies kick out so fast both times that you simply don't have enough frames there on top of snow flying and the bad angle to see it "conclusively".
But when you tackle it from the standpoint of simple logic though, it's undeniable.
I am a fan of logic.
The Following User Says Thank You to DeluxeMoustache For This Useful Post:
I suspect there would be a significant reduction in BS if the league would employ it. Why does everything have to be able to be eyeballed from a couple specific angles in the arena in order to be decisive?
Sometimes it's necessary to read between the lines a little, when visual evidence is not available. Rather than just play dumb like they tend to do.
"Wellll.. we can't see the PUCK clearly, so it's safe to assume the goalie's skate used the force to repel the puck away before it crossed the line to make contact with his foot that we CAN see is over ankle deep in goal territory. Ayoo."
Last edited by djsFlames; 06-06-2019 at 12:21 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to djsFlames For This Useful Post:
I suspect there would be a significant reduction in BS if the league would employ it. Why does everything have to be able to be eyeballed from a couple specific angles in the arena in order to be decisive?
Sometimes it's necessary to read between the lines a little, when visual evidence is not available. Rather than just play dumb like they tend to do.
Agreed. It is a cowardly position to which they bizarrely elect to reflex.
Even with icing, they technically allow too many now. eg. Icing was a deterrent for relieving pressure, not barely missing a stretch pass that was a good idea
The only simulations I've seen for the Gelinas 04 goal showed it was in the air and on the line at best.
Realistically, I think the puck did go past the line in 04, but the angles are all inconclusive enough there's no way the NHL would have ruled it a goal had they done an official review.
Ignore the puck for a moment and look at the 5 or 6 inches the pad was inside the net, then realize he made the save while the pad was in the net and then kicked it out.
FF to about 50 secs
The best angle was the American TV camera but sadly they didn't use it so the official review was correct. but..it was in!
The Following User Says Thank You to Snuffleupagus For This Useful Post:
This + the lockout the next year + The Oilers in the final in 2006 was probably the worst too.
Thank christ Carolina won in 06...
That was my first year living in the Edmonton area and it was disgusting..I was almost as nervous for Edmonton/Carolina game 7 as I was for Calgary/Tampa game 7, that's how badly I didn't want to see the Oilers win the Cup and be subjected to that party...especially one season after what happened to us. God bless Brind'amour
I remember standing in my front driveway after the game in a very satisfyingly quiet street, and just feeling SO relieved and happy haha.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sainters7 For This Useful Post:
Ignore the puck for a moment and look at the 5 or 6 inches the pad was inside the net, then realize he made the save while the pad was in the net and then kicked it out.
FF to about 50 secs
The best angle was the American TV camera but sadly they didn't use it so the official review was correct. but..it was in!
Even with that angle you can't say for sure it was in. Still inconclusive.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Fire For This Useful Post:
Even with that angle you can't say for sure it was in. Still inconclusive.
When I saw this bumped, to be honest, I thought of all the times we make fun of Oilers fans bringing up their five cups. Here we are looking at something from years ago, hanging on to it like a blanket on a cold night.
But in truth, now that I watched this video, how can you deny it wasn't in? It simply was. Look at the puck at the foot of the pad that is in the net. It is open and shut. Sad but true reality of professional sports.
IIRC no one on the Flames really thought it was in either, and didn't protest. If you didn't even think you scored, how can you be made if the NHL doesn't think so either?
I mean I get the frustration and anger, I really do, but if you didn't even think it was in at the time, or at least objected vociferously, it really is time to let it go.
Had they reviewed it and disallowed it, I would have been okay with it. It's extremely tight to call. I'm not convinced it was in either. I want to be though.
But they never reviewed it. They didn't stop play to have a look. No one saw it as being close and I get that's why they never reviewed it. Just a tough pill to swallow.
I've moved on, but from time to time, I'll think about it and for a few minutes, the lack of review will still bug me.
The only simulations I've seen for the Gelinas 04 goal showed it was in the air and on the line at best.
Realistically, I think the puck did go past the line in 04, but the angles are all inconclusive enough there's no way the NHL would have ruled it a goal had they done an official review.
No there was a global one on this specific goal. They did it shortly after. It actually was pretty amusing to watch all these nerds trot around on the ice with string angles and pretend science to recreate it. But I’m a believer haha.
That was in.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post: