Geometry helps me let go of 2004

[RHFlamesFan]

2004 was a long time ago, but I always joke with friends about making a shirt with the slogan: "Gelinas scored in game 6!" -2004

This is simply for fun here folks, but this video has potentially put that baby to bed. I know it's not a replay of the Gelinas goal, but it's quite similar.

Also, I have not signed in for a long time, so please don't jump all over me if this has been posted in the past...I searched the threads to make sure, and found nothing...but just in case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSG8mzwwOs8

[BurningSteel]

it was in

/thread

[Otto-matic]

http://globalnews.ca/video/1986743/w...reates-no-goal

I believe Global Calgary recreated it best.

[badger89]

No amount of science mumbo jumbo will convince me that it wasn't in!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[CMPunk]

Just get over it already.

[GranteedEV]

Just because "geometry" offers an alternative reality doesn't mean you can guage depth with a 2D camera.

It Was In.

[RHFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

http://globalnews.ca/video/1986743/w...reates-no-goal

I believe Global Calgary recreated it best.

Wow...would like to see that done with the Gelinas goal..Thanks a lot, just when I thought I could move on!!

[CroFlames]

Check out this:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...t+goal&page=15

See post #284.

Also check out this picture, puck clearly is flat.




The puck is clearly flat on the ice.

[Luder]

nm thought this was about '04

[codynw]

I think the Bennett goal was in for sure. You will never convince me otherwise. Luckily it doesn't matter because Calgary won that game anyways.

Gelinas' is harder to say. It wasn't flat on the ice like Bennett's, so it's pretty much impossible to tell without an overhead view. And it doesn't help that they recorded the games with potato cameras in 2004.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Luder

1) Even if it was in, nobody saw it, the Flames didn't even challenge.
2) This was before the "distinct kicking motion" rule was put in place, it would have been ruled no goal as it was directed in from Gelinas skate.

1) There was no such thing as a challenge for that. Still isn't.
2) Puck could still be deflected off a skate then, just not directed in.

While I feel it was in, in my opinion a definitive view may not have clearly shown that.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by CMPunk

Just get over it already.

Never.

[Luder]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

1) There was no such thing as a challenge for that. Still isn't.
2) Puck could still be deflected off a skate then, just not directed in.

While I feel it was in, in my opinion a definitive view may not have clearly shown that.

I did a ninja edit and redacted my comments, but since you commented:

1) Wasn't video review in for goals in '04?, "challenge" was the wrong term to use on my part

2) I know Gelinas was stopping, and the puck hit his skate, but I still think they would have ruled that it was kicked in. That's what helps me sleep at night

[FlamesAddiction]

I would be more pissed if they stopped play immediately to review and determined that it was no-goal, but the fact no one on the ice even realized until intermission that it may have crossed the line, was just too late. There has to be a reasonable statute of limitations for when something gets reviewed.

I also agree that although it was likely in, there is no view that shows it 100% conclusively. Geometry doesn't matter since there was to be clear evidence that it was over the line, and not just projected to be over the line.

[Enoch Root]

Shannon states that the puck is an inch and a half off the ice.

He has absolutely NO evidence to support that, but takes it as fact.

If the puck WERE 1 1/2 inches above the ice, his argument would be valid. But what makes him assume such a thing? As far as I can tell, only a desire to prove the call right.

As CroFlames shows in post #8, the puck is on the ice. It definitely rolls at one point(or maybe wobbles is a better description), but there is no reason whatsoever - from any camera angle - to jump to the conclusion that it raises 1 1/2 inches off the ice.

I get that, due to the parallax argument, it is impossible to be sure that the puck is in - and therefore allowing the goal basically comes down to the call on the ice.

But for Shannon to claim it's in the air and therefore not in, simply shows that he is a complete moron who is willing to say anything to match his agenda.

[ScorchyScorch]

He has a point IF the puck is in the air.

In the case of the Bennett shot, it was flat. You can see that in the photo above as it was heading towards the goal line, so what could've made it sudddenly jump in the air? Nothing, until it hit the pad which was behind the line. That should've 100% been a goal.

The Gelinas shot was much closer, and the puck was rolling. Much higher chance of it coming off the ice and creating the illusion. Non sufficient replays at the time means it was too close to call. Just not enough evidence to make it a goal I think.. even though I believe it was in fact in.

Who are we kidding though. If that series happened today they'd still call it off and spew their geometry BS.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Luder

I did a ninja edit and redacted my comments, but since you commented:

1) Wasn't video review in for goals in '04?, "challenge" was the wrong term to use on my part

2) I know Gelinas was stopping, and the puck hit his skate, but I still think they would have ruled that it was kicked in. That's what helps me sleep at night

1) Yes, there was video review, but it's not called by anyone on the ice - unless they can convince the on-ice crew it was in.

2) The change was direct the puck in vs. distinct kicking motion. Then you could still direct it in via a deflection, you just couldn't kick it in/move your feet in an effort to propel the puck into the net. Now it is only waived off if there is a distinct kicking motion. Sorry to re-ruin your sleep patterns... ; )

[AcGold]

It wasn't in because we didn't win the cup, I would be in uproar about it if there was some way to rationalize proof of conspiracy or an agenda to dethrone us but at worst there was human error. In such a close situation I can't be bothered to care anymore, if it was conclusively in we'd have won the cup but maybe in isn't enough for me to lose sleep over.

[Luder]

I think what bothered me more about Game 6 was the penalty for tripping that wasn't called on the winning goal for TB

[heep223]

I wish this would die because a) it was in and you'll never convince me otherwise, b) brutal non-call on the GWG ^, and c) the pain. Oh the pain.