Was this a goal?

[SladeWilson23]

This was called a goal on the ice, and therefore when they went to review there was no conclusive evidence to overturn the call, so the goal stood.

A couple of things baffle me. If the ref saw the puck over the line, why did he review it? If you see the puck over the line, then there should have been no need to review it all. There also was never a whistle, so we can't go to the "intend to blow" fallback.

Then I see this tweet.


Now to be fair here, we don't know when this freeze frame was taken. For all we know this could have been after the puck was taken out of the net if it was in fact in the net.[/media]

Click to read more...

 

[WJCJ]

That tells me nothing except at that moment the puck was loose and was not over the line. It could have been over the line before or after that since it was loose in the picture.

 

[CantLoseWithMatthews]

yeah it's impossible to tell from a still image

 

[Sojourn]

No one can really answer that. For all anyone knows, the person on Twitter intentionally used that picture because you can clearly see it isn't in, but later in the sequence you can't tell.

 

[DrJustice]

Rewatch the goal.

Hall was not in the crease till after the goal was scored.

After he went it and helped push the puck out of the crease.

 

[Sojourn]

Correction: Earlier or later in the sequence.

 

[WJCJ]

Rewatch the goal.

Hall was not in the goal till after the goal was scored.

After he went it and helped push the puck out of the crease.

You are right, that picture is a considerable amount of time after the goal and after Hall skated in to the goal and it sure looks like he helps the puck out of the net.

 

[Devils Dominion]

I doubt it was a goal.

Lack said it didn't go in and the ref only pointed a goal after the Bruins player yelled.

It was not a confident point either.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Again, the biggest question I ask is if the ref did see the puck over the line, why even review it?

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Again, the biggest question I ask is if the ref did see the puck over the line, why even review it?

Because the PA horn sounded which is Torontos signal to the refs that they need to take a closer look at the play.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

The call made after the review was '...it was determined the puck crossed the line..."

That seems to imply they saw a frame that showed puck over the line. Maybe not though.

 

[ColePens]

I was watching this game from the Devils broadcast. On the Devils broadcast, there was not an angle, video, or anything that showed it was a goal. I assumed the NHL had something that I didn't get to see, so I was shocked when it was called a goal. There was no evidence, at least from the Devils broadcast/video that showed it to be a goal. I assume something was out there, though.

If not - then it shouldn't be a goal. Period.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

They can still review them even if he saw it was over the line. Sometimes they get things wrong on the ice.

 

[SETHROLLINS]

 

[Filthy Dangles]

I was watching this game from the Devils broadcast. On the Devils broadcast, there was not an angle, video, or anything that showed it was a goal. I assumed the NHL had something that I didn't get to see, so I was shocked when it was called a goal. There was no evidence, at least from the Devils broadcast/video that showed it to be a goal. I assume something was out there, though.

If not - then it shouldn't be a goal. Period.

If it was called a goal on the ice (like it was), then they are looking for conclusive evidence that it DID NOT cross the line. Since you couldn't see the puck, the original call of goal has to stand.

 

[bob27]

I was watching this game from the Devils broadcast. On the Devils broadcast, there was not an angle, video, or anything that showed it was a goal. I assumed the NHL had something that I didn't get to see, so I was shocked when it was called a goal. There was no evidence, at least from the Devils broadcast/video that showed it to be a goal. I assume something was out there, though.

If not - then it shouldn't be a goal. Period.

If the review is inconclusive then the call on the ice stands. Call on the ice was a goal.

 

[IceColdBear]

I was watching this game from the Devils broadcast. On the Devils broadcast, there was not an angle, video, or anything that showed it was a goal. I assumed the NHL had something that I didn't get to see, so I was shocked when it was called a goal. There was no evidence, at least from the Devils broadcast/video that showed it to be a goal. I assume something was out there, though.

If not - then it shouldn't be a goal. Period.

If the call on the ice was a goal, they would need conclusive evidence that the puck did not go in to overturn it. Their might not have been any video that showed it go in for sure, but there might also have been no video that showed it not going in for sure. In that case, the call on the ice would stand.

 

[ColePens]

I was watching about 3 games at the same time on gamecenter so I was back and forth. I don't recall the ref initially stating it was a goal.I remember teh buzzer going off and no call. Am I wrong on that? I wasn't fully paying attention.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Looks like the ref saw the puck in after he came to look at it then pointed it a goal.

Hence...

If the review is inconclusive then the call on the ice stands. Call on the ice was a goal.

... this is correct if they didn't see any conclusive evidence either way from the replay.

I was watching about 3 games at the same time on gamecenter so I was back and forth. I don't recall the ref initially stating it was a goal.I remember teh buzzer going off and no call. Am I wrong on that? I wasn't fully paying attention.

Ref did announce call on the ice is a goal before they went on the phone.

 

[Taro Tsujimoto]

Clearly across the line in the overhead angle at :26. Sorry, Devils, but the refs got this one right.

 

[ColePens]

Looks like the ref saw the puck in after he came to look at it then pointed it a goal.

Hence...



... this is correct.



Ref did announce call on the ice is a goal before they went on the phone.

Thank you for that. I was back and forth and the main thing that was weird to me is that no whistle blew for a loooong 3 seconds and then I saw them go to review. I admittedly was then focusing on the other games.

 

[SETHROLLINS]

I was watching about 3 games at the same time on gamecenter so I was back and forth. I don't recall the ref initially stating it was a goal.I remember teh buzzer going off and no call. Am I wrong on that? I wasn't fully paying attention.

The ref didn't even point to the net. He skated to center ice and announced the call on the ice was a goal and that it would be reviewed. The Bruins player who had a clear view of the play didn't even celebrate after the initial play was over.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Thank you for that. I was back and forth and the main thing that was weird to me is that no whistle blew for a loooong 3 seconds and then I saw them go to review. I admittedly was then focusing on the other games.

Yeah i was channel flipping too and tuned in right when the ref was making his announcement.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

The ref didn't even point to the net. He skated to center ice and announced the call on the ice was a goal and that it would be reviewed. The Bruins player who had a clear view of the play didn't even celebrate after the initial play was over.

He points to the net at the end of the video you linked.

 

[MtoD]

Clearly across the line in the overhead angle at :26. Sorry, Devils, but the refs got this one right.

If I see what I think you're referring to (between his blocker and the post? i mean i see black there so I'm assuming that's what you think is the puck vs. Lack's blocker/glove?), that's a hell of a call by the referee to somehow know that the puck is completely past the goal line. Like superhuman vision good.

The still in the OP is definitely after the ref started pointing, so it is worthless.