GDT: #48 – Sabres at Stars – Thu Jan 26, 8:30PM ET – MSG-B

[Daz28]

Are you referring to the still shot NHL On The FLy showed, after the puck was in?

no, they had the in net cam on the post game. I'm assuming the still shot was at it's farthest point.

 

[CaseyMitts37]

The 1st no goal was way worse. How is it not 100% conclusive when the goalie lifts his pad up and the puck is laying 6 inches inside the crease?

The NHL needs to clear up what is a goal and what's not a goal

I always thought of the puck passed the red line than it was a goal, but apparently that's not the case

 

[Not Sure]

The Dallas broadcast had a view from above the crossbar where you can see the goalie go in the net with the puck on his pad. you can see the crossbar and the goaline lined up and the puck well over them both.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

This one convinced me

[Tweet]824836386847076352[/MEDIA]

Sweet lord. That rolled up his pants in

 

[dotcommunism]

This one convinced me

[Tweet]824836386847076352[/MEDIA]

That doesn't look completely across the line

 

[TheStorm]

Sweet lord.

Is the NHL going to apologize for taking away points from the Sabres. They damn well should.

 

[DapperCam]

If they call that a goal on the ice it stands. Same as the first one.

 

[TheStorm]

That doesn't look completely across the line

You're being sarcastic right?

 

[CrazyPsycho]

That doesn't look completely across the line

Gotta realize the camera isnt right over the line too

 

[jrb2590]

Here's sams 'no goal' puck sitting right there on end. Combine that with the overhead view and you got yourself a goal. Complete nonsense that wasn't overturned

 

[DJN21]

If they call that a goal on the ice it stands. Same as the first one.

This is exactly the issue

 

[joshjull]

That doesn't look completely across the line

Keep in mind that the overhead camera in the net is behind the goal line not directly above it. When the puck is on his pad the overhead shows Letenon in the net. That would put the puck clearly in net.

 

[Daz28]

It's pretty much razor thin, so inconclusive. The other goal should be the one we cry about. Whoever said it was 6 inches in, well, sometimes us guys stretch inches.

 

[TheStorm]

It's pretty much razor thin, so inconclusive. The other goal should be the one we cry about.

Honestly no I think they're both clear cut goals

 

[5 Minute Major]

That doesn't look completely across the line

How can you say that? You realize the camera isn't pointing directly down from the crossbar, right?

 

[Daz28]

Keep in mind that the overhead camera in the net is behind the goal line not directly above it. When the puck is on his pad the overhead shows Letenon in the net. That would put the puck clearly in net.

I agree, the camera angle is the only truth teller. That was way too close on camera in that situation to over-turn.

 

[joshjull]

It's pretty much razor thin, so inconclusive. The other goal should be the one we cry about.

It's not razor thin. The the overhead goal camera is not in line with the goal line it's behind it. So it's slight angle. See my previous post. When he has the puck on his hip the overhead cam, which does show the crossbar/goal line in sync, shows Letenon's hip well inside the goal

 

[Zip15]

Keep in mind that the overhead camera in the net is behind the goal line not directly above it. When the puck is on his pad the overhead shows Letenon in the net. That would put the puck clearly in net.

When I watch it on my laptop it looks like a goal.

When I watch it on my phone, and turn the phone sideways, it looks less conclusive.

As someone said, if the call on the ice is a goal, it wouldn't have been overturned. Stings knowing they probably scored five goals tonight and were credited with three.

 

[CrazyPsycho]

So is bylsma ripping the refs right now?

 

[jrb2590]

And all that gets lost in this was that jack had another late game outstanding rush to score a 'goal'. Unreal game tonight and couldn't buy himself a point

 

[joshjull]

I agree, the camera angle is the only truth teller. That was way too close on camera in that situation to over-turn.

It wasn't too close to call. They just couldn't see the puck clearly on his black pants from the overhead camera. Because the rules don't allow a logical deduction they disallowed it. If it's on his white pads in the same situation we get a goal because it would be easy to see.

 

[Havok89]

Honestly no I think they're both clear cut goals

They're both in the net. The problem is there isn't any one single view that shows it across the line conclusively based on the angles of the cameras.

The league won't use multiple views at the same point in time to figure out where the puck is exactly. Strange for a league that wants to "get it right"

 

[EmeraldCitySabre]

So is bylsma ripping the refs right now?

Somebody needs to, the Pegula's should pay the fine for whoever does.

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

OK, I've looked at the video postings here. And I am confused. Is the video displayed in your previous posts Reinhart's backhand or is from an earlier or later play?

My current take on the Reinhart waive off was that after the whistle, Reinhard's shot was found to be in the net (by Eichel and Sam) but no one produced a replay that was able to follow the puck from Lehtenin's initial save to the puck being on the ice under his pads. I sort of understand that the Ref's no goal call on the ice was going to stand because no one showed me any conclusive video evidence of the puck's pathway to the ice. Conjecture tells us all that it was in net. But I don't think that's good enough to overrule the on ice call.

Sucks but I expected the on ice ruling to stand on that one.

 

[Snippit]

This is ********

Seriously, we're not the team that can afford to have points lost.