Boston Pens no goal call

[madinsomniac]

Doesnt get any mire obvious than this

the stick and the glove are still on the way up. the puck is over shoulder level with Bergeron when the stick contacts it, he is 6'2 without skates so unless he has more than a two foot head and neck, it was high.... one off angle early shot doesn't make a case otherwise... the refs should have said inconclusive, even if a puck traveling upward has to be redirected to suddenly go down like that, at least they could have tried to say it could have been the glove and thus inconclusive.

 

[kytem2]

Bergeron's stick was below the crossbar; that is what counts on goals.

 

[Ugene Magic]

Yah the goal for the B's is much more egregious.

This is goaltender interference. Flop aside from Rask, Sill could've been the goal camera he was so far in the crease.

Well... that would put him in the net.

2nd goal: Laws of physics tells you a 6'2" guy on skates is really 6'4'/5' and unless he has a 2'4"/5" shoulder to top of the head the stick is over the crossbar. For him to be crossbar height he'd have to be in the faceoff crouch. Don't see him anywhere near that. Just look at Goalies crouching in front of their own nets.

To even call it good on the ice is just terrible. They should have just let Toronto make the call.

Inconclusive = no goal

Fleury is 6'1" and with skates 6'3"/4" A full inch smaller than Bergeron.

No way Bergeron's shoulders are below 4' at a near full stance. The Refs actually being on the ice should have a view easy enough to tell height that close to the net.

Just plain common sense says it's a high stick.

 

[MtlPenFan]

This one's actually my favorite. I'll suppose Bergeron is 3 feet tall.

 

[kytem2]

This one's actually my favorite. I'll suppose Bergeron is 3 feet tall.

Pretty much confirms the correct call was made. Unless you think the net is 3 feet high.

 

[MtlPenFan]

Pretty much confirms the correct call was made. Unless you think the net is 3 feet high.

That the stick was below the crossbar?

Sure, if the net is now 6 feet tall.

 

[kytem2]

The eyeball test says the stick is below the crossbar. This has been going on in hockey for 125 years.

If you are able to display a gif or shot that shows the stick is above the crossbar at the point of contact, please do so.

 

[Church of Toews*]

Based on how hotly debated this goal is you'd think its the '99 cup finals

 

[roquay]

Pretty much confirms the correct call was made. Unless you think the net is 3 feet high.

Not really the puck doesn't go in the goal that far under the crossbar. We know it hit the stick and obviously its going downwards. Thats gotta tell you something and that something is he didnt hit it below the crossbar.

The main problem is that in this day and age the league cant zoom in quickly (like the gif) and they have trouble getting a good angle. Even a math equation probably could have figured that one out.

 

[kytem2]

The call on the ice was a good goal. At no point in this gif /replay is it obvious that Bergeron's stick was above the crossbar, so the call on the ice had to stand.

I am not sure what the issue is here, the same call would be made 100 out of a 100 times no matter what teams were involved.

 

[CupInSIX]

Inconclusive; call on the ice stands.

This one's actually my favorite. I'll suppose Bergeron is 3 feet tall.

Well his stick is right around the height of the crest of his sweater. The puck then travels downward at a 5 degree angle, then takes a further dip of 15 degrees before going into the back of the net. Back, and to the right. Back, and to the right.

edit: it also appears to bounce off Fleury's stick, or possibly a very large fly.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

6'2" Bergy is standing straight up, there is physically no way he could tip a puck at his shoulder and have the stick be under 4' off the ice. None. ****ing horrendous call.


Why don't they have a stationary camera directly behind the net, like the overhead one, for plays like this? It would make these calls so much easier.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Inconclusive; call on the ice stands.



Well his stick is right around the height of the crest of his sweater. The puck then travels downward at a 5 degree angle, then takes a further dip of 15 degrees before going into the back of the net. Back, and to the right. Back, and to the right.

edit: it also appears to bounce off Fleury's stick, or possibly a very large fly.

The contact was around 6'4" Despres's hand, which is around his shoulder. Again, physically impossible for it to be 4'.

 

[putabergeronthegrill]

the OT call I believe the right call was made. They said the stick made contact below the cross bar, because it hit up on the shaft of his stick... sure the blade was above it, but the shaft was not. Sounds like they explained it right too in that case.

 

[kytem2]

6'2" Bergy is standing straight up, there is physically no way he could tip a puck at his shoulder and have the stick be under 4' off the ice. None. ****ing horrendous call.

Why don't they have a stationary camera directly behind the net, like the overhead one, for plays like this? It would make these calls so much easier.

The video replay did not conclude this. What exact mathematical formula should be used to overturn the call on the ice ?

 

[CupInSIX]

The contact was around 6'4" Despres's hand, which is around his shoulder. Again, physically impossible for it to be 4'.

I don't care if he's 8'6" he was hunched over and his glove, and the stick that makes contact, was close enough to the crossbar height to make it inconclusive.

 

[Ugene Magic]

the OT call I believe the right call was made. They said the stick made contact below the cross bar, because it hit up on the shaft of his stick... sure the blade was above it, but the shaft was not. Sounds like they explained it right too in that case.

That would be fine if his stick was sticking vertically up in the air.



If you watch it close enough it hits his blade right before Despres glove gets there and it's really not off his shaft at all.

The shot wasn't even on net.

 

[RapidFire]

Tried my best at taking strips out of some frames and lining it up perfectly. From this angle I personally think the puck is contacted above crossbar as you see the puck dip, but I can see why it wasn't overruled as it's not obvious enough (at this camera angle)

 

[Bi Coastal Bawse*]

Based on how hotly debated this goal is you'd think its the '99 cup finals

Because people hate the Bruins

If the show was on the other foot for this people would be saying get over it and its not a big issue

But since the Bruins got 2 calls in their favor against the Pens it's all conspiracy theory and other bull ****

 

[Bi Coastal Bawse*]

Tried my best at taking strips out of some frames and lining it up perfectly. From this angle I personally think the puck is contacted above crossbar as you see the puck dip, but I can see why it wasn't overruled as it's not obvious enough (at this camera angle)

That's some grade A editing

You should next examine the zapruder film

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Looked like a good goal. Not that we deserved to win...

 

[Griffin6612]

Because people hate the Bruins

If the show was on the other foot for this people would be saying get over it and its not a big issue

But since the Bruins got 2 calls in their favor against the Pens it's all conspiracy theory and other bull ****

6 pages isnt much really compared to other threads over similar stuff. Especially one that contains both the Pens and Bruins.
the OT goal is SUPER hard to tell ( at least I think) so I understand the discussion. The GI, well we all want replay for that crap.

 

[Ugene Magic]

Because people hate the Bruins

If the show was on the other foot for this people would be saying get over it and its not a big issue

But since the Bruins got 2 calls in their favor against the Pens it's all conspiracy theory and other bull ****

Get your facts straight. This isn't a Bruins issue. The Bruins didn't make the bad calls.

This is a league wide crap-fest known as reffing. Bruins and Pens were merely the pawns.

 

[Bread and Circuses]

I think we need to start looking at the Zapruder tapes guys.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I think we need to start looking at the Zapruder tapes guys.

Didn't we already determine that was Magneto, who changed the direction of the bullet?