Controversial goal by Crosby

[Empoleon8771]

1) Perhaps it was the other ref? There are two now, you know. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

2) Rule on ice was no goal. Video evidence overruling on ice call needs to be conclusive. Obviously it was not. Therefore no goal.

You can argue all you want. Facts and rules aren't on your side. Sorry.

It was clearly conclusive, though. The puck was clearly going into the net already when the whistle blew. You have a very loose interpretation for what the word "fact" means.

This is funny, people would rather not accept rules of the NHL and argue out of ignorance because they just want to stroke their biases. This is just funny.

 

[Beebop22]

1) Perhaps it was the other ref? There are two now, you know. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

2) Rule on ice was no goal. Video evidence overruling on ice call needs to be conclusive. Obviously it was not. Therefore no goal.

You can argue all you want. Facts and rules aren't on your side. Sorry.

The back ref doesn't blow the whistle when he deems the goalie covered it. The goal line ref does.
The video is conclusive. That's why it was overturned.

 

[rent free]

Yet that makes no sense. Puck on the ice and a quick poke under a pad is interference... But taking a swing in the air hoping you'll hit more of the puck than the goalie is legal?

if you hit the puck and not the goalie, then then it should count. if you hit the goalie and not the puck, then it should not count. also, if the puck is under the pad, then it is not in play so therefore interference would be the correct call. in this case, the puck was not under the pad, and the puck was in play, so this goal does count

 

[Eisen]

Do people on this site just not know the rules of the NHL? Both parts of this goal were completely fine based on the rules of the NHL rulebook. It's not goalie interference if you interfere with a goalie while going for the puck that is loose in the crease. It's a good goal if a whistle is blown while the puck is already on a trajectory into the net. This is only controversial if you ignore the actual rules that the NHL has for situations like these, or if you just don't know them.



Read my edit that has the rule. It's not a controversial goal. It is the correct call based on the rulebook.

Puck lying on the stomach of the goalie is not being on a trajectory towards the goal, though.

 

[Number8]

While I agree with this and I think the NHL needs to introduce a "we screwed up, that's totally a goal" rule, the issue with this was that it wasn't going in the net as the whistle blew.



Sissons does start diving to get the puck when the whistle is blown, but the whistle is clearly blown before the puck is going into the net. That is the important part of the rule. The calling on the ice was correct because of that rule. They do need a "we ****ed up rule" to fix things like that, but with the current rules, that call was correct.





Based on this video, I have no idea how you're arguing that. The puck is clearly going in the net when the refs blew the whistle. It is extremely clear from watching, I have no idea how you can argue this.

That's fine. On other hand you cannot deny that NBC video in post 84 (6 minute mark) shows whistle blowing before puck is hit with stick, let alone over goal line. It is also extremely clear.

Explanation: I don't know.

Implication: Call on ice was no goal. If video evidence is inconclusive or conflicting then call on ice stands.

NHL screwed up. By not admitting that it makes it look as though they favoring Penguins. Are they? I doubt it, I think they are just inept. However after helping Pens by stealing a goal from Preds in game 6 through ineptitude you'd think they'd try a little harder moving forward to avoid the optics of helping Sid and Pens.

 

[Barrie22]

1) Perhaps it was the other ref? There are two now, you know. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

2) Rule on ice was no goal. Video evidence overruling on ice call needs to be conclusive. Obviously it was not. Therefore no goal.

You can argue all you want. Facts and rules aren't on your side. Sorry.

That's fine. On other hand you cannot deny that NBC video in post 84 (6 minute mark) shows whistle blowing before puck is hit with stick, let alone over goal line. It is also extremely clear.

Explanation: I don't know.

Implication: Call on ice was no goal. If video evidence is inconclusive or conflicting then call on ice stands.

NHL screwed up. By not admitting that it makes it look as though they favoring Penguins. Are they? I doubt it, I think they are just inept. However after helping Pens by stealing a goal from Preds in game 6 through ineptitude you'd think they'd try a little harder moving forward to avoid the optics of helping Sid and Pens.

How does a ref blow the whistle without the whistle being in his mouth? Can you answer that one about the nbc video?

 

[Barrie22]

Puck lying on the stomach of the goalie is not being on a trajectory towards the goal, though.

By the time the whistle blew the puck was on the way towards the net.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Puck lying on the stomach of the goalie is not being on a trajectory towards the goal, though.

By the time the whistle blew the puck was on the way towards the net.

I don't know why people need to keep saying this

That's fine. On other hand you cannot deny that NBC video in post 84 (6 minute mark) shows whistle blowing before puck is hit with stick, let alone over goal line. It is also extremely clear.

Explanation: I don't know.

Implication: Call on ice was no goal. If video evidence is inconclusive or conflicting then call on ice stands.

NHL screwed up. By not admitting that it makes it look as though they favoring Penguins. Are they? I doubt it, I think they are just inept. However after helping Pens by stealing a goal from Preds in game 6 through ineptitude you'd think they'd try a little harder moving forward to avoid the optics of helping Sid and Pens.

The audio in post 84 isn't synced up. The one in the video I posted was. The call wasn't conclusive, it was clearly a goal. You're saying the NHL screwed up while completely ignoring the rules that show that was the right call.

 

[Eisen]

I don't know why people need to keep saying this

Apparently I fell for an ambigous video.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Apparently I fell for an ambigous video.

Yeah, a lot of people are falling for that. The video in post 84 doesn't have the audio synced up correctly.

While playing the video in the OP, the video just happened to lag at 4 seconds, and at that time, the puck was off Khudobin's chest and going into the net (still airborn at this point). It's pretty clearly not on his chest anymore when the whistle blew.

Edit: I just watched the video in post 84, the audio is synced up correctly. I don't know why people are arguing that the puck was still on his chest in that video, it's just clearly not. The puck is off Khudobin's chest at 5:22 in that video, the whistle gets blown at 5:23.



The puck is circled in white. That was a frame right before the ref blew the whistle.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Looks like a good goal to me.

I guess you could argue that Crosby's first swing interfered with the goaltender but by then it's a loose puck in the crease, no one has control, one whack to the arm of a flailing goaltender doesn't constitute goalie interference to me (not that the league has established anything remotely close to a standard with its decisions).

The call on the ice wasn't no goal. The ref is waving his arms for no goal before the puck even lands on the goalie. Then Crosby pokes it off and it's in the net. It looks to me like there wasn't a call on the ice.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go wash my mouth out with soap for coming down on Crosby's side.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Ah yes, the intent to blow rule, which is definitely called with consistency across the board. Definitely.

 

[Caeldan]

if you hit the puck and not the goalie, then then it should count. if you hit the goalie and not the puck, then it should not count. also, if the puck is under the pad, then it is not in play so therefore interference would be the correct call. in this case, the puck was not under the pad, and the puck was in play, so this goal does count

I'm arguing a rule change, players should not be swinging sticks into the goalie's equipment regardless of the situation.

A puck resting on a goalie's stomach is as frozen as a puck sitting in a goalie's glove.

 

[rent free]

I'm arguing a rule change, players should not be swinging sticks into the goalie's equipment regardless of the situation.

A puck resting on a goalie's stomach is as frozen as a puck sitting in a goalie's glove.

no it isn't. a puck in plain sight is anyone's puck.

 

[Caeldan]

Lundquist has a glove modified that he can't close it. If the puck is in the pocket it's "visible"
Can players swing at his hand until its knocked loose?

Also, you seem to be ignoring the point I'm making which is that it's patently ridiculous that it's legal to slash at a goalie just because a puck is sitting somewhere on him.

 

[tarheelhockey]

My main issue with a goal like this is that I don’t like that players can score by knocking the puck off the goalie’s body and into the net.

Good goal by the rules, but not something I’d like to see happen often.

 

[HockeyMomx2]

The fact remains that they changed this game forever setting this precedent. For me, that’s disappointing. Never in this game has a goal counted when the puck did not completely cross the line before the whistle/buzzer. Never. The whistle blew BEFORE puck was over the goal line. It was the one constant that never changed no matter what. Until this game.

 

[nhlfan9191]

It was clearly conclusive, though. The puck was clearly going into the net already when the whistle blew. You have a very loose interpretation for what the word "fact" means.

This is funny, people would rather not accept rules of the NHL and argue out of ignorance because they just want to stroke their biases. This is just funny.

What are you trying to defend? Watch the replay with sound and you clearly see Crosby made contact after the whistle. You should take your own advice on bias.

 

[Empoleon8771]

What are you trying to defend? Watch the replay with sound and you clearly see Crosby made contact after the whistle. You should take your own advice on bias.

Are we watching the same video? The puck is clearly going in already when the whistle is blown. It's a clear goal, I don't know what kind of biases you have to have to say it's not.

I don't even know what to say at this point, people are just at this point because they don't like Crosby or the Penguins or something. The puck is clearly off Khudobin's stomach when the whistle blows, which is where Crosby hit it.

The fact remains that they changed this game forever setting this precedent. For me, that’s disappointing. Never in this game has a goal counted when the puck did not completely cross the line before the whistle/buzzer. Never. The whistle blew BEFORE puck was over the goal line. It was the one constant that never changed no matter what. Until this game.

That's just not true, the same exact thing happened last year in a Flames-Sabres game.

A Sabres fan pointed me out to this goal that was the same thing last year, this was the same kind of situation. It didn't even need to go to replay, it was called a goal after consulting with the other refs.

 

[nhlfan9191]

Are we watching the same video? The puck is clearly going in already when the whistle is blown. It's a clear goal, I don't know what kind of biases you have to have to say it's not.

I don't even know what to say at this point, people are just at this point because they don't like Crosby or the Penguins or something. The puck is clearly off Khudobin's stomach when the whistle blows, which is where Crosby hit.

As did Crosby's "goal".


Please everyone watch this NBC feed starting at 6 minute mark.

It's not about issue of "intent" - the whistle blows BEFORE Crosby hits puck with stick. In video watch nothing but Crosby's stick and listen for whistle. It's not even questionable.

Watch this video.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Watch this video.

Yes, and I did in this post:

Edit: I just watched the video in post 84, the audio is synced up correctly. I don't know why people are arguing that the puck was still on his chest in that video, it's just clearly not. The puck is off Khudobin's chest at 5:22 in that video, the whistle gets blown at 5:23.



The puck is circled in white. That was a frame right before the ref blew the whistle.

It's clearly a goal. It clearly was going into the net already when the whistle was blown.

 

[BruinLVGA]

Looks like a good goal to me.

I guess you could argue that Crosby's first swing interfered with the goaltender but by then it's a loose puck in the crease, no one has control, one whack to the arm of a flailing goaltender doesn't constitute goalie interference to me (not that the league has established anything remotely close to a standard with its decisions).

The call on the ice wasn't no goal. The ref is waving his arms for no goal before the puck even lands on the goalie. Then Crosby pokes it off and it's in the net. It looks to me like there wasn't a call on the ice.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to go wash my mouth out with soap for coming down on Crosby's side.

Why not? Khudobin was trying to hit that puck away with that arm, he wasn't just swinging his arm for fun. Crosby hitting that arm impeded Khudobin from neutralizing that situation.

 

[nhlfan9191]

Yes, and I did in this post:



It's clearly a goal. It clearly was going into the net already when the whistle was blown.

I don’t know how you can watch that slow motion and think that’s a good goal. He moves for the puck when the whistle is already blown.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I don’t know how you can watch that slow motion and think that’s a good goal. He moves for the puck when the whistle is already blown.

No, I watched it at full speed, it's clearly a goal. The whistle gets blown at 5:23 in that video, and Crosby hits it off his chest at the very end of 5:22. It's just clearly moving when the whistle is blown, I don't even know how you can argue it.

 

[Sheppy]

I’m honestly more surprised there was no slash call on Crosby as he hacked Khudobin. I have seen far less slashes called this year.

But yeah, Crosby, Penguins, you know.