You are wrong. Whistle clearly blows before Crosby even swings stick to knock puck. NBC replay with audio is clear as it gets, whistled dead before puck is even struck -- let alone enters goal.It's not a controversial goal if you actually know the rules for why the goal counted. This is the rule:
“The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed immediately into the goal, pucks that enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).”
This goal counted because the puck was on its way into the net when the whistle was blown, so blowing the whistle early didn't impact whether the goal was scored or not. It's the same concept for when a goal counts when the net is knocked off. If a puck is going in the net and the net gets knocked off while the puck is already on its trajectory into the net, it's a good goal.
Why the Sissons goal didn't count? This rule only applies if the puck is already on a trajectory going into the net when the whistle is blown. Sissons scored after the play was blown dead.
If that’s a good goal, how is Sisson’s goal from the playoffs not a goal?
The NHL’s miscarriage of justice continues.
If that’s a good goal, how is Sisson’s goal from the playoffs not a goal?
The NHL’s miscarriage of justice continues.
This intent to blow the whistle rule has 100% gone the other way for the entire duration of the history of the league. For Crosby, they were willing to review the play that otherwise has never been reviewable. Very odd to create this precedence in a regular season game.Goal goes in before whistle blows. Goalie does not have control of the puck. Good goal.
Been answered multiple times already in this thread.
Crosby goal whistle came after crosby shot the puck and if there was even a better video of it potentially the puck was already in the net before the whistle had gone.
Sissons goal the shot came after the whistle happened.
You mean after they intended to blow the whislte.Been answered multiple times already in this thread.
Crosby goal whistle came after crosby shot the puck and if there was even a better video of it potentially the puck was already in the net before the whistle had gone.
Sissons goal the shot came after the whistle happened.
He apparently means before the ref intended to blow the whistle, engaged his motor neurons to move his arm, and completed the whole biomechanical transaction and made his whistle tweet.You mean after they intended to blow the whislte.
Intent to blow quick whistle, counts
Game 6 Nashville - Intent to blow quick whistle, doesn't count
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.
Zero issue with Crosby. If he's my guy I want him doing EXACTLY what he did and going hard until the whistle and even a little bit after.....#CrosbyCheats
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.
And........ given the ruling on ice was no goal???And if you watch the 1st video posted you see the puck moving before the whistle is blown.
One video was at actual speed and the other was in slow motion.
In the 1st video you see the puck moving before the whistle. The other you hear the whistle before the puck even falls to the goalies chest.
It's not a controversial goal if you actually know the rules for why the goal counted. This is the rule:
“The video review process shall be permitted to assist the Referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that hit the spectator netting prior to being directed immediately into the goal, pucks that enter the net undetected by the Referee, etc. This would also include situations whereby the Referee stops play or is in the process of stopping the play because he has lost sight of the puck and it is subsequently determined by video review that the puck crosses (or has crossed) the goal line and enters the net as the culmination of a continuous play where the result was unaffected by the whistle (i.e., the timing of the whistle was irrelevant to the puck entering the net at the end of a continuous play).”
This goal counted because the puck was on its way into the net when the whistle was blown, so blowing the whistle early didn't impact whether the goal was scored or not. It's the same concept for when a goal counts when the net is knocked off. If a puck is going in the net and the net gets knocked off while the puck is already on its trajectory into the net, it's a good goal.
Why the Sissons goal didn't count? This rule only applies if the puck is already on a trajectory going into the net when the whistle is blown. Sissons scored after the play was blown dead.
69.7 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a
goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to
play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is
scored as a result thereof will be allowed.
For anyone wondering why it wasn't GI
It's a crock, he clobbered the goalie on the hand with his stick. It's freaking absurd this counted, just unreal.Never seen anything like that. I'm not sure what to think about that.
He apparently means before the ref intended to blow the whistle, engaged his motor neurons to move his arm, and completed the whole biomechanical transaction and made his whistle tweet.
And he's wrong on all of it.
NBC two posts above -- at about 6:15 minute mark --shows that whistle blew before Crosby even started first swing of stick -- the one he missed on.
Bottom line? Whistle blew before Crosby made contact with puck. NHL blew it badly and should own it.
The puck does not at all go in prior to the whistle. Watch it a few more times....Goal goes in before whistle blows. Goalie does not have control of the puck. Good goal.
Zero issue with Crosby. If he's my guy I want him doing EXACTLY what he did and going hard until the whistle and even a little bit after.....
Issue is with the NHL. It "looks" like they call it one way for some and one way for others. Doesn't matter if that's fact or not -- perception can be realty when you've got 30 plus teams with 30 plus sets of fans.
On ice call mistakes? They happen. Endless video replays coming up with wrong/conflicting rulings cannot happen.
League should own up to mistake. If not perception becomes not just reality, but fact.
It’s the Penguins, get used to it
Bro. You need to go back and listen to the audio cause you are 100% wrong.Been answered multiple times already in this thread.
Crosby goal whistle came after crosby shot the puck and if there was even a better video of it potentially the puck was already in the net before the whistle had gone.
Sissons goal the shot came after the whistle happened.