Controversial high stick goal (NSH vs EDM)

[SladeWilson23]

It totally looked high to me. In this picture I circled the puck. Keep in mind, the puck was still rising before the stick made contact with it. The problem is the Oilers player blocks the puck in those subsequent frames of the video.

By rule, the league made the right call keeping to a goal. But imo, that puck was hit with a high stick.

On a side note, will high stick goal reviews ever be conclusive considering how the cameras are set up? That's my biggest beef with this particular kind of review is that it's almost always gonna be inconclusive. To me this one was as close to being obvious as it gets, but they still called it a good goal.

Click to read more...

 

[BlackDogg]

Used to be that call would be made as no goal right on the ice.

Good thing they have video review now though.

 

[mikeyp24]

Just watched it on NHL network. It was good. The review had 2 different angles that clearly showed it wasn't high.

 

[Hynh]

I like how they installed cameras to check offside goals but we still rely on garbage angles for high sticks 2 decades after they started reviewing them

 

[Gnashville]

I like how they installed cameras to check offside goals but we still rely on garbage angles for high sticks 2 decades after they started reviewing them

How many cameras should they put out there? A shot and deflection can come from anywhere.

 

[YakDavid]

Still waiting to see

 

[Legionnaire11]

It was very deceptive because the blade was up high and his stick was moving upward.

But at the moment the puck hit his stick, it hits closer to his hands and is below the crossbar.

Having said that, I'd have been bummed if they reversed it, but I could definitely see how it was close enough that they could come back with either decision.

 

[Aardvarksson]

Hardly controversial just inconclusive

 

[tempest2i]

The ice level angle, where the puck is clearly above the cross-bar in the frame before the deflection, coupled with the shot that shows the shot was still rising before it was deflected, seems to me pretty clear video evidence that the puck was touched with a high stick.

But yeah, I'm just a random dude chillin' at home. What do I know?

 

[Brian McDavid]

It was a high stick. And the call on the ice should have been no-goal. Everyone in the building and watching saw the puck rising coupled with a stick raising up, Aberg himself not even celebrating. But hey, the Oilers scored 0 goals. Tough to win a game with 0 goals.

 

[Armourboy]

It was a high stick. And the call on the ice should have been no-goal. Everyone in the building and watching saw the puck rising coupled with a stick raising up, Aberg himself not even celebrating. But hey, the Oilers scored 0 goals. Tough to win a game with 0 goals.

None of which proves it was hit with a high stick. If it had been hit with the blade absolutely, but it was down more by his hands on the shaft. However a puck rising and a stick being moved in an upward direction doesn't mean it was hit high.

 

[wadesworld]

Looked like a high stick to me, but in the views I saw, you couldn't actually see where the puck hit the stick. It certainly wasn't on the blade.

 

[SladeWilson23]

 

[Legionnaire11]

A lot of those replays look kinda like a high stick, but that very last one shows it basically even with the crossbar. So close, I'm certain the refs never determined that it wasn't a high stick, just inconclusive.

 

[New User Name]

Looks high to me but what do I know

Not an Oilers fan but seems the Oilers have way more than their share of calls going against them over the years.

 

[THall4]

The look on Aberg's face tells it all...he knew it was touched up high..and he was stunned they called it a goal lol

 

[Armourboy]

Looks high to me but what do I know

Not an Oilers fan but seems the Oilers have way more than their share of calls going against them over the years.

It's not like they have exactly gone our way over the years either, something had to give I guess.

I have a strange feeling the Refs probably knew that the odds of overturning was low so the bigger decision was the initial call which they discussed. I definitely don't see it as something more than just inconclusive and it stood because of the initial call.

 

[McDavidCrushedLarkin]

Was a high stick.

 

[tarheelhockey]

That's as inconclusive as it gets. You'd have to do some JFK-style triangulation to have any kind of idea where the exact contact took place relative to the crossbar.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

unless its absolutely aggregiously 100% high, the refs should always call it a goal on the ice because they can always review it. there needs to be sufficient evidence to over turn it.

its worse to take away a borerline goal than allow a borerline goal and the original call on the ice has such a major impact on which way it sways

 

[Brian McDavid]

None of which proves it was hit with a high stick. If it had been hit with the blade absolutely, but it was down more by his hands on the shaft. However a puck rising and a stick being moved in an upward direction doesn't mean it was hit high.

You missed my point. The puck was clearly over the bar and rising. The stick was clearly over the bar and rising. It should have been no goal on the ice, therefore no need to over-turn. That said, it still should have over-turned. But hey, the Oil didn't score. Moot points.

 

[jeffff]

The puck was tipped "down" and went underneath the cross bar..how is it a goal? The zero celebration by Aberg is obvious.

 

[Lyons71]

Too close to overturn. Good goal.

 

[Osprey]

It was almost certainly high, but that doesn't qualify as conclusive enough to overturn the call on the ice. The mistake wasn't in the video review but, IMO, in the original call. It probably shouldn't have been called a good goal on a ice, though it's hard to fault the officials for judging it as one in real time. Once it was called a good goal, though, the correct call was made on the review. In other words, it shouldn't have counted, but it shouldn't have been taken away. That sounds strange, but that's the rule book for you.

 

[NSH615]

The puck was tipped "down" and went underneath the cross bar..how is it a goal? The zero celebration by Aberg is obvious.

The problem though is due to it being called a goal, they had to have conclusive evidence to overturn the goal. There wasn't really any good camera angles that showed both the point of contact and the goal at the same angle and in the same frame without obstruction from a ref or other player. Assumptions are made due to the trajectory of the puck, but I don't see them overturning the original call on an assumption.

As to your zero celebration....I think only goal 2 had a celebration from the goal scorer.