Kings 3-2 Oilers: Quick gloves puck over line, probably, but screw that guy

[Arpeggio]

I'm looking at it this way... the team should be able to use this event as somewhat of a bonding moment... like others have suggested... an us vs them scenario. Oilers vs the NHL/Refs.

That can be a powerful motivating force for the team going forward. They can gel and build on this single highly frustrating event and go on to give the NHL/refs a resounding FU with the way they respond to this with their play going forward.

They obviously aren't going to get any respect/favours from refs and the NHL... so use that as a powerful motivating factor to play even harder because they know they aren't going to get any breaks coming their way.

These things do even out over time... but it does certainly seem like this happens to the Oilers (refs screw ups/non-calls) more than their fair share of the time.

I'm also betting with how ultra-competitive and hard working McDavid is... he'll make double damn sure when he's in that type of situation again that he lifts it into the top of the net out of the reach of all but the most lucky and rubbery/acrobatic goaltenders.

That puck was literally impossible to lift off the ice. He didn't have time, nor any leverage. It was a backhand off the toe of his stick.

If he's ever in that situation again, he'll do the same thing, and he'll score again.

 

[McBeastMode]

Here's a photo I found on the net...shows the puck was over the line, by at least 2 inches...

309

 

[AUAIOMRN]

Here's a photo I found on the net...shows the puck was over the line, by at least 2 inches...

That image, by itself, isn't enough. The reason being is that if the puck is in the air, it might not be past the line:

Now don't get me wrong, combining all the information we have we know that the puck was in. Just that the single image isn't good enough.

 

[TheRebuild]

Here's a photo I found on the net...shows the puck was over the line, by at least 2 inches...

309

Parallax view something something... mumble...

 

[RCee]

It's over.. nothing we can do about it now. Time to move on.

Best we can hope for is that the League takes notice and takes necessary steps to prevent these kinds of divisive controversies from happening again.

It's in their best interest.

 

[KlimasLoveChild]

I haven't read through the whole thread but I was at the game and was right on that goal line. I thought it was a save at first glance. On review it may have been a goal but I agree with the nhl that you can't go off the angle shot. I've seen the arguments about parallax and then the opposition comes back with the puck was flat on the ice which negates parallax. People have to realize it's impossible to have a puck on the same plain as the painted goal line. The paint is literally an inch below the ice. The puck would have to be imbedded in the ice to make the side angle shot a viable option. It was a big let down but time to move on I guess. If you need a pick me up....we have Connor freaking McDavid........

 

[oobga]

That image, by itself, isn't enough. The reason being is that if the puck is in the air, it might not be past the line:

Now don't get me wrong, combining all the information we have we know that the puck was in. Just that the single image isn't good enough.

It's too bad they couldn't use logic and another other view, like one lower to the ice where you see the puck go off Quick's glove and hit the ice flat, to combine that info with this picture to know it's in.

The cameras in posts tech can't start being used fast enough.

 

[Zguy370]

So in summary, all this to say with whatever Connor ends up in goals at the end of the season, we need to make sure to give him one more goal. And no more of this BS!!

 

[KlimasLoveChild]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/how-geometry-created-the-illusion-of-a-flames-goal/

 

[oobga]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/how-geometry-created-the-illusion-of-a-flames-goal/

hehe, is that the 50th time someone has posted that on this forum since the goal was called off? That puck was in the air, but in this case you can see on replays that the puck hit the ice flat. And there is of course that picture where you see the puck obviously behind the red line.

For sure though, the NHL does not seem to trust any camera angle except the overhead. That's why it's time for those cameras in the posts to be fully rolled out. Last year they promised them for the 2014/15 playoffs, but not sure if that actually happened. They did use them in one of the outdoor games.

 

[rboomercat90]

I think I'll put in the walking dead

Cuz they sure as hell weren't watching the game

The Walking Dead was already over long before that goal was scored. They don't even have that excuse. I suppose they could have been upset and not able to focus and do their jobs though.

 

[KlimasLoveChild]

hehe, is that the 50th time someone has posted that on this forum since the goal was called off? That puck was in the air, but in this case you can see on replays that the puck hit the ice flat. And there is of course that picture where you see the puck obviously behind the red line.

For sure though, the NHL does not seem to trust any camera angle except the overhead. That's why it's time for those cameras in the posts to be fully rolled out. Last year they promised them for the 2014/15 playoffs, but not sure if that actually happened. They did use them in one of the outdoor games.

I think the still frame pic I saw in the sun from beside the net is the best shot but even that one you can't see the line very clearly because of the glare from the lights. Even that shot is angled a bit which can throw things off.

Also, it doesn't matter if the puck was flat on the ice or not when looking from the angle. If the video isn't enough of an explanation, I pointed out in my previous post that the paint is an inch below the top of the ice which creates the illusion in the first place. In effect the puck is in the air even if it is flat on the ice......

 

[oobga]

I think the still frame pic I saw in the sun from beside the net is the best shot but even that one you can't see the line very clearly because of the glare from the lights. Even that shot is angled a bit which can throw things off.

Also, it doesn't matter if the puck was flat on the ice or not when looking from the angle. If the video isn't enough of an explanation, I pointed out in my previous post that the paint is an inch below the top of the ice which creates the illusion in the first place. In effect the puck is in the air even if it is flat on the ice......

Yeah, but in that pic behind McDavid it's farther beyond the line than the thickness of the ice can account for, so if you assume the puck is on the ice, it's in, and the puck even goes further in after that screenshot.

In the picture beside the net, you can see the edge of the puck and where the posts are. From the other pic you can know how far the puck is from the near post, so it is completely obvious the puck is beyond the red line even if you can't see the line 100% clearly. Very simple geometry.

 

[MagicOilers73]

And this from the "c'mon ref" segment on the TSN site has me dumb founded as an excuse to deprive the Oilers of the tying goal:

The Situation Room does not have the luxury or capability to rule on a play as described by my above example. If the puck is underneath a goalie’s glove or visually obstructed in some other manner they cannot allow a goal through the review process. In such cases they must return an “inconclusive” verdict. The referee’s decision on the ice will then stand. That’s just the way it is as stated in the explanation below as posted on the Situation Room blog:

1) So even if we only see the left tip of the puck & it's in the net, because the rest of it was obstructed by the post=no goal.

2) Ref initially calls it a goal & then changes his mind when he gets to the net to no goal= no goal.

3) because despite knowing the puck hits Quick's netted part of his glove which is past the goal line but obstructed by the glove= no goal.

 

[oobga]

And this from the "c'mon ref" segment on the TSN site has me dumb founded as an excuse to deprive the Oilers of the tying goal:

The Situation Room does not have the luxury or capability to rule on a play as described by my above example. If the puck is underneath a goalie’s glove or visually obstructed in some other manner they cannot allow a goal through the review process. In such cases they must return an “inconclusive†verdict. The referee’s decision on the ice will then stand. That’s just the way it is as stated in the explanation below as posted on the Situation Room blog:

1) So even if we only see the left tip of the puck & it's in the net, because the rest of it was obstructed by the post=no goal.

2) Ref initially calls it a goal & then changes his mind when he gets to the net to no goal= no goal.

3) because despite knowing the puck hits Quick's netted part of his glove which is past the goal line but obstructed by the glove= no goal.

Only solution is cameras in the post I think. NHL isn't willing to trust anything from an angle looking into the net for any close call. Cameras in the posts give you a view as trustworthy as the overhead cam. Still will be cases where you can't see everything, but on this one, I think a post camera would have caught it.

 

[MagicOilers73]

Only solution is cameras in the post I think. NHL isn't willing to trust anything from an angle looking into the net for any close call. Cameras in the posts give you a view as trustworthy as the overhead cam. Still will be cases where you can't see everything, but on this one, I think a post camera would have caught it.

Definitely. having cameras in the post a few inches apart would certainly make things a lot easier to eliminate "inconclusiveness" in the decision making process in the "War Room".

 

[KlimasLoveChild]

Yeah, but in that pic behind McDavid it's farther beyond the line than the thickness of the ice can account for, so if you assume the puck is on the ice, it's in, and the puck even goes further in after that screenshot.

In the picture beside the net, you can see the edge of the puck and where the posts are. From the other pic you can know how far the puck is from the near post, so it is completely obvious the puck is beyond the red line even if you can't see the line 100% clearly. Very simple geometry.

You should patent your simple triangulation process and forward it to the NHL. Could be millions in it for you.......

 

[oobga]

You should patent your simple triangulation process and forward it to the NHL. Could be millions in it for you.......

If they had access to a side view like that high res picture, they might have called it in, but they don't. If there was a close to ice camera view like that pic, they would have seen the puck disappear behind the near post going even further to the right. Couple that with the view behind McDavid where you see how far from the post the puck is, very easy call. It's still easy just from that picture we have alone though. Of course a camera in the post would trump the usefulness of any of that. Not claiming to be some master triangulation expert here, this is simple to see for anyone would reasonable spatial awareness.

 

[iCanada]

You should patent your simple triangulation process and forward it to the NHL. Could be millions in it for you.......

Not really patented or even new stuff... even that has been manufactured since the 1800 has been drawn using those techniques.

It's common sense.

 

[Oilfan2]

Not really patented or even new stuff... even that has been manufactured since the 1800 has been drawn using those techniques.

It's common sense.

Sense isn't so 'common' any more...

 

[BoldNewLettuce]

Why don't they just make a glove rule.

Ie. If the hand is behind the goal line and the puck is in the glove the goal counts regardless of whether the puck crosses completely or not. Ie you can't cover the puck with your glove in the goal. Seems logical.

Pads seem like less of a clear issue whereas gloves clearly allow saves to count when the goalie has been beat.

Its not a huge deal but a simple improvement.

 

[BlowbyBlow]

Why don't they just make a glove rule.

Ie. If the hand is behind the goal line and the puck is in the glove the goal counts regardless of whether the puck crosses completely or not. Ie you can't cover the puck with your glove in the goal. Seems logical.

Pads seem like less of a clear issue whereas gloves clearly allow saves to count when the goalie has been beat.

Its not a huge deal but a simple improvement.

I never get why they don't use the football logic if the ball crosses the plane (and in hockey it would have to completely) its a goal. I remember a few years back Carry Price had his glove about a foot in half in the net brings the puck back quickly and because its in mid air its no goal. I know its different than football because there is no mesh or anything and hockey has mesh, and a red line. It just seems common sense puck is in there its a goal.

 

[s7ark]

New game tonight. I'm closing this thread.