Should this have been a goal?

[RedHot]

Rattie was off the ice before Puljujarvi completely crossed the blue line.

Ah, so it was like a delayed offside. Got it

 

[stl76]

Good goal.

How bout that toe drag by Thomas tho? He's coming along nicely...one of the few brights spots in what has been a dark, dark season for Saint Louis.

 

[bluetuned]

Yea I don't think that would've been the angle the league used. The camera is angled, the puck is airborne and angled. They've said repeatedly over the years that they can't use parallax angles to determine if a puck is completely over the line.

They have access to a ton of views. The TV angles and their own. The FSMW shot has the puck clearly in the net by several inches. The SportsNet angle shows the puck was definitely not covered when the Blues were hacking at it, so it was fair game. Good goal.

And really... if the Oilers are going to get the offsides call because Puljujarvi can intercept a pass, then carry the puck, but not also have possession in the middle, then the Blues can get this one

 

[syz]

They have access to a ton of views. The TV angles and their own. The FSMW shot has the puck clearly in the net by several inches. The SportsNet angle shows the puck was definitely not covered when the Blues were hacking at it, so it was fair game. Good goal.

And really... if the Oilers are going to get the offsides call because Puljujarvi can intercept a pass, then carry the puck, but not also have possession in the middle, then the Blues can get this one

I'm fine--or at least not surprised--with this goal counting; it's more grey area goaltender interference that we've come to expect from the league over the last several years.

Really wish more people around here understood how offside worked, though. Was an empirically onside play and the officials should actually get a lot of credit for getting it correct.

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

Looks like it’s Poolparty’s stick

That looks like a good goal to me.

 

[The Moose is Loose]

I think there was goalie interference

 

[bluetuned]

I'm fine--or at least not surprised--with this goal counting; it's more grey area goaltender interference that we've come to expect from the league over the last several years.

Really wish more people around here understood how offside worked, though. Was an empirically onside play and the officials should actually get a lot of credit for getting it correct.

Yeah I think both plays were called correctly. The offsides play is annoying as a Blues fan, but I get it. Puljujarvi didn't really have possession of it when Rattie was still on the ice. He blocks the pass and the puck bounces back a few feet in front of him. Rattie is fully on the bench by the time Puljujarvi actually gets the puck on his stick and under his control. It was the right call.

 

[stl76]

Here is the image they showed on the Blues post game broadcast (red circle added to highlight the puck):

 

[zar]

I think the controversial goal calls were both correct... the better team won tonight.

Move on.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Puljujarvi getting it in in both ends of the rink tonight. The f*** is he backhanding it into Talbot's pads for?

 

[syz]

Here is the image they showed on the Blues post game broadcast (red circle added to highlight the puck):

If you drew a line down from the nearest edge of the puck straight down towards the goal line, do you think you could conclusively say it was 100% across from this angle?

We've seen the league dismiss this angle several times over the years. I doubt this is the one that they used.

 

[bluetuned]

If you drew a line down from the nearest edge of the puck straight down towards the goal line, do you think you could conclusively say it was 100% across from this angle?

We've seen the league dismiss this angle several times over the years. I doubt this is the one that they used.

If it were in the air you'd have a point, but the puck is touching the ice. It was under Talbot's pad on the ice and got poked forward. The puck is not in the air above the line. It's on the ice behind the line.

Same is true for the defenseman's stick there. It's on the ice. The puck is behind it. The puck and his stick would have to be well in the air for this to be the case.

 

[Skolman]

I thought the main arguement was that he pushed Talbot's pad into the net, or are people saying it was Puljujarvi's stick?

 

[stl76]

If you drew a line down from the nearest edge of the puck straight down towards the goal line, do you think you could conclusively say it was 100% across from this angle?

We've seen the league dismiss this angle several times over the years. I doubt this is the one that they used.

In a word: yes.

Taken in conjunction with the overhead views showing how far Talbot's leg was past the goal line, I don't think this is a particularly close call either. Suppose it's possible the NHL had another angle we have not seen. Regardles, the right call was made.

How about that move by Thomas to set up the goal tho?

 

[bluetuned]

I thought the main arguement was that he pushed Talbot's pad into the net, or are people saying it was Puljujarvi's stick?

It's hard to tell, but it might have been Puljujarvi pushing it into the net accidentally. Either way, Talbot didn't have it fully covered, so the Blues were free to keep poking at it.

 

[TopShelfGloveSide]

Here is the image they showed on the Blues post game broadcast (red circle added to highlight the puck):

Wow... yah that looks like a goal.

 

[mouz135]

Good goal. Time to close this up and stop whining over every single call.

 

[48g90a138pts]

Looks like it’s Poolparty’s stick

You can clearly see the other stick (Maroon's) push Talbot's pad into the net.

The puck was stopped outside the goal line before Maroon pushes Talbot's pad into the net. If the play wasn't blown dead it should have. Wish there was a video with sound as to when the whistle blew.

Should have been goalie interference anyways.

Shouldn't have counted

 

[volcom92886]

Similar to what happened in the Kings/Oilers game last season. Except, it was called no goal then. Oilers come out on both sides of the calls, I guess those things work themselves out.

 

[Machinehead]

Maybe I'm blind, but I never see the puck in the net.

Stick to the topic please.

No.

Here's a picture of Vlad Namestnikov.

 

[PAZ]

If you drew a line down from the nearest edge of the puck straight down towards the goal line, do you think you could conclusively say it was 100% across from this angle?

We've seen the league dismiss this angle several times over the years. I doubt this is the one that they used.

Uhm, yes?

The puck is on the ice. Show me another goal they dismissed where the puck was completely flat on the ice from this angle.

 

[driveway]

You don't actually have to see the puck accross the line in order for a goal to be called. It simply has to be evident that the puck DID cross the line.

Here's a vaguely similar puck-in-pad goal from several years ago.

 

[hockeyguy272]

Uhm, yes?

The puck is on the ice. Show me another goal they dismissed where the puck was completely flat on the ice from this angle.

There have been a few where the puck is on the ice, but being on the ice still puts it a couple inches above the goal line since it's painted under the ice. Generally in these instances the call on the ice is upheld because there isn't enough evidence to the contrary. I can dig up examples but the 4 that come to mind are 2 Calgary playoff games and 2 Caps playoff games. Here's the explanation of the 2nd Calgary one

In this current Edmonton vs. Blues case however, the puck is so far away from the goal line that with some pretty simple geometry you can conclude that it's 100% in. I'm guessing they do consider actual math with the rules considering they acknowledge and understand the parallax view with them too.