Tkachuk with GOTY Candidate

[TheNumber4]

Glove pass and than like a foot above the crossbar high stick and Mclellan doesn't even have a conversation about it.

Typical TMac. When the puck drops, his brain shuts off and the gum chewing begins.

 

[Xerloris]

The first tip was not a shot on goal so the height would be measured at the players shoulders and not the crossbar. Second shot was on goal and completely below the crossbar.

 

[TheNumber4]

It was a high stick and an obvious one at that. But the high stick wasn't the touch that put the puck in the net.... can that be reviewed? It'd be like reviewing a high stick at center ice... that then leads to a zone entry and then a goal.

 

[TheNumber4]

The first tip was not a shot on goal so the height would be measured at the players shoulders and not the crossbar. Second shot was on goal and completely below the crossbar.

The first tip was above shoulders though.

 

[TheNumber4]

Here's the angle from behind the glass, which shows the puck was significantly in front of Tkachuk, making it more likely that it was below the bar:

A puck's position in relation to a player has absolutely nothing to do with the puck's height in relation to the crossbar. But nice try.

In any case, it's not even about the cross bar, it's about his shoulders since the first touch was a play, and the second touch the actual goal scoring touch. The first touch if you showed the BEST angle from the broadcast, not the one that backs your narrative shows it being over his should by about a foot.

 

[inthe6ix]

 

[Anglesmith]

A puck's position in relation to a player has absolutely nothing to do with the puck's height in relation to the crossbar. But nice try.

In any case, it's not even about the cross bar, it's about his shoulders since the first touch was a play, and the second touch the actual goal scoring touch. The first touch if you showed the BEST angle from the broadcast, not the one that backs your narrative shows it being over his should by about a foot.

Exactly, you just said it. It has nothing to do with the crossbar. Also, I showed both angles, so I don't know what you're talking about. There have been only two that I've found. Both are angled so that you can't definitively determine that it was above the shoulder. It certainly looks like it is above the shoulder, but take it from a Flames fan: unless it's entirely proven by a camera angle, the NHL is going to call it inconclusive. We've been bitten by that multiple times in the past.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

Not even the best goal this week.

Blake Coleman says hello and sit down.

 

[KCC]

Clearly above his shoulders. Brutal call.

 

[TheNumber4]

Exactly, you just said it. It has nothing to do with the crossbar. Also, I showed both angles, so I don't know what you're talking about. There have been only two that I've found. Both are angled so that you can't definitively determine that it was above the shoulder. It certainly looks like it is above the shoulder, but take it from a Flames fan: unless it's entirely proven by a camera angle, the NHL is going to call it inconclusive. We've been bitten by that multiple times in the past.

It has nothing to do with the cross bar because of RULES. But when judging a puck's height sure we can use the crossbar, sure we can use his shoulders. In both instances the puck is above both. And this would be case if Tkachuk was 2 feet from the puck or 5 feet.

 

[Rangediddy]

Not even the best goal this week.

Blake Coleman says hello and sit down.

Sure it’s a nice goal, but it’s equally bad goaltending. Tkachuk’s was 100% skill

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

LOL the NHL instagram post has a perfect angle where you see its 100% above the crossbar. Refs killing it early this year.

 

[Rangediddy]

It has nothing to do with the cross bar because of RULES. But when judging a puck's height sure we can use the crossbar, sure we can use his shoulders. In both instances the puck is above both. And this would be case if Tkachuk was 2 feet from the puck or 5 feet.

Can you prove it?

 

[Mickey Marner]

[MOD]
b) you can play the puck below your shoulder, but any tip/deflection on goal must also be under the crossbar
c) it was not even close to GOTY

 

[Anglesmith]

It has nothing to do with the cross bar because of RULES. But when judging a puck's height sure we can use the crossbar, sure we can use his shoulders. In both instances the puck is above both. And this would be case if Tkachuk was 2 feet from the puck or 5 feet.

Not exactly. I'm tempted to actually do a demonstration with pictures, but that would be the definition of being a try-hard. Regardless, yes, the further the stick blade is in front of Tkachuk in the view from behind his shoulder, the lower the puck is. There is a point where if the puck is far enough in front of him, it is in line with his shoulder height.

As an added point, the rule refers to the "normal height" of the shoulders, not the current height, so the referee is judging the height relative to Tkachuk's shoulders while standing upright. Any leaning forward would also bias the view towards a high stick.

 

[Anglesmith]

[MOD]
b) you can play the puck below your shoulder, but any tip/deflection on goal must also be under the crossbar
c) it was not even close to GOTY

The tip/deflection into the goal was below the crossbar.

Not sure why there is resentment here. This was a 100% impressive play. To do this at live speed is fantastic. It was amazing when Crosby did it, and it's amazing here too.

 

[koyvoo]

Maybe not even goal of the night

 

[Sergei Shirokov]

Incredible hand eye, but looked like a clear highstick

 

[Old Boys Club]

Can't stand Ratchuck

That is all

 

[TheNumber4]

Can you prove it?

Do referees need to prove every call they make in a game? Is there a judge and jury and trial after every penalty in the game? No. They use their eyes and basic human judgement to see if OBJECT A is higher in height than OBJECT B in the moment. It's obvious to the commentators who called the game, and everyone who saw the game that wasn't a Flames fan that it was. It was a missed and blown call that lead to the Flames being gifted an OT point.

 

[Anglesmith]

Felt the need to post just anything with all this neal talk?

"Neal scored four goals, the Flames shouldn't be allowed to exist." Nice.

It's a beautiful goal. Neal is irrelevant here.

 

[Rangediddy]

Do referees need to prove every call they make in a game? Is there a judge and jury and trial after every penalty in the game? No. They use their eyes and basic human judgement to see if OBJECT A is higher in height than OBJECT B in the moment. It's obvious to the commentators who called the game, and everyone who saw the game that wasn't a Flames fan that it was. It was a missed and blown call that lead to the Flames being gifted an OT point.

Can you prove it was a missed and blown call?

 

[Anglesmith]

Do referees need to prove every call they make in a game? Is there a judge and jury and trial after every penalty in the game? No. They use their eyes and basic human judgement to see if OBJECT A is higher in height than OBJECT B in the moment. It's obvious to the commentators who called the game, and everyone who saw the game that wasn't a Flames fan that it was. It was a missed and blown call that lead to the Flames being gifted an OT point.

It's a challengeable play. Referee error cannot have been the only factor in this. If it was as obvious as you were saying, LA would have challenged and had it overturned. The fact that they didn't means video can't show it conclusively. The fact that it can't be shown conclusively means we don't know if the ref was wrong.

Unless you're suggesting that the Kings' video team are Flames fans...

 

[TheNumber4]

It's a challengeable play. Referee error cannot have been the only factor in this. If it was as obvious as you were saying, LA would have challenged and had it overturned. The fact that they didn't means it video can't show it conclusively. The fact that it can't be shown conclusively means we don't know if the ref was wrong.

Unless you're suggesting that the Kings' video team are Flames fans...

Having watched TMac coach for years... the fact that he didn't make a good and important in game decision proves nothing, that's just him being the same crappy in-game coach.

 

[Anglesmith]

Having watched TMac coach for years... the fact that he didn't make a good and important in game decision proves nothing, that's just him being the same crappy in-game coach.

Don't be naive. Head coaches don't make these calls. They have a team of guys in a room with big screens breaking down each scoring play and talking in his ear. There is too much on the line to rely on a coach looking at a 10" screen at his feet who, in many cases, can't even see his own feet.