Speculation: TSN and Sportsnet are sellouts to the Nhl possibly.

[Lightsol]

The puck was in, there is no doubt in my mind about that at all.

I haven't seen a single video, where you actually can see the puck, over the line though. The video shows it looks like it probably over the line, but in no video, is there anything showing the puck itself, over the line.

Unfortunately, they made the call, that they had to make, with the lack of real evidence available..... you actually have to physically see the puck over the line... and you can't... even though it looks like it should have.

We need a Hockey version of VAR goal line technology. A chip, or something in the puck, that sets off the goal light, when it's crossed. Forget about judgement, or video review, just make this an indisputable process. We have the technology, it's pretty easy actually.

I don't understand why the NHL hasn't had a camera embedded in the net itself, pointing at the goal line. Or better yet, multiple cameras.

 

[Brown Dog]

I feel like I know it was in, but I do agree that there was nothing to show the puck in relation to the goal line as Holtby had that covered. So, call on the ice was no-goal. The interesting thing though, was that they said 'call on the ice is CONFIRMED', not 'stands'. So that means the league felt they could see the puck and could tell it was not in, which I vehemently disagree with. Its semantics, but a professional league needs to get things like that right. So NHL, was it confirmed or stands?

This 100%.

I wasn't expecting them to overturn the call based on the video evidence they showed on the broadcast even though it seemed highly likely the puck had fully crossed the line.

But when the ref said the call on the ice was "confirmed" (after looking at video for about two minutes)? I found that offensive.

 

[Joey Hoser]

Yeah I'm sure Gary Bettman called the CEO's of Bell and Rogers and they'll all partaking in a conspiracy over this goal call that made you really mad

 

[Cams]

Yeah I'm sure Gary Bettman called the CEO's of Bell and Rogers and they'll all partaking in a conspiracy over this goal call that made you really mad

Read careful....to the select few, it's not just this goal.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

The Goal is still there in video proof on Page #14 of the GDT in Post # 415. Clear as a bell its in. If you want to ask me again where the video is after going there. It will still be there for the ones that asked repeatedly in different post. Pretty sad how disingenuous some supposed Leaf fans are i tell ya.

That baby was in all the way! We win got ripped off by Skeletor again ha

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Oh I’m so sorry I’ve been directing to the GDT. Its in the PGT post # 415 on page #14

 

[Tak7]

But when the ref said the call on the ice was "confirmed" (after looking at video for about two minutes)? I found that offensive.

If they aren't sure, they aren't going to call a goal.

Once they review it, they confirm or overturn the call on the ice (which was no goal - the call they confirmed).

 

[Tak7]

There's no way they could have given that.

It has to be clear & concise - not some super slow-mo, zoomed in 2 second frame from twitter.

The game should never have come to needing a call like that to win, in the first place.

 

[bbgobie]

There's no way they could have given that.

It has to be clear & concise - not some super slow-mo, zoomed in 2 second frame from twitter.

The game should never have come to needing a call like that to win, in the first place.

Their job is to get the call right. They should have the technology and ability to review in detail the video evidence. Blow up the overhead. It's clear the luck is visible in the net. Not I think it's in. I see something that looks like a puck in the net.

Not let's take a look in a tablet for 1 min.

 

[CincoHolio]

Some of y'all need to find other hobbies. Jus' sayin'.

 

[Tak7]

Their job is to get the call right. They should have the technology and ability to review in detail the video evidence. Blow up the overhead. It's clear the luck is visible in the net. Not I think it's in. I see something that looks like a puck in the net.

Not let's take a look in a tablet for 1 min.

They can only use the tools available to them - which include the video room, and the iPad.

They had access to the same replays that we had on TV, and none of them showed the puck definitively over the line.

If you're having to go into blow ups and zoom ins and slow-mos and super enhanced CSI forensic BS to prove a puck is POSSIBLY over the line, then they can't give it.

This isn't an anti-Leafs thing. That call, 100% of the time, is "no goal". They got the call right, even if common sense dictates the puck was over the line. If you can't see it, you can't give it.

 

[therealkoho]

How do you say this. People have issues these days i tell ya. Post #415 on page 14 of the game day thread has the video of the puck going in. Amateurs can get that angle but the review department of the nhl reffing can’t. They screwed us

I have no idea what you mean, heres the link to post #415, nothing happening there chum

GDT: - GAME #45 | LEAFS @ CANUCKS | SUN APR 18 7PM EST | SPORTSNET

 

[Wafflewhipper]

I have no idea what you mean, heres the link to post #415, nothing happening there chum

GDT: - GAME #45 | LEAFS @ CANUCKS | SUN APR 18 7PM EST | SPORTSNET

Post game thread and also in the reffing thread with the videos of bad calls

 

[therealkoho]

Post game thread and also in the reffing thread with the videos of bad calls

I'll say I believe Mitch, but the video wasn't conclusive