WCSF Game 7: Avalanche @ Sharks | 6:00 PM PST | NBCSN, CBC, SN, TVAS

[EdAVSfan]

At least the situation room explained that he didnt legally tag up.

Sometimes they are just silent on calls and people spread rumors about apologies.

The situation room saying he didn’t tag up is not saying anything.

We already knew that was the justification for the offside.

What people want is a conclusive shot that shows he didn’t. Because that was the only way to overturn.

Transparency.

Or, of course, show us these “special” cameras I keep hearing about, but that no one has ever seen.

 

[redandyellowcametobe]

At least the situation room explained that he didnt legally tag up.

Sometimes they are just silent on calls and people spread rumors about apologies.

And being that it was the situation room that made the call, no one can fault the refs.

(who am I kidding? Someone will fault the refs)

huh?

 

[Avs44]

Case closed

This literally is zero new information. We knew from the beginning that this was the league's argument for the call. The entire dispute still comes down to whether Landeskog's skate was on the blue line. Rule 83.3 makes that clear.

(i) All players of the offending team clear the zone at the same instant (skate contact with the blue line) permitting the attacking players to re-enter the attacking zone, or

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

If his skate was on the blue line when the puck crossed, he had tagged up and was onside. So those replays of whether Landeskog's skate was on the blue line is still the entire crux of the argument. You have previously admitted that the evidence is inconclusive whether it was or was not offside, which means you agree that the goal should have stood. You didn't and don't want to admit that, of course, so you quickly changed arguments when you realized the implications of "inconclusive evidence." You then tried to agree with another poster (incorrectly) that a skate simply touching the blue line =/= "clearing the zone", but rule 83.3 indicates that it actually does count as clearing the zone, so I really have no idea what you're arguing now...that the league actually has better cameras and that they must actually have conclusive evidence?

Maybe they do. And I know it's all a moot point now so I'm probably just coming across as bitter. But your logical leaps from one argument to the next to justify the call have been honestly really quite fantastic. Just one to the next, and ignoring all of the responses that highlight where you're wrong. So thank you for that.

Anyways, I'm out of here now. Good luck with the Blues.

 

[Frosty415]

The problem is that you haven't given anything. You're saying the NHL saying the NHL is right proves that the NHL is right. The question we're trying to decide is whether the NHL is right. You're saying the NHL has better cameras, without even providing proof of that, or of a still/video from those cameras.

The NHL and situation room released an explanation, if you want conclusive video, fighting and baiting people on a forum is not the way to do it (which is what he does, 90% of this thread)

 

[dwkdnvr]

It was the NHLs decision.

They have better cameras than we will ever see.

then it should be simple - publish the photo that shows conclusive evidence. There is simply no way they can say that anything is conclusive based on the network feeds.

I actually have difficulty believing that the networks paying millions of $$$ for broadcast rights and are likely supplying the cameras don't have access to all views.

 

[Chips]

I mean, multiple cameras in sync isn't that impressive. NBC could do that. Do they actually have better angles/cameras or are you just saying that? Some support would be nice

have you seen the inside of the situation room?

And if NBC has that capability, they didn’t show it to us. Also they have other responsibilities to cover their air time.

 

[Frosty415]

This literally is zero new information. We knew from the beginning that this was the league's argument for the call. The entire dispute still comes down to whether Landeskog's skate was on the blue line. Rule 83.3 makes that clear.

(i) All players of the offending team clear the zone at the same instant (skate contact with the blue line) permitting the attacking players to re-enter the attacking zone, or

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

If his skate was on the blue line when the puck crossed, he had tagged up and was onside. So those replays of whether Landeskog's skate was on the blue line is still the entire crux of the argument. You have previously admitted that the evidence is inconclusive whether it was or was not offside, which means you agree that the goal should have stood. You didn't and don't want to admit that, of course, so you quickly changed arguments when you realized the implications of "inconclusive evidence." You then tried to agree with another poster (incorrectly) that a skate simply touching the blue line =/= "clearing the zone", but rule 83.3 indicates that it actually does count as clearing the zone, so I really have no idea what you're arguing now...that the league actually has better cameras and that they must actually have conclusive evidence?

Maybe they do. And I know it's all a moot point now so I'm probably just coming across as bitter. But your logical leaps from one argument to the next to justify the call have been honestly really quite fantastic. Just one to the next, and ignoring all of the responses that highlight where you're wrong. So thank you for that.

Anyways, I'm out of here now.

Just because I said it was inconclusive doesn't mean I'm right.

The NHL made the call, not the referees.

 

[Frosty415]

then it should be simple - publish the photo that shows conclusive evidence. There is simply no way they can say that anything is conclusive based on the network feeds.

Sorry, I don't work for the NHL.


So why keep baiting/attacking fans about conclusive nonsense? The NHL offered an official release, if you don't like it then contact the league correctly.

 

[LaCarriere]

At least the situation room explained that he didnt legally tag up.

Sometimes they are just silent on calls and people spread rumors about apologies.

And being that it was the situation room that made the call, no one can fault the refs.

(who am I kidding? Someone will fault the refs)

Except that tweet explains nothing. All the tv cameras show his skate was at the very least, questionably on the blue line.

If the have some secret, super slow Mo high def camera at a different angle that would be more conclusive.

The tweet said a whole lot of nothing

 

[bluesfan94]

The NHL and situation room released an explanation, if you want conclusive video, fighting and baiting people on a forum is not the way to do it (which is what he does, 90% of this thread)

Right, they released an explanation, but given that we're questioning the NHL's decision to begin with, the explanation doesn't mean much. Basically, the explanation is that the NHL doesn't think Landeskog touched up. We're all saying that there's no conclusive evidence of that.

 

[aircobra]

I mean, multiple cameras in sync isn't that impressive. NBC could do that. Do they actually have better angles/cameras or are you just saying that? Some support would be nice

Pretty sure they have cameras at both bluelines. I remember hearing something about it recently.

 

[bluesfan94]

have you seen the inside of the situation room?

And if NBC has that capability, they didn’t show it to us. Also they have other responsibilities to cover their air time.

Yes? it's a bunch of screens. That doesn't mean they have better angles or better cameras

They've done it before on other broadcasts.

 

[bluesfan94]

Pretty sure they have cameras at both bluelines. I remember hearing something about it recently.

Yes, they have cameras at both bluelines. We saw that image. But it was from across the ice.

 

[TheForsbergShow]

The fact that you need to pull out a telescope to see if he was On/Offside shows how bad of a call/challenge system it is lol.

If its too close to call, how can you overturn the original call which was he was onside?

Seems to just cause controversy for the league every night and takes away the enjoyment of a lot of nice goals.

 

[SabresSharks]

I hate the rule, whether my team benefits or not.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

Really this isn't the question we should be asking though.

Is this the type of play we even want reviewed? He was struggling/tired and couldn't unlatch the door. Maybe it was stuck for all we know? Why nobody opened it for him is a mystery to me, but that's all beyond the point to me.

Is this the type of play we should be reviewing? The refs never called him for too many men, and him being on the ice has no affect on the goal.

I think that's all that needs to be said if it should be something being reviewed.

I agree with you. I've said all year that I hate the offside challenge review because more than anything it slows down the game and the game shouldn't be decided on a centimeter. Still, if we are going to have it, then let's go full boar on the technology because we all know they have to "get it right".

 

[Gabe the Babe]

Great series to the Sharks, man. Pavelski ate us alive after Mack got hurt. Literally just looked like they knew they couldn’t win without him.

Hard not to like Pavelski even though he destroys the Avs every game he plays.

Like I’ve been saying injuries and refs happen. Avs got the short end of both and that’s hockey.

Proud to be an Avs fan. Genuinely believe it’s gonna be a great era of hockey in Denver. Hopefully SJ can win the cup this year. They’re window is closing. And they deserve at least one. Been good for a long time.

It’s all love

 

[Frosty415]

Yes, they have cameras at both bluelines. We saw that image. But it was from across the ice.

That was NBC 's cameras

he's saying the NHL actually has their own cameras at each line, but they don't ever show it publicly

 

[GoGoSharks]

The fact that you need to pull out a telescope to see if he was On/Offside shows how bad of a call/challenge system it is lol.

If its too close to call, how can you overturn the original call which was he was onside?

Seems to just cause controversy for the league every night and takes away the enjoyment of a lot of nice goals.

Indeed seems inconclusive so normally you just give up and leave the call as is.

That said when did Land finally leave the ice? Where did the player who came on for him get to by then? Seems too many men was the one thing you could have said, but it’s weird they basically swapped that for a questionable offsides overturn ruling.

I guess the Sharks were the (slightly) better team this series, so there’s that. Still I’d be annoyed as an Avs fan, at least for 24 hours or so. Good luck next year, good team good fans.

 

[do0glas]

Salty as all hell in here lol.

I thought they'd call it a good goal, but there was no telling where he was as the puck crossed. So i thought they'd keep it a good goal.

But lets not forget that still just ties it up. You'd still have to score another...which didn't happen

 

[Frosty415]

Great series to the Sharks, man. Pavelski ate us alive after Mack got hurt. Literally just looked like they knew they couldn’t win without him.

Hard not to like Pavelski even though he destroys the Avs every game he plays.

Like I’ve been saying injuries and refs happen. Avs got the short end of both and that’s hockey.

Proud to be an Avs fan. Genuinely believe it’s gonna be a great era of hockey in Denver. Hopefully SJ can win the cup this year. They’re window is closing. And they deserve at least one. Been good for a long time.

It’s all love

Cheers buddy! you got a great team on your hands.. MacKinnon showed me another side of him since the world cup

dude is crazy skilled in big games

 

[bluesfan94]

That was NBC 's cameras

he's saying the NHL actually has their own cameras at each line, but they don't ever show it publicly

NBC said it was the NHL's camera they were showing

 

[AaronDellForPrez]

Having another "blame the refs" session takes away from how great a season the avs actually had. You guys could focus on that.

 

[Muffin]

Salty as all hell in here lol.

I thought they'd call it a good goal, but there was no telling where he was as the puck crossed. So i thought they'd keep it a good goal.

But lets not forget that still just ties it up. You'd still have to score another...which didn't happen

What do you mean didn't happen? Would be 3-3 going to OT. Not to mention the momentum shift from tying the goal.

 

[bluesfan94]

Salty as all hell in here lol.

I thought they'd call it a good goal, but there was no telling where he was as the puck crossed. So i thought they'd keep it a good goal.

But lets not forget that still just ties it up. You'd still have to score another...which didn't happen

Well, they did score another. And it completely changes the complexion of the game