Completely random mod reminder: You have an entire board for General NHL News, don't think you need to keep everything in this thread 
2015-2016 NHL Thread
- Thread starter Peter D.
- Start date
WhatIfGodWasALeaf
Active member
Zee said:
As long as it's before January 1st.
Heroic Shrimp
New member
Patrick said:
That seals it; it'll happen on January 1st.
L K said:
If it wasn't for Lou I would think that it could actually cost us a pick somehow.
Oilers-Kings game, Edmonton needs a goal to tie it up with seconds left. McDavid gets a backhander into an open net. Quick dives and grabs it with his glove right on the goal line. Quick's glove then goes into the net from his dive. Most reasonable people would say that that's a goal. NHL says no goal and the Oilers lose.
I don't understand why the NHL doesn't have the technology to determine that. "Inconclusive" goals are such BS.
I don't understand why the NHL doesn't have the technology to determine that. "Inconclusive" goals are such BS.
dappleganger
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:Oilers-Kings game, Edmonton needs a goal to tie it up with seconds left. McDavid gets a backhander into an open net. Quick dives and grabs it with his glove right on the goal line. Quick's glove then goes into the net from his dive. Most reasonable people would say that that's a goal. NHL says no goal and the Oilers lose.
I don't understand why the NHL doesn't have the technology to determine that. "Inconclusive" goals are such BS.
Did you see the home run in the Jays game Friday?
Rick said:
I didn't want to buy into the hype entirely until I saw him against NHLers. But yeah, he's unreal.
*bursts into tears remembering we had the best shot at him before the final ball*
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
Someone posted a shot from in front of the net on twitter this morning, and from that shot, the puck was conclusively in. Not hidden underneath the glove, not unclear as to whether or not it had crossed the goal line. It was a goal. No question.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
bustaheims said:
What about that whole "parallax view" thing? There was a segment done by Sportsnet on it (last year I believe) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSG8mzwwOs8
About how a puck can look like there's white between it and the goal line because of the angle, yet still be touching the goal line.
This too looks at it: http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/if-youre-convinced-sam-bennetts-shot-was-a-goal-check-this-out/
I'm not saying it wasn't a goal, but if the standard is 'conclusive proof' I don't think any of the angles provide that.
bustaheims
Active member
Potvin29 said:
I'm quite happy to say that a puck that is merely touching the goal line - as is the case in most of these inconclusive situations with the whole "parallax view" stuff - as having completely crossed the goal line. I know that's not how the league interprets it, but, I mean, the league is dumb.
bustaheims said:I know that's not how the league interprets it, but, I mean, the league is dumb.
Yeah, I mean given the current set-up a goal that 100% crosses the line can't conclusively be considered a goal. It needs to be 110% over the line at least.
bustaheims
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:
Basically. Crossing the line isn't really the minimum standard, though that's how it's spelled out in the rulebook. Putting noticeable distance between itself and the line is what they actually look for.
bustaheims
Active member
Zee said:
It wouldn't surprise me if there's some fire underneath that smoke. Something's gotta give in Anaheim. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if tonight's game is the breaking point - either Anaheim starts being able to put some pucks in the net, or changes start to be made. It's not like they're low on offensive talent. There's something broken there right now, and if they hope to make the playoffs, they'll have to turn it around quick.
hockeyfan1
New member
herman said:
That definitely is a goal from that angle.