amacpher Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 After watching that horrible Stanley Cup Final, it really makes me appreciate guys like Collina who have the balls to make the correct call no matter what the situation. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Fraser and those cowards up at the video replay booth for game 6. This is the second time in 5 years that the Stanley Cup went to the wrong team because of a gutless call from upstairs (Dallas OT goal against Buffalo being the other one, of course). Here's hoping that the NHL season gets completely wiped-out next year so we don't have to put up with this BS for at least one year of our lives! (altho I think the problem could be solved by bringing in some European referees, but that'll never happen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanKeay Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Poor baby, u wanna a bottle too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 The officiating didn't cost the Flames the series. You lost all credibility with your last line. The problem with Fraser is that he is too much like Collina IMHO and goes out of his way to make what HE thinks is the correct, albeit unpopular, call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Somebody needs a pacifier. Want a new diaper as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 quote:Originally posted by SeanKeay Poor baby, u wanna a bottle too? [] Actually, nah, I'm good. I'm not a Flames fan and was watching the series as a neutral (just like when Dallas played Buffalo). But you don't think it makes the NHL look like a farce when the championship goes to the wrong team every other year? Imagine if it was the Leafs scoring a Stanley Cup winning OT goal (far fetched, i know, but try)! quote:Originally posted by Ed The officiating didn't cost the Flames the series. How do you figure? The Flames scored the SC winning goal in OT and they had it snatched away simply because 'the guys upstairs' wimped-out. The fact they played like crap in game 7 is irrelevant. That game shouldn't have existed. quote:Originally posted by Ed You lost all credibility with your last line. Why not get the best from around the world, like they do with the players? Maybe they wouldn't need to keep referees and linesmen around until they're 95 years old if there was more quality officiating coming in. But I guess you still think Gordie Howe could play at age 45 in today's NHL, right?? Guys like Fedorov would have no answer to Howe's pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimglow Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 quote:Originally posted by amacpher [] Actually, nah, I'm good. I'm not a Flames fan and was watching the series as a neutral (just like when Dallas played Buffalo). But you don't think it makes the NHL look like a farce when the championship goes to the wrong team every other year? Imagine if it was the Leafs scoring a Stanley Cup winning OT goal (far fetched, i know, but try)! How do you figure? The Flames scored the SC winning goal in OT and they had it snatched away simply because 'the guys upstairs' wimped-out. The fact they played like crap in game 7 is irrelevant. That game shouldn't have existed. Why not get the best from around the world, like they do with the players? Maybe they wouldn't need to keep referees and linesmen around until they're 95 years old if there was more quality officiating coming in. But I guess you still think Gordie Howe could play at age 45 in today's NHL, right?? Guys like Fedorov would have no answer to Howe's pace. The ABC broadcast had a computer generated view of the "goal" on last night's broadcast. They concluded it wasn't a goal, the puck was in midair over the line when Khapibulin save it. The replay was an optical illusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Mimglow The ABC broadcast had a computer generated view of the "goal" on last night's broadcast. They concluded it wasn't a goal, the puck was in midair over the line when Khapibulin save it. The replay was an optical illusion. How do you get a computer generated view when it is unknown exactly how far the puck is above the ice?? Lets just look at where the goalie's pad is when the puck hits it and remember that the puck does not even need to be completely over the line to count as a goal. Of course, after that Dallas OT winning goal a few years ago, the NHL quickly had an excuse ready the next day ("since the player had control of the puck, he is allowed to be in the crease when the puck enters it"). Guess what I thought about that one? [|)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimglow Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 quote:Originally posted by amacpher How do you get a computer generated view when it is unknown exactly how far the puck is above the ice?? Lets just look at where the goalie's pad is when the puck hits it and remember that the puck does not even need to be completely over the line to count as a goal. Of course, after that Dallas OT winning goal a few years ago, the NHL quickly had an excuse ready the next day ("since the player had control of the puck, he is allowed to be in the crease when the puck enters it"). Guess what I thought about that one? [|)] The entire puck has to cross the line. And from the overhead view, it was clear that the pad was before the red line. And I was cheering for Calgary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Ed The problem with Fraser is that he is too much like Collina IMHO and goes out of his way to make what HE thinks is the correct, albeit unpopular, call. One feature that Fraser and Collina do not share is eyesight. I guess you're right when you say Fraser has guts though. It's just too bad his blindness in both eyes tends to override his good qualities. But the guys upstairs ... I hope they have trouble sleeping the next couple of weeks. They get paid for watching hockey and when they're called upon to actually do something resembling a real job, they wimp out! quote:Originally posted by Mimglow The entire puck has to cross the line. And from the overhead view, it was clear that the pad was before the red line. And I was cheering for Calgary. I didn't think the overhead view shows the location of the goalie's toe-pad too clearly. It's difficult to tell when the puck hits the pad from that angle. However, the side-view shows the toe-pad being behind the goal-line. And since the pad is actually on the ice, the side-view is sufficient. And unlike soccer, only two-thirds of the puck needs to cross the goal-line (unless they changed that rule recently). I guess we'll agree to disagree on whether it was a goal or not. But the main point is: THE OFFICIALS SCREWED-UP because they didn't even look at the play carefully! Play resumed some 15 seconds after the whistle!! So after playing 800 meaningless regular season games, they can't wait a minute or two to make the right call in this kind of situation!? Disgusting. They should have a camera on the goal-post looking across the goal-line for the future though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sstackho Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 quote:Originally posted by amacpher And unlike soccer, only two-thirds of the puck needs to cross the goal-line (unless they changed that rule recently). The puck must entirely cross the goal line. Always has, as far as I know. quote: Rule 57 (a) A goal shall be scored when the puck shall have been put between the goal posts by the stick of a player of the attacking side, from in front and below the crossbar, and entirely across a red line the width of the diameter of the goal posts drawn on the ice from one goal post to the other with the goal frame in its proper position. I don't think there was a single person on the ice, or watching at home, who thought that puck crossed the line when watching it live. Personally, I think it would have been detrimental to the game to have stopped the play to review it as a goal. And there was no conclusive evidence, so the referee's on-ice decision would not have been overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Luca Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 quote:Originally posted by amacpher And unlike soccer, only two-thirds of the puck needs to cross the goal-line (unless they changed that rule recently). I think the rule that the entire puck has to cross the goal-line for it to be a goal has been in place since 1861, or whenever it was the first hockey game took place. Where on earth did you hear that it was two-thirds? Mind you on my fuzzy tv it looked like the puck had crossed the line, but as Calgary has already won one Cup by kicking the puck into the net, I'm not too worked up about it. I do feel sorry for the current Flames team though, even though they got a pretty big make-up call last night to get them back into the game, with an obvious interference penalty against Calgary being charged to Tampa Bay instead. Even if the Brett Hull goal wasn't allowed (and it should have been IMO, as much as I can't stand the guy), how does it follow that the Sabres should have won? Dallas was leading the series 3-2, even if they didn't go on to win that game 6 anyway they still had game 7 at home back in Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 quote:Originally posted by sstackho The puck must entirely cross the goal line. Always has, as far as I know. Okay, I stand corrected. I guess I should read the rule book instead of relying on commentators. quote:Originally posted by sstackho I don't think there was a single person on the ice, or watching at home, who thought that puck crossed the line when watching it live. Personally, I think it would have been detrimental to the game to have stopped the play to review it as a goal. What do you mean by stopping the play?? There wouldn't have been any extra whistles required. You just wait 'til the next natural whistle and then have a look at the replay. I mean what were your views on game 6 b/w Vancouver and the Rangers in 1994?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted June 8, 2004 Author Share Posted June 8, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca Even if the Brett Hull goal wasn't allowed (and it should have been IMO, as much as I can't stand the guy), Even if it was a good goal, it would have been waved-off in any other game played that season. Buffalo might still have lost OR they may have come back like T-Bay. Who knows, but it shouldn't be up to the guys in the video replay booth to decide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canadiankick97 Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 quote:Originally posted by amacpher What do you mean by stopping the play?? There wouldn't have been any extra whistles required. You just wait 'til the next natural whistle and then have a look at the replay. I mean what were your views on game 6 b/w Vancouver and the Rangers in 1994?? Had they stopped the play and just declared the Flames as champs there would be a huge riot from the Tampa side. And besides wheres the drama in that anyway? Winning the cup thanks to the video goal judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted June 9, 2004 Author Share Posted June 9, 2004 quote:Originally posted by canadiankick97 Had they stopped the play and just declared the Flames as champs there would be a huge riot from the Tampa side. And besides wheres the drama in that anyway? Winning the cup thanks to the video goal judge. A riot? Nobody in Tampa cares! Maybe the Tampa players would do some yelling and screaming. Big deal. When you consider how many flukey goals occur in hockey, that "goal" by Calgary was pure quality and totally legit (assuming it crossed the line). Had it crossed the goal-line, they would not have won by the goal judge, but rather lost because of the goal judge when they choose to not even bother looking at it. I'm amazed at how many people think its okay to ignore legit goals just because its a critical situation in the game. The title to this thread speaks volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.