Blackjack Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 (edited) I was at the game, and of course they don't show replays. But from where I was sitting (behind Garon) it looked like Elias' stick started high, but he moved it down to deflect the puck, and actually deflected it up into the net (impossible to do from above the crossbar) to tell you the truth, it didn't even look close. I was so disgusted when they took that goal away, and I had a feeling they would from the moment they reviewed it. Edited March 20, 2004 by Blackjack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
langsgirl Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I was at the game, and of course they don't show replays. But from where I was sitting (behind Garon) it looked like Elias' stick started high, but he moved it down to deflect the puck, and actually deflected it up into the net (impossible to do from above the crossbar) to tell you the truth, it didn't even look close. I was so disgusted when they took that goal away, and I had a feeling they would from the moment they reviewed it. I was at the game also... I felt the same way as u.. but in the thread for tonights game there are a few comments about it so u may wanna check it out.. it seems from what i have read in that thread, that it was a bad call. I wanted to see it myself but metro doesnt replay the games I dont think..Fox Sports always does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Devsrule Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I was there also. It looked like he actually knocked the puck down and it bounced over Garon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smelly Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I was also at the game, and haven't seen any highlights, but I was also listening to the radio call. Velischek and Hennessey both said it was close, but that the "no goal" ruling was reasonable from the replays they saw/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I was at the game, and of course they don't show replays. But from where I was sitting (behind Garon) it looked like Elias' stick started high, but he moved it down to deflect the puck, and actually deflected it up into the net (impossible to do from above the crossbar) to tell you the truth, it didn't even look close. I was so disgusted when they took that goal away, and I had a feeling they would from the moment they reviewed it. TSN showed slo-mo replays of it, and it was quite questionable. My main beef was that it was initially ruled a goal. This means that there must be DEFINITIVE EVIDNCE that it WASN'T a goal. Where was the definitive evidence? TSN sure didn't have it. Their replays showed it being questionable, able to go either way. Did the refs have another camera or something? And, if so, why didn't TSN have it? I dunno. I think it should have been allowed not necessarily because it was under the crossbar but because there wasn't definitive evidence to show that it didn't, to contradict the original ruling... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 one thing I've learned is NEVER judge a call at a game... only thing that sucks is this was a metro game or I'd be sitting here recapping it now and screaming yes or no on the goal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack Posted March 20, 2004 Author Share Posted March 20, 2004 Here's some quotes from Habs fans on hfboards. OH YEAH BABY!!! NO GOALS (i think it was good LOL) and 1-0 still woooooohoooo.lol....we got lucky i think..lol http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=63340&page=4 That seals it for me. We were robbed. 2nd time in a row against Montreal. I really hope we don't face them in the postseason: too hard to beat them and the refs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djstubbs Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I was there as well, Giroux shot Elias' deflected puck... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrubbery Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 That Hfboards Habs board is funny. Loads of breakaways and end to end action and they keep accusing the game of being boring and "hate to be a Devils fan." Man, what exactly do they want? I guess back in the good old days, the defensemen werent allowed to check and had they laces tied together Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 That Hfboards Habs board is funny. Loads of breakaways and end to end action and they keep accusing the game of being boring and "hate to be a Devils fan." Man, what exactly do they want? I guess back in the good old days, the defensemen werent allowed to check and had they laces tied together I agree. This game was WIDE OPEN. Sure, not all sixty minutes, but the majority of them. Not boring whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack Posted March 20, 2004 Author Share Posted March 20, 2004 yeah, don't take it seriously. About half the posters on hfboards defend the trap and it's associated teams (Devils, Wild, etc) to the death, and will say that the most boring game in the world was exciting. The other half attack the trap and it's associated teams and prabably felt that game 7 of the ECF last year was boring. I really don't think they watch the game, I think they're jealous of the Devils' success so they join the chorus. Half those guys don't even know what the neurtral zone trap is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheeps Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 HFBoards kind of suck, IMO. Eh, I'm over-simplifying.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackjack Posted March 20, 2004 Author Share Posted March 20, 2004 HFBoards kind of suck, IMO. Eh, I'm over-simplifying.... Pretty much. I do like going there because there are a ton of fans from every team, and it really gives you a good feel for the league. They do go overboard with the "futures" though. Half those guys would trade the best player on their team for a 1st round draft pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 ... or brylin for a 4th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I doubt the Devils were robbed. One thing about replay. If it's a tight call, the NHL will usually make sure to get it right. How long did the review last? Some reviews can last very long. Sometimes, the NHL headquarters gets involved to decide on if it's a goal or not. If it was that questionable, I'm certain they would have called up Toronto and gotten the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 The first replay I saw, I said I bet they wave it off. Unfortunately I was right. His stick was going down but it was still high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devildude Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 we were still screwed... it was a goal... the blade was going down... games should not be decided by an officials call like that... this was like a playoff game.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 we were still screwed... it was a goal... the blade was going down... games should not be decided by an officials call like that... this was like a playoff game.... It doesn't matter if the blade was going down. This from rule 61 of the NHL Rule book: *NEW* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamptrash Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I was at the game, and of course they don't show replays. But from where I was sitting (behind Garon) it looked like Elias' stick started high, but he moved it down to deflect the puck, and actually deflected it up into the net (impossible to do from above the crossbar) to tell you the truth, it didn't even look close. I was so disgusted when they took that goal away, and I had a feeling they would from the moment they reviewed it. saw it on TV. that call could have gone either way. i think had his stick started out just a little lower, they would not have reversed it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 That's a very confusing rule Rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 It doesn't matter if the blade was going down. This from rule 61 of the NHL Rule book: *NEW* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 It doesn't matter if the blade was going down. This from rule 61 of the NHL Rule book: *NEW* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 I think it was too close to call. No doubt his BLADE was above the crossbar, but the puck hit the stick in the middle of the shaft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 HFBoards kind of suck, IMO. Eh, I'm over-simplifying.... Pretty much. I do like going there because there are a ton of fans from every team, and it really gives you a good feel for the league. They do go overboard with the "futures" though. Half those guys would trade the best player on their team for a 1st round draft pick. Speaking of that, has anyone seen Jason MacIsaac lately? I don't think he's posted in the last few days... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risky Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 REGARDLESS, it was inconclusive as far as every angle we saw could tell, and that's all you need - INCONCLUSIVITY - to make the call stand. If they had waved the goal and THEN gone upstairs, same thing - the call stands. There was NO, NONE, ZILCH defining evidence to support anything but making the call (and goal) stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.