sheeps Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 You should all know what I'm referring to. Late in the third period, the puck deflects off Gelinas' skate and goes towards/into (you decide) the net. --- My opinion? Yes. No kicking motion and it completely crossed the line. Calgary should have hoisted the Cup last night in front of thousands in their own building and 100,000 in the streets of the city with almost the entire country of Canada watching. But they didn't. So GO FLAMES GO! for Monday night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Devsrule Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 If it was a regular season or early round playoff game, maybe. But to decide the stanley cup winner, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 a goal is a goal is a goal is a goal.... it doesn't matter when why how or because of... there was no kicking motion and the puck cleared the line... that's all you need to know about it ... man there's gonna be a Canadian uprising if Tampa wins Monday I'd almost feel bad if I knew any Tampa Bay fans... if they win, this Cup is about as controversial a Cup win there can be...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 It was a goal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJayDevil Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Looking at that pic Crasher posted, it's not clearly in the net. There isn't enough evidence it was in, and since the no-goal call on the ice, it's over and done with now. I say No, it wasn't fully in. Show me more evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Devsrule Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 ESPN/ABC only showed one angle where you could actually see the puck. Sometimes the angles can be deceiving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 I say no goal. The picture ABC kept showing showed me an elevated puck that may have been over the line. Since the puck was elevated at the time ABC froze the frame it becomes impossible to tell if the white we could see between the puck and the goal line was the puck being completely over the line or the white we could see under the puck being from the puck being elevated and the puck was still partially hovering over the line. I don't think they can conclusively say it was in so original call of no goal must stand. -Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellOnICE Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 It was inconclusive, that puck was in the air, and from the angle it is possible that the edge of the puck was over the goaline in mid air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyFan42 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 The pic Crasher posted from the Flames board is borderline. It may have been in the air, it may not have been, and if it was, it probably wasn't fully over the line. The replay ABC kept showing was from a similar angle, but that one looked like it might have actually been over the line. Still, if the puck was airborne, that changes everything. As for Gelinas, it was a stopping motion, not a kicking motion. He may have positioned himself so he'd have a better shot at deflecting it in, but as someone pointed out in the game thread, he had to stop anyway. The circumstances are such that I can't call it a "distinct kicking motion". I haven't seen any other angle on that play that points to it being a goal. Based on that, the front-of-the-net shot is inconclusive. No goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
langsgirl Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 when i saw the zoom in and still frame on tv i thought yes as well, but i voted no becuase if it is in the air and that white ice we see is cause of the angle.. then its not.. and we cant conclude that anyhow.. i just realized i hit my 1000th post today... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev0lemi Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 from what i saw last night i think its a goal. i know, its a sh!tty way to decide a cup victory, but the rules are the rules and it was clearly over the line- at least from the angle ABC showed. The officiating has been more or less in tampa's favor the entire series so this i suppose, is no different. Of course, i'm not down on the ice calling the plays as they happen. Did they even review it upstairs? i don't recal seeing them stop the game to check with the officials in the booth. -emily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 The puck is clearly in the net from that angle for sure. It should have been a goal but it wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge18 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Because the puck was in the air at the time it crossed the goal line. I saw a great pic of it and ill try to find it. It was clearly not over the line, and the angle that abc shows skews ones perspective of the play. They got the call right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Sports Bureau Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 anyhow.. i just realized i hit my 1000th post today... Congrats, lg!!! I consider you the most underrated poster 'round here, but I expect you to be raking in the noms at next year's awards. Happy 1,000!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyBlueFish203 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 (edited) Inconclusive evidence + a possible kicking motion = no goal. Also, please, do not forget that there were almost 7 minutes remaining in the game. And IF it was ruled a goal, unless people can predict the future, Tampa could've tied this thing up! Edited June 6, 2004 by FunkyBlueFish203 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 (edited) How do we know that though? Have we seen all the angles there are. I have seen one and in that angle it is in for sure. Edited June 6, 2004 by devilsrule33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevils783 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Wow what crazy people voted no a goals a goal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Also, please, do not forget that there were almost 7 minutes remaining in the game. And IF it was ruled a goal, unless people can predict the future, Tampa could've tied this thing up! Yah seriously, I was thinking the same thing...everyone seems to be making it out to be the Cup winning goal when there was a good chance it may not have been. Seven minutes is a lot of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 How do w eknow that though?Have we seen all the angles there are. I have seen one and in that angle it is in for sure. I think many people here disagree that the puck is in in that photo. If the puck is in the air like it appears then it is very likely it is only an optical illusion that it is in and in reality the puck is actually still over the goal line. That little sliver of white in between the puck and goaline is what makes you think it is clearly in but it is also possible with the puck being in the air that that sliver of white is in reality white from under the puck and it has not fully crossed the goal line. -Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Wow what crazy people voted no a goals a goal Sorry if the crazy people realize that the photo isn't definitive to the puck being in the net. What crazy people think that picture proves anything? -Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 It wasn't clearly a goal, it could be disputed so the call no goal was the right call. This call will not taint the Cup should Tampa win it. This is nothing like the missed goal by Pando in the Ottawa series where the Devils had to hold the 1-0 score to win the game. LETS GO DEVILS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'7' Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 the puck was a little bit off the ice, but not airborn high enough to create the illusion of a goal. ABC had the best camera angle, the puck was in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 There are two questions here: 1. Was it in the net? From that angle that was shown last night it was. With the league claims it was on the edge makes it more so to me because the puck is thinner that way and needs less room to go completely over the line. 2. Was it deliberately kicked in? Since I believe the puck was in, this was the only question of significance. The replays made it look like he sort of was finishing his stride. I could see it sort of being like Madden's non goal ruling of a goal scored(as was later admitted by the ref of that game) in the game against Detroit. I say it was in, what I'm really disappointed is the league coming out with with some spurious reason as the puck was on edge. Sorry LotCB to drag this up but it was the Brett Hull foot in the crease all over again. Or even the puck through the Phiadelphia net. I hate when the league comes up with this crap. Just say the replay wasn't seen fast enough the puck was dropped by the time we saw it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 I don't know whether it was a goal or not from what I've seen. But Calgary's management, players and fans ought to think about this: Maybe if Kerry Fraser had been allowed to ref the game he might have called it one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twistedwrister Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 In the video they have the puck appears to be going in. However, It is at a strange angles, and angles are hard to tell. The resolution is fuzzy as well. In the angle from directly overhead it is impossible to tell. So in myopinion, whether it was over the line or not, in this case it doesn't matter becasue the evidence is nconclusive, and thus the cal cannont be overturned. Also, I don't know is anyone else heard/saw the post cam press conference, but Sutter said it was no goal. 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.