The Non-Goal Goal

[rbdf]

and it still was inconclusive at best. like i said, unless there is 100%, absolute, no doubt whatsoever, that you see the puck, then you just can't over-rule the call on the ice.

[sw61776]

This should end the debate:

[rbdf]

Gee, that really clears things up - i'm so glad that your replay clip posted above showed it so conclusively, clear and completely. I for one am a total beleiver now that i've seen what appears to be possibly a black smudge that could quite possibly be a black hockey puck next to or partially attached to or otherwise somehow being covered or conceled by either the black pants, black hockey glove black catchers mit, black jersey sleaves or black shadows in that washed out looking picture. That completely cleared it up for me.

Come on, at best it's inconclusive, in which case a replay judge can't rule it was a goal. I'd have been o.k. if they just gave philly a penalty shot on it - i could have easily beleived that matvichuk covered the puck up in the crease or something like that, but to CONCLUSIVELY determine from that video that that was indeed the puck, I just don't see it, sorry. Guess it's just one of those things that we'll all disagree on.

By the way, it still doesn't explain the devils complete and total collapse in that game. Someone else said it best - if Turner Stevenson scores a shorthanded goal against you, you really don't deserve the win - nothing against turner, i liked him as a devil and i think he's a great addition to the flyers (i'd take him over marshal any day), but come on, he's not the one marty gets nightmares over, well, at least not before last week.

[Rock]

It's done and over with as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying this as a Devil fan but as a hockey fan, the smudge could be the puck or it could be the thumb of the glove. If, however if he has totally red gloves then it "must be" the puck. If they have better resolution on their monitors than what's posted here, no problem. If they don't have better resolution, "must be" shouldn't be enough to overturn a no-goal call.

Edited October 10, 2005 by Rock

[rbdf]

that's my only point rock - must be, could be, looks like - those aren't what the rule says, the rules say "conclusively" - and that video just doesn't look conclusive to me - maybe toronto is looking at a 7 foot hd monitor with perfect color and there it is conclusive, but on tv, and especially on the tiny internet clip, it just a bit too iffy

[NJCroMag]

that's my only point rock - must be, could be, looks like - those aren't what the rule says, the rules say "conclusively" - and that video just doesn't look conclusive to me - maybe toronto is looking at a 7 foot hd monitor with perfect color and there it is conclusive, but on tv, and especially on the tiny internet clip, it just a bit too iffy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed 100%. If you're going to rule it a goal, and you're going by the rulebook now, you better see that puck crossing the line. Personally, I've seen the replay a few dozen times now and I don't see a puck going over the line.

I see Marty taking a swipe, Matvichuk taking a swipe, but I don't see a puck anywhere. Even in that one shot that they show of Matvichuk's glove where they can supposedly see the puck, I'm unconvinced that it's actually the puck. To me, it still looks like the end of Matvichuk's glove.

Anybody remember the disputed goal from this game: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/...SC51/index.html.

That's another one where you never see the puck cross the line, but the refs called it a goal anyway.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Well, I still have it on TiVo and I clearly see the puck under Marty's pad before, during, then after the whole swiping issue.

Clear as day.

I am sure the NHL has had it pointed out to them.

They will not admit their mistake like the NFL does.

[rbdf]

Just like the dallas stars stanley cup winning goal up in buffalo, if we just don't admit to a mistake, then obviously there never was a mistake.

[NJD Jester]

It *kinda* looks like a puck near Mat's glove.

It *kinda* looks like the puck came out from that angle at the end of the play.

But we know that it wasn't called a goal on the ice. And the replay is hardly conclusive, unless video replay has been reduced to where the puck *should* rather than actually seeing where it is.

No Goal in my book. And don't downplay how big that was -- the Devils played like dogsh!t after losing the lead.

<JESTER>

[Guest]

Well, I still have it on TiVo and I clearly see the puck under Marty's pad before, during, then after the whole swiping issue.

Clear as day.

I am sure the NHL has had it pointed out to them.

They will not admit their mistake like the NFL does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did the Flyers player behind the net raise his stick to celebrate the goal afterwards or no? I don't recall that happening. Mike Knuble was right there and should have had a terrific view of the play.

Edited October 12, 2005 by Guest

[Jimmy Leeds]

Players were coming in poking their sticks where the puck was the whole time..........under Marty's pad.

[Satans Hockey]

The Canadian Press

10/11/2005 10:13 PM

TORONTO (AP)

The NHL just announced that since the goal wasn't conclusive in the game played last Friday between the New Jersey Devils and the Philadelphia Flyers that the next time the teams meet that the Devils will start with a 1-0 lead before the puck is even droped. Commisioner Bettman said it's only right to the Devils to give them a goal. Flyers GM Bobby Clarke responded by saying that as long as Martin Brodeur isn't allowed to leave his crease that they will allow the Devils to start with a one goal lead. This is the first time in NHL history that something like this has been allowed.

Edited October 12, 2005 by Satans Child

[Voros19]

You had me excited for a second.

[Jimmy Leeds]

I thought that they finally admitted they f*cked up.

[Devils731]

That reminds me of when they blew Pando's goal in the playoffs and released the statement: "Despite the best efforts of the league, a goal was scored"