Jimmy Leeds Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 Tk.....did you ever see it on the TV? Your posted video is uncler, but thanks for the effort. It is as clear as the nose on my face that the puck is under Marty's pad........(I know I say "under", but his pad rolls, showing the puck).........while Matv. has hand in the goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Tk.....did you ever see it on the TV? Your posted video is uncler, but thanks for the effort.It is as clear as the nose on my face that the puck is under Marty's pad........(I know I say "under", but his pad rolls, showing the puck).........while Matv. has hand in the goal. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You can see the puck over the goal line much clearer on TV. I got this clip from a streaming video from NHL.com so the quality is not great, however, you can still clearly see the puck where I first pointed it out. Not only can you see the shape of the puck but also the white paint between the red goal line and the puck itself, that proves it completely crossed the line. Please focus on the area I first illustrated in my initial post. You can see that black dot (the puck) move independent of Matvichuk's hand. Look closely and you can see as his hand starts to sweep out of the net, that black dot is still moving into the net then is swept out. The whole thing lasts 2 or 3 frames of video so look closely. Jimmy, I see what you were refering to about the puck hitting and staying by Marty's leg pad, but it does not stay there. Like I said the proof of that is not visible in my video but I showed in my other image the path of the puck as it came out. It just happens that it came out directly from where it crossed the line. Thus, goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redruM Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 there is NOWAY you can tell me that was a goal... ask 100 people and you are lucky if 50 say its a goal that being that said... philly dominated the last half of the game and deserved ythe win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thefiestygoat Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I think I may have finally have seen the puck after watching it for like 50 times. Really hard call, and because it was inconclusive im still a bit suprised it was called a goal. But after seeing that video I think it was a goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 I think I see it. Is it the thing near the stripe on his sleeve? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. It's still under Marty's pad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 After watching the replay they showed on MSG tonight - it was a goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 The MSG replay also never showed the puck going in. I wish people had this at home to watch. I DVR'd (TiVo) on High Def. TK......if youu have it from the beginning of the overhead........watch it from when you see the puck bounce off of Matvichuk and land under Marty's pad.......they all fall.....and the puck NEVER moved. I just watched it again, and I am more convinced then ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 This is like one of those concentration pictures. Keep looking hard enough at one spot and you see something! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Diablo Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I didnt see tonight's replay - but watching the TIVO replay about 20 times at best it INCONCLUSIVE IMO -so how the can the league positively say its a goal is truly remarkable. I also cant undrstand how technology has not solved this issu already, FIFA -the governing soccer body has been testing and recently adopted a ball which has a chip inside it that beeps in the refs ear if it crosses the goal lin. Hockey is a significantly easier sport to try this advent since its parameters are easier to control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyCorleone Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 On a more funny note. Me and my dad are watching the game and they call it a goal ... my dad decides to call a family friend .. a flyers fan. " Did you just see that, must be a philly ref? the friend responds by saying ... " I saw the puck , I see it everytime they show the replay, its over the line." My dad is livid now ... "what are you smoking that you see the puck? he says followed by this guy must have some sort of special TV , with ComcastVision or something ... what a f'n joke! F'n Flyers fans! They want to be devils fans so bad they can taste it " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 I didnt see tonight's replay - but watching the TIVO replay about 20 times at best it INCONCLUSIVE IMO -so how the can the league positively say its a goal is truly remarkable. I also cant undrstand how technology has not solved this issu already, FIFA -the governing soccer body has been testing and recently adopted a ball which has a chip inside it that beeps in the refs ear if it crosses the goal lin. Hockey is a significantly easier sport to try this advent since its parameters are easier to control. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ElD.....if you still have it.....watch it from where I say on my last post. And re-post what you see...... SOMEONE HAS TO AGREE.....or I'm gonna have to refoil my house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 I DVR'd (TiVo) on High Def. TK......if youu have it from the beginning of the overhead........watch it from when you see the puck bounce off of Matvichuk and land under Marty's pad.......they all fall.....and the puck NEVER moved. I just watched it again, and I am more convinced then ever. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So how do you explain it coming out from this direction if it never moved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 (edited) It doesn't tk. At this point, it is below Matv's. left shoulder in this picture, under Marty's pad.. -The puck bounces off of Matvichuck (Did you see that part?) -They fall as the puck hits Marty's pad -They swipe, probably in anticipation - Players are converging in the meantime with their sticks going to Marty's pad....where they see the puck. -The puck never left Marty's pad........you DO NOT see the e puck, because it's still by his leg. Do you sill have it on tv, at all? Edited October 9, 2005 by Jimmy Leeds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Ill say it again we deserved to lose, turner stevenson scored short-handed for christs sake. If Turner Stevenson scores short-handed the game should automatically end, even if it is the first period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 Ill say it again we deserved to lose, turner stevenson scored short-handed for christs sake. If Turner Stevenson scores short-handed the game should automatically end, even if it is the first period. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. The point is that the league office was 100% wrong. They called that a goal based on what Marty and Richard did, while never seeing the puck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 (edited) I never had the video on my TV, I said I got this clip from an online streaming video from NHL.com. Jimmy, if you still have it can you somehow digitize it for us? I know the puck came out from the direction I illustrated, I distinctly remember it, and that is a key bit of evidence. Unfortunatly the NHL.com video did not last that long. Edited October 9, 2005 by TK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 9, 2005 Author Share Posted October 9, 2005 Digitize? Come to my house, dammit I wish i could, 'cause you can see it sitting there. ElDiablo....where are you and your review? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 Sitting where? Take one of my stills and show it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted October 9, 2005 Share Posted October 9, 2005 ehm, shouldn't the real question be why mat is sprawled over brodeur like that? doesn't look like a position a d would normally have Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Diablo Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 Digitize?Come to my house, dammit I wish i could, 'cause you can see it sitting there. ElDiablo....where are you and your review? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to say that the puck comes in but dissappears under the pads -- wether Mat tries instinctivily to reach behind and sweep it out or not - I cannot tell if he ever does touch the puck. I have assume then the puck is still under ther pads, I think the burden of proof is show me the puck and I still havent seen it. We got f'd on that goal and perhaps it would have made a difference in the flow of the game - -though Philly was a freight train after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 Devs lose the game anyway, obviously.....we all agree on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevils783 Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 still see no irrefutable evidance that the puck ever crossed the line would be nice for the league to actually put out the video they used to review the goal cuz this shows me nothing... but hey we lose either way why are we still talking about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 10, 2005 Author Share Posted October 10, 2005 but hey we lose either way why are we still talking about this? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because what the hell is the league calling a non-goal a goal fromToronto when it could never be seen? If you don't want to talk about it, read something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbdf Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 the replay rule is that the tape must clearly show the puck crossing the line - can be no doubt that it was in. I don't care how many times you slow that tape down, unless they have some zoom feature that they're not showing to us, there is no way anyone can say the clearly, 100% without doubt, see that puck cross the line - there are just too many black things and shadows all over the goal line and moving - I really think they made the call based on the hand movements, not from clearly seeing the puck cross the line - Lamorillo will surely have someone's head at NHL central over this one - we'll never read about it, but you won't see a questionable call like that again this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L Posted October 10, 2005 Share Posted October 10, 2005 They zoomed and highlighted during the MSG feed against the Rangers. 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.