NHL Playoffs: The Finals: Calgary Flames versus Tampa Bay Lightning

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Obviously, the refs all have Arts degrees. This would never have happened if they were all Comp Sci geeks.

Actually, a compsci geek would've loaded the puck and net up with technology so the goal in game 6 would've been counted immediately.

[optimus2861]

^ Two ways to deal with a loss when there are questionable calls:

1) Recognize that had your team played just a bit better, they wouldn't have been in a position to be affected by those calls and that they were ultimately responsible for their own fate (i.e. score on the PP in the first period of game 6),

2) Focus all your anguish at the loss on the officiating and absolve your team of all responsibility.

Option 2 gets you nothing but ulcers. Calgary actually got cut a big break with that penalty call against Pratt in the third where they finally scored -- if anything, that call should have gone against the Flame! Don't seem to hear anything about that particular questionable call.

Let it go, Asher. Unless you have some realistic, cost-effective way to stick all this "technology" into a hockey puck that gets slapped around on hard ice by hard sticks at speeds up to 100 mph.

[Asher]

Originally posted by optimus2861
Let it go, Asher. Unless you have some realistic, cost-effective way to stick all this "technology" into a hockey puck that gets slapped around on hard ice by hard sticks at speeds up to 100 mph.

Even Fox managed to do this like 7 years ago(?) with the glowing on the puck. The glowing on the puck means the cameras know the EXACT location of the puck.

There are a variety of technical solutions they could employ, FAR more complex problems have been solved...

The reason you're not hearing anything about that call (which I agree, was questionable), is because it was a blatant even-up attempt because the officiating was so terrible.

[Asher]

Flogging a dead horse, I know, but a new picture has surfaced a few milliseconds before the original, and it clearly shows that it did go all the way in. Look carefully at where the goalie's skate/pads are:

[Tuberski]

Sorry Asher, but I believed that it was a goal...until I saw your new pictures.

Now, I don't think it was.

ACK!

[Asher]

You do realize the direction the puck is heading in in the first pic, and where the skate is that stopped it, right?

[Drake Tungsten]

Look at the first picture. That puck is not past the line...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Look at the first picture. That puck is not past the line...

Is this a joke?

Of course it's not past the line in that pic, it was taken by a newspaper photographer, so that happened to be when he took the picture.

What you should be able to notice is how far back the goalie's skate is that stops the puck, clearly enough space for the puck to go all the way over the line, even if it was "in the air". The angle is a lot better to show the depth actually there between the goalie's skate and the line...

[Drake Tungsten]

So, do you have any pictures where the puck actually is over the line? That would be some actual proof for your point...

[Arrian]

Looks like a close call that could have gone either way.

It didn't go Asher's way, though, and that's just not acceptable.

-Arrian

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So, do you have any pictures where the puck actually is over the line? That would be some actual proof for your point...

Look at the last picture. It is clearly over the line. Remember that that pic isn't the farthest the puck went in either, it's just the closest frame we have, since cameras are only 30fps and it happened a lot faster than that...

The point was conceded by everyone that it "appeared to be over the line", but they didn't have proof since they were concerned about depth -- if it was in the air, it could look farther in than it was.

The new pic that has surfaced shows that the goalie's skate was well behind the line, and we DO know it was his skate that stopped the puck.

[Drake Tungsten]

Look at the last picture. It is clearly over the line.

No it isn't. You can barely see the puck to begin with and it's a horrible camera angle to use to determine how deep the puck is in. You need another side view, like the first pic.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
No it isn't. You can barely see the puck to begin with and it's a horrible camera angle to use to determine how deep the puck is in. You need another side view, like the first pic.

You can see the puck, you can even see the white border of the ice around the puck -- even easier when the image is polarized like in the last animation.

I just don't see how it could NOT have been in by the laws of physics. I'm sure if we HAD a perfect camera (another thing they could do, one of those 200-300fps highspeed high resolution cameras at various angles on the net...), it would show it, but we don't have that luxury. Instead of asking for a pic that doesn't exist, explain why you think it didn't go in.

[Guest]

I will not do any interpretation...
But even though on that last pic, the puck is behind the red line on the pic, doesnt mean it is behind the plane formed by the goal posts...
In 3 dimensions you have to be careful, a puck could be above the ice and not in the net and still be behind the red line you drew...
Not saying its not a goal, just saying to be careful niterepreting anything but a perfect photo from the side\above of the goal.

[Drake Tungsten]

So you don't have any definitive proof, then? Guess I'll have to side with the officials on this one...