| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
 Posted - 06/02/2010 : 18:35:57
|
You guys see the Hartnell goal?
Review went pretty quick and they called it a goal but from the angle the camera was at, was it really conclusive?
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2010 : 19:57:53
|
Seemed like a good goal to me. I could see white space between the red line and the puck standing up. Looked conclusive enough for me, I think it was a good call.
Irvine/prez. |
 |
|
|
sharksfan44
Rookie
Canada
228 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2010 : 19:58:44
|
It did get called pretty quick. From the one angle they showed it looked like it had definitley crossed the line although the they showed a different angle and it looked like it may not have completley crossed the line.
But wen they blew the picture up on the one angle u could see white between the puck and the line so imo it was conclusive and i doubt they would have decided so quick if they didnt believe so as well |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2010 : 20:09:22
|
This second one, in OT... went directly across the line. No goal for me on this one.
However, the whistle came pretty quick. Did Niemi have the puck covered enough to warrant a whistle? Or should the rebound have counted as a goal? :P
Irvine/prez. |
Edited by - irvine on 06/02/2010 20:11:29 |
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2010 : 20:16:08
|
Last one counted!
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2010 : 22:45:00
|
Irv, i agree, quick whistle on that "goal line" one! Then again, that's not uncommon really. The first one, i saw the same replays i'm sure, and i agree, you do see the puck over the line in the one view! However, in the second, you don't see it over! The prob here is that the two angles are completely opposite and until they get camera's in the crossbar, or darn near it, it won't be consistent!
The thing is, i truly believe it was a goal. BUT, the call on the ice was no goal and i don't see the "conclusive evidence" from the angles we saw, that overturned it, especially that quick!
Again, i'm actually happy they counted it, but by THEIR rules, i don't see how they could unless they had other angles to look from? |
|
|
|
Jumbo Joe Rocks
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
410 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2010 : 04:37:17
|
It was like the Gagne goal where it was completely in,but they didnt have that angle.
RE-SIGN PATTY |
|
|
|
Guest7665
( )
|
Posted - 06/03/2010 : 09:36:08
|
| I knew the allowed goal was in real time, I seem to have an uncanny ability to see these close ones. The disallowed goal was the right call, but I've seen much later goals like this allowed, the name Holmstrom comes to mind. |
|
|
|
ryan93
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
996 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2010 : 10:18:16
|
| The Hartnall goal was definitely in. And as for a quick review, well you also have to take into consideration the play continued for a good minute & a half after the goal. So you can bet that both the folks in Toronto & as well as the ones upstairs in Philly were both already looking at the play. |
|
|
|
dummy101
Top Prospect
Canada
33 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2010 : 17:37:21
|
I think the netcam ,which I think is closest to vertical,showed it as not in.Just because there was white ice to be seen from the front camera doesn't mean the puck was completely across the plane of the goal line.
Philly show the front angle to the fans, big cheer, boys in the replay booth look at each other and say good goal (get on that phone!!)or we don't get outta here with our life tonight. ;) |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Goal or no goal? 
