Controversial Calgary/Phoenix Goal

[Orange Nation]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XEmC8Zhj-RY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XEmC8Zhj-RY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Goal or No Goal?

[MauvaisSang]

goal

[Carl J. Ironsides]

Inconclusive. It looked like a goal from one angle, but on the overhead view you can still see red. And because it wasn't called a goal on the ice, there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it.

Wild.

[shotgun]

Inconclusive. It looked like a goal from one angle, but on the overhead view you can still see red. And because it wasn't called a goal on the ice, there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it.

Wild.
you should be a goal judge, because i thought the same what you said

[Riley_Mason]

Close as it gets, but just missed going in.

[Cornellian]

:start physics nerd rant:

the only view in which you could see white between the goal line and the puck can fully be attributed to parallax, or a faulty viewing angle leading one to believe in the conclusiveness of what is, in reality, an inconclusive perspective.

:end physics nerd rant:

You definitely can't overturn that. It was a very close, very interesting play on all accounts, but that's no goal for the Flames.

[mikgaes]

Wow. That's as close a call as I remember seeing. I think Teh C called it correctly. No goal.

[bduff54]

no goal, didn't matter anyway calgary won

[FamousAmos]

that was interesting!

[coryjd]

Spam for SCI. Should be in the NHL forum. ;)

(no goal)

[billsfan69]

No goal. The puck didn't completely cross the goal line.

[skoorah720]

No Goal.

[buffalofan19]

No Goal.

The funniest part about this video, however, is the producer in the background arguing with the color guy.

[GOBILLSGO!!!]

Goal...you can see white.

[charbs]

All these "No Goals" make me want to commit suicide.

**** you Brett Hull.


Someone had to say it

[Jeanneret's LaLaLa]

the two angles contradict each other so u cant say either is correct. therefore its no goal b/c they didnt call it a goal originally. had they called it a goal and then reviewed it, it may have been called a goal.

[smashingt2312]

Not a goal.

[BLeonard]

I gotta go with no goal as well. The rules state the ENTIRE PUCK must cross the goal line. The two major indicators for me, before seeing the replays are the fact that the on ice official IMMEDIATELY waves it off. That, combined with the fact that the goal judge did not call it a goal either. Those two factors, combined with what most will consider inconclusive evidence (Personally, I think the overhead shot is the telltale one, and I did not see white on that shot) mean that the on-ice call should stand.

Very, very close though.

-Bill

[atomheart]

This is the same thing as that spinning puck that we had a few years ago against Ottawa... Even though you can see white between the line and the base of the puck, that doesn't mean that it's completely in. If it's tilted only a little bit (considering the base was in by no more than a centimeter) than it will still not be over the line. It's the projection of the puck onto the plane of the ice surface that has to cross the line completely. The problem being of course, that the overhead IS NOT exactly over the goal line, hence you can see the cross bar and the line. So, that's a toughy, I say that it was probably in considering how little was covering the line from the overhead angle and it's positioning behind the goal line. But it was inconclusive for sure. BTW you could probably make a computer program that would tell you exactly where the puck was.... I really don't why they wouldn't try it at least.

[SJCI]

no goal, close but i still say no goal

[blue sonya17]

Close as you will ever get, but I would have to say no goal.

[SabresFan220]

Wow, that was incredible. Unfortunately for the Flames I'd have to say No Goal too. It was very close but the entire puck was not across the line, that's a tough break, but they came back to win anyway. Good for them.

[shotgun]

it's a goal

[sabrills70]

I say goal. They keep saying that if the puck was flat it would still be on the line. It wasn't flat, I saw white, its a goal.

[Ralonzo]

Clearly no goal. This isn't football. In football, any part of the ball touches any part of the plane of the goal line, and it's a TD. In hockey, all of the puck needs to be all the way across the plane of the goal line to be a goal, and that was definitely not the case.

[ksl66]

NO goal inconclusive, the front angle it appears that the puck is over and you can see white between the puck and the line, the overhead shows that it was still on the red. Have to go no goal.

[foster]

Another year passes and the NHL still has no real good camera angles to determine goal or no goal.

I say goal, but it can't be called that because of the call of no goal on the ice. Not conclusive enough to overturn it.

[pi2000]

just give it to 'em

[IlluminatusUIUC]

I have to agree it wasn't a goal, but only because it was the call on the ice. Whichever way the ref called it on the ice, I'd agree with after those replays.