Jump to content
The Official Site of the Calgary Flames
Sign in to follow this  
DirtyDeeds

It was IN.

Recommended Posts

There was 2 inches of white ice between the puck and the goal line...   It was IN...

 

                     963fcac514de3d4afc55f358ecea6a5c.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really hurts, but to be fair... they had OT to win it and didn't, they also had game 7 and didn't.

 

It completely sucks, but the Flames also had ample opportunity to still win the Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, further, the fact that there was no reaction at ice level indicates that it almost certainly wasn't in. There was no celebration, no confusion, and no controversy until ten minutes later when CBC showed the replay.

 

It didn't happen, and they didn't win in OT, and they didn't take Game 7. It sure was a fun spring, though. I was really proud, and although I had hoped for the other possible outcome, I had nothing but pride for the boys and the city where I'm from. No sense in getting worked up, or feeling slighted over something that didn't happen. 

 

Love.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two takes.  I believe the puck went over, but I'm 100% sure it wouldn't have counted I don't even no if this would have been a thing if ABC didn't bring it up and CBC didn't start showing it and nobody would've talked about it after, but 5 years ago when it happened again to Bennett I felt that was also in and technology was better in providing clearer images, but even then I can understand how it isn't conclusive.  I know when both happened people felt screwed or turned it into a whole Bettman Anti-Calgary conspiracy but I've never seen anything similar get reversed and I've seen more plays where you can see the puck is logically behind the line in a goalies glove but no clear evidence of it crossing means no goal 100% of the time.  It was what it was and I'm quite over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sak22 said:

My two takes.  I believe the puck went over, but I'm 100% sure it wouldn't have counted I don't even no if this would have been a thing if ABC didn't bring it up and CBC didn't start showing it and nobody would've talked about it after, but 5 years ago when it happened again to Bennett I felt that was also in and technology was better in providing clearer images, but even then I can understand how it isn't conclusive.  I know when both happened people felt screwed or turned it into a whole Bettman Anti-Calgary conspiracy but I've never seen anything similar get reversed and I've seen more plays where you can see the puck is logically behind the line in a goalies glove but no clear evidence of it crossing means no goal 100% of the time.  It was what it was and I'm quite over it.

 

It's less on the NHL and more on Fraser.

Anyone that watched games with him officiating knew his bias against Canadian teams.

It.Was.Just.So.Obvious.

 

The ref often has a better view of the puck than even cameras today.

Today, they prefer to not call it and let technology be the decider.

 

By rights, the goal jusge should have hit the button.

In theory, he has a line of sight to the puck.

Habby's pad was in the net, so he should have signalled goal.

Unfortuneately, they are biased.

And so, we get to live with Fraser's non-call.

 

I guess it's no different today.

Seldom is a goal on the ice challenged; its always a non-call.

I would add that I can't even remember a goal on the ice called back or even challenged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

It's less on the NHL and more on Fraser.

Anyone that watched games with him officiating knew his bias against Canadian teams.

It.Was.Just.So.Obvious.

 

The ref often has a better view of the puck than even cameras today.

Today, they prefer to not call it and let technology be the decider.

 

By rights, the goal jusge should have hit the button.

In theory, he has a line of sight to the puck.

Habby's pad was in the net, so he should have signalled goal.

Unfortuneately, they are biased.

And so, we get to live with Fraser's non-call.

 

I guess it's no different today.

Seldom is a goal on the ice challenged; its always a non-call.

I would add that I can't even remember a goal on the ice called back or even challenged.

Fraser didn't work that game.  He worked a game in Calgary where he gave Nieminen a 5 minute major late in the game which turned the ice into the trash can and was removed from game 6 for safety and given game 7 instead.  Very difficult to pick that up as it happens, we've seen it slowed down a million times so its easy for us to dissect it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sak22 said:

Fraser didn't work that game.  He worked a game in Calgary where he gave Nieminen a 5 minute major late in the game which turned the ice into the trash can and was removed from game 6 for safety and given game 7 instead.  Very difficult to pick that up as it happens, we've seen it slowed down a million times so its easy for us to dissect it.

 

Let me guess.  Don Koharsky?

Sorry about the mixup, I thought I had watched that game and saw him.

If it was DK, then I have the same opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Heartbreaker said:

And, further, the fact that there was no reaction at ice level indicates that it almost certainly wasn't in. There was no celebration, no confusion, and no controversy until ten minutes later when CBC showed the replay.

 

It didn't happen, and they didn't win in OT, and they didn't take Game 7. It sure was a fun spring, though. I was really proud, and although I had hoped for the other possible outcome, I had nothing but pride for the boys and the city where I'm from. No sense in getting worked up, or feeling slighted over something that didn't happen. 

 

Love.  

Have to disagree there. The fact it was a very quick play in both Gelinas shot and Khabbys reaction and the fact play went on for a bit it makes sense no one reacted right away. Obviously someone saw the potential of a goal and t was reviewed accordingly, even in todays game we see goal reviews minutes after the fact when play is stopped.  You are right in the fact that the Flames had ample opportunity to finish the game/series but failed to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's harder to cope with the fact they lost OT and then game seven, strictly because that should have been the series winner right there. 

I was pretty young at the time but I remember watching with my dad and both of us were pretty furious. 

 

Ah well. It was a long time ago, hopefully next time the Flames make the final the result is flipped ala 86' and 89'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My honest opinion on this was I actually don’t think it was in and even if it was in there was no way it was going to be ruled a goal after review. There’s just no way to tell conclusively. 
 

I’m more upset about the non call on the trip on Simon in 2OT that allowed St Louis to get the winner. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the image posted by the OP is clear proof that it was in.

 

People say no, it might have been in mid-air and that's why you see the white-space from the goal line.   

 

Well, if it was in mid-air, we wouldn't be able to see the goalie's entire pad.  Yet, we clearly can.  Plus there are several other angles showing it along the ice.

 

We were robbed on this goal and generally on officiating.  I wish ownership had counter-sued the NHL when Sutter was fined for stating the obvious.

 

The NHL does not want a Canadian team to win the cup.  Or, at very least, did not then and for some period of time.  It will happen but we'll have to beat the referee, the team, and Bettman.  Which will make it all that much sweeter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

The video evidence from Shannon is more laughable that the ABC reconstruction, but just barely.

Bennett's goal was supposedly inches off the ice, yet the pad behind it rouches the ice and is about a CM below the puck.

That is it Mr. Goof.

P is a joke in this caase.

 

As for the Habby save, the puck was not jumping up.  It was on the the ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am of the belief that this exact play could happen again and it still wouldn't be called a goal. I mean the Bennett goal was more obvious and that was no goal.

 

The review system is so flawed, how many times have there been pucks that cross the line but are under a goalies glove. Common sense tells you it's a goal, but you can't "see" the puck so it's no goal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Thebrewcrew said:

I am of the belief that this exact play could happen again and it still wouldn't be called a goal. I mean the Bennett goal was more obvious and that was no goal.

 

The review system is so flawed, how many times have there been pucks that cross the line but are under a goalies glove. Common sense tells you it's a goal, but you can't "see" the puck so it's no goal

 

And yet I have seen the glove goal counted.

The argument being they saw the puck before and after.

Bennett's was a wonder to see, and I had forgotted about the anger.

There was no "proof" from Shannon with a goalie's pad in relief.

Or as a measurement tool to compare views.

Just a graphic with no measurements or even how high it kinda looked.

Just 3D made to "prove" a point.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...