Disappearing Puck Goal

[sc37 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N6Dxp1NNVI

Being a CBJ fan, I'm ticked that the goal was awarded, and that the CBJ got hosed by the refs on penalty calls. It was pretty ridiculous...to top it off the Wild win on that goal. The puck gets thrown towards the goal and it supposedly goes into Walz's pants while he goes flying into the net. I thought the replay rule was that you must see the puck cross the line in order for it to be called? They we're on the phone with Toronto for more than 5 minutes getting it worked out...and they assumed the puck was in Walz's pants nad allowed it. For all they know on the replay, the puck could be stuck in Chimera's gloves. No one knew where the puck was...it disappeared, even when Walz gets up no puck falls out. Think the NHL is screwing it up with the replay and shoddy reffing.

[hockechamp14 0]

They took 15 minutnes, I'm sure they figured out where the puck went by the rules of modern physics. Maybe if your blue jackets D-man didn't mug Walz on his way to the net, he wouldn't have fallen into the net with the puck.

Speaking of Wes Walz, he's my new hero. Screw Rory Fitzpatrick, I want Wes Walz in the all star game!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT30PTvchoQ&NR

[TBLfan 25]

They took 15 minutnes, I'm sure they figured out where the puck went by the rules of modern physics. Maybe if your blue jackets D-man didn't mug Walz on his way to the net, he wouldn't have fallen into the net with the puck.

Speaking of Wes Walz, he's my new hero. Screw Rory Fitzpatrick, I want Wes Walz in the all star game!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT30PTvchoQ&NR

That's not how it's supposed to work. You have to visually see the entire puck inside the goal. Remember the Cam Ward "save" in the playoffs? Puck inside glove, glove inside net... no goal.

And tell me about the goals being awarded in toronto. Two times this season a goal was scored on the Lightning off of a very apparent high stick. One was because the only videos Toronto got was from Boston's local station which I guess "didn't have access" to anything but an overhead angle at the goal. And the other one being against Atlanta this week, who knows why they didn't call that one off.

All in all we can both blame our teams because they could have done something better to stop the situation from happening in the first place... what can you do?

[cabreezy 0]

The Cam Ward glove thing is different because not his whole glove was in the net. The reason it was disallowed was because half the glove was over the line and half was out and no one could tell where in his glove the puck was. On the other hand, with Walz, his whole body was inside the net.

[TBLfan 25]

the entire pocket was in the net, the pocket of the glove was obviously where the puck was. It was obvious that it was a goal, but they couldn't visually see it so it was correctly(by the description of the rule) called a no goal.

[DamnLocust 0]

The pocket was in. but not the entire glove. if Ward's entire glove were inside the net, (from the wrist on out), It would have been called a goal. Otherwise there would be no point in even reviewing such a play.

[hockechamp14 0]

You guys can say whatever you want. The most important lesson here is that even with an impossible angle, Walz busted his ass to the net and good things happened.

[TBLfan 25]

The pocket was in. but not the entire glove. if Ward's entire glove were inside the net, (from the wrist on out), It would have been called a goal. Otherwise there would be no point in even reviewing such a play.

and obviously the puck could be on the cuff right? Only the pocket needed to be in the net, you could tell that it wasn't trapped in the palm. But whatever, conclusive evidence is apparently pretty damn vague and it basically gives them the ability to call whatever they want.

[DamnLocust 0]

and obviously the puck could be on the cuff right? Only the pocket needed to be in the net, you could tell that it wasn't trapped in the palm. But whatever, conclusive evidence is apparently pretty damn vague and it basically gives them the ability to call whatever they want.

I haven't seen the video in a while, so I can't remember just how far in it was (I agree, the puck was indeed in the net, but I like to play devil's advocate) It is possible that the puck was in the palm of the glove, very close to the cuff. It was not conclusively known WHERE in the glove the puck was, and that was why the goal was called off.

If the puck was entirely in the glove, and the glove was entirely over the goal line, it could indeed be called a goal, even though the puck itself was not seen.

This is the case with Walz. The judgement was made that the puck was entirely in his pants, and his pants were entirely beyond the goal line (along with the rest of him).

(I haven't even seen the video yet so I'm admittedly talking from my ass in the last statement. That's why I added the "judgement" clause.)

[nizmo 0]

^^^^

We have a winner.

[TBLfan 25]

and obviously the puck could be on the cuff right? Only the pocket needed to be in the net, you could tell that it wasn't trapped in the palm. But whatever, conclusive evidence is apparently pretty damn vague and it basically gives them the ability to call whatever they want.

I haven't seen the video in a while, so I can't remember just how far in it was (I agree, the puck was indeed in the net, but I like to play devil's advocate) It is possible that the puck was in the palm of the glove, very close to the cuff. It was not conclusively known WHERE in the glove the puck was, and that was why the goal was called off.

If the puck was entirely in the glove, and the glove was entirely over the goal line, it could indeed be called a goal, even though the puck itself was not seen.

This is the case with Walz. The judgement was made that the puck was entirely in his pants, and his pants were entirely beyond the goal line (along with the rest of him).

(I haven't even seen the video yet so I'm admittedly talking from my ass in the last statement. That's why I added the "judgement" clause.)

Which basically goes with my statement of "conclusive evidence is apparently pretty damn vague and it basically gives them the ability to call whatever they want."

If they call something off that people don't like "oh well we couldn't see the puck, so we didn't know it was there." If they allow a goal "oh well we couldn't see that the puck didn't not do something that it shouldn't have been not allowed."

[DamnLocust 0]

"oh well we couldn't see that the puck didn't not do something that it shouldn't have been not allowed."

my brain hurts...