GDT: #69 - 03/16/14 | San Jose Sharks @ New York Rangers | 4:00 - MSG

[Doctor King Schultz]

I'm not sure if it was a bad call so much as a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE rule. Just excruciatingly bad. Why can't common sense or more importantly the laws of physics be enough? Ridiculous.

Yea they really need to change the rule.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

This has been brought up in my circles.

I was thinking about this too, which is the game I thought of when I said "it's gone our way". Both cases common sense should trump all. The limitations of video (what ****ing year are we in anyway?) shouldn't overturn an important goal in a game with playoff implications. It's a disgrace.

 

[Fitzy]

When the Rangers are beneficiaries of a bad call I'm happy to admit it. Sort of pointless to defend a bad call, there isn't any honor on the line for the Sharks here.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

We need a big third now. I think his is the best game we've played in a few now and Niemi is playing very well. But we have at least showed up with a better effort, which always leaves me with less to criticize. Our lack or compete is my most common complaint. Keep the effort up for the third and get this tied up.

By the way, does anyone have some energy saving tips that might save me some money?

 

[NCRanger]

This has been brought up in my circles.

In that case, you never actually see the puck ever come out over the line.

Yes, Buffalo PROBABLY scored there, but there was actually less proof that this one.

 

[Machinehead]

Okay, I stand corrected. Still a bs rule

I agree with you. It's too black and white. It's either blatantly in the net in front of your face or it isn't. It doesn't allow for any basic logic which I think should be afforded during a judgement call.

Under the current nonsense, the refs hands are tied.

 

[Killem Dafoe]

I see you also don't believe in simple physics.

They're right, you need conclusive evidence of the puck in the net. No matter how ridiculously in the net the puck was. But I think that's a really dumb rule and always have. Same reasons why goalies lose the puck and fall straight back, slowly sliding themselves out of the net. To block the camera's view of the puck.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Technology

 

[stenis22]

Just one question, why the **** is conclusive evidence "seeing the puck cross the line"? sounds ****ing stupid to me.. It can be pretty ****ing conclusive without seeing it.. If its in the net it's in the net... Pejorative Slurs

 

[Hunter Gathers]

This.

So you agree that the natural laws of physics indicate that that was a good goal?

Nice to know. Then why didn't it count? Nowhere in the rule book does it state that we have to witness the puck go across the line with our own eyes. Just conclusive evidence.

If the laws of physics definitively show that the puck cannot physically be behind the post AND not have crossed the line, then explain to me how that isn't conclusive evidence?

There was 100% definitive, conclusive proof that the puck crossed the line and the Toronna just chose to ignore it.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

**** it. This team has to sack up.

 

[SnarkAttack]

Why are you on the Rangers board?

We all know what the opinion of Sharks fans is in this case. We don't need your input.

I didn't realize that only Rangers' fans could have an opinion here

I also wasn't rude, and was also relaying that we've been screwed over by this multiple times this year as well, as well as explaining the same explanation we've heard every time it has happened to us this year.

I'd have the same opinion no matter what team I root for. I use logic, and not bias. The rule is dumb, but they used the terrible rule they had in place correctly.

 

[SA16]

So you agree that the natural laws of physics indicate that that was a good goal?

Nice to know. Then why didn't it count? Nowhere in the rule book does it state that we have to witness the puck go across the line with our own eyes. Just conclusive evidence.

If the laws of physics definitively show that the puck cannot physically be behind the post AND not have crossed the line, then explain to me how that isn't conclusive evidence?

There was 100% definitive, conclusive proof that the puck crossed the line and the Toronna just chose to ignore it.

Yea I don't know why people seem to think the definition of the word conclusive is "can be directly seen on a camera." It's not. Seeing it on camera is only one way for it to be conclusive.

 

[Doctor King Schultz]

Will Derick Brassard score again this season?

 

[chosen]

I see you also don't believe in simple physics.

This is not about simple physics. It is about a bad rule. It doesn't change if we whine.

 

[ajdj10]

Will Derick Brassard score again this season?

Yes. But not MSL.

 

[NCRanger]

I didn't realize that only Rangers' fans could have an opinion here

I also wasn't rude, and was also relaying that we've been screwed over by this multiple times this year as well, as well as explaining the same explanation we've heard every time it has happened to us this year.

I'd have the same opinion no matter what team I root for. I use logic, and not bias. The rule is dumb, but they used the terrible rule they had in place correctly.

I agree with you if it makes you feel better.

Still was a goal however.

 

[Hire Sather]

Marty?

Rick?

Time to step up. They won't.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

And, as said countless times now, it's physically impossible for the puck to not be across the line once it's behind the post like that. It's just impossible. There's no .001% chance that it's not all the way across the line. There's no margin of error. It's actually impossible.

If the call on the ice was a goal, they wouldnt have overturned it because no conclusive evidence shows the puck DIDNT cross the line. Funny how the rule works.

So we have a goal judge, four officials and cameras. Yet no conclusive evidence.

The NHL sucks.

 

[egelband]

I didn't realize that only Rangers' fans could have an opinion here

I also wasn't rude, and was also relaying that we've been screwed over by this multiple times this year as well, as well as explaining the same explanation we've heard every time it has happened to us this year.

I'd have the same opinion no matter what team I root for. I use logic, and not bias. The rule is dumb, but they used the terrible rule they had in place correctly.

don't sweat it. just a bit emotional at the moment. you weren't rude at all. and i agree...it was likely a goal and the rule is poor. just happens a lot to the rangers, it seems. we're all quite frustrated.

 

[SnarkAttack]

So you agree that the natural laws of physics indicate that that was a good goal?

Nice to know. Then why didn't it count? Nowhere in the rule book does it state that we have to witness the puck go across the line with our own eyes. Just conclusive evidence.

If the laws of physics definitively show that the puck cannot physically be behind the post AND not have crossed the line, then explain to me how that isn't conclusive evidence?

There was 100% definitive, conclusive proof that the puck crossed the line and the Toronna just chose to ignore it.

It was extremely likely that the puck went in, and I believe it did. However, because of the angle there is a scenario where the puck could have still been touching the goal line while not being visible. If Niemi happened to stop it as soon as the puck went behind the post then it wouldn't have fully crossed the line. The NHL rule states that conclusive evidence, not just extremely likely evidence.

Like I've said elsewhere, the rule needs to be changed.

 

[AHB*]

I didn't realize that only Rangers' fans could have an opinion here

I also wasn't rude, and was also relaying that we've been screwed over by this multiple times this year as well, as well as explaining the same explanation we've heard every time it has happened to us this year.

I'd have the same opinion no matter what team I root for. I use logic, and not bias. The rule is dumb, but they used the terrible rule they had in place correctly.

I agree with you also. It shouldn't have been a goal, rule was called correctly. But quite honestly, you coming here and stating that point is all but rubbing it in our faces, whether you agree or not.

You are only asking for trouble on a heated board when you come here and do something like that as an opposing fan.

Pretty sure there's some common sense you could apply to this situation as well.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

This is not about simple physics. It is about a bad rule. It doesn't change if we whine.

Incorrect. It's about the consistent misapplication of the rule.

The rule does not state that there has to be video evidence of the puck crossing the line. Just conclusive evidence that the puck crossed the line. Nowhere in the rule book does it state that conclusive means the puck has to be visible the entire time.

The rule is fine. The application of the rule can be horrendous at times.

It's physically impossible for the puck to have been anywhere else but behind the line. Thus, that is conclusive proof that the puck was behind the line. If you have a physical impossibility, it is the very definition of conclusive proof.

 

[Kane One]

Gotta shoot there.

 

[nevesis]

Stepan fail.