GDT: HFBoards GDT | 02/21/2015

[hisgirlfriday]

Blues are losing their composure instead of trying to win a game.

That's just Backes being Backes when he's losing.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

Horc! 6-4 Stars. HANG ON!

 

[Vamos Rafa]

I think it'd be better if coaches were dressed like that in every game instead of being in business suits.

 

[penguins2946*]

bull you couldn't conclusively say it wasn't a goal. The NHL review room just needs bigger balls. It was a goal, and you could conclusively say that. Unless the puck vanished into a black hole when the pad clearly went well over the line.

There was no clear shot of the puck in the net. It was clearly in if you use logic, but the NHL war room doesn't do that. They only call it a goal if there is a clear shot of the puck in the net.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Horc! 6-4 Stars. HANG ON!

nice goal. Even for the PP I'm not sure how he was so wide open.

It's frustrating because in a game with so few penalties, that came on such a dive from Benn.

 

[PensFanSince1989]

There was no clear shot of the puck in the net. It was clearly in if you use logic, but the NHL war room doesn't do that. They only call it a goal if there is a clear shot of the puck in the net.

It went under a pad that clearly went over the line. It's the same if they puck is in a glove that's well in the net, which they stupidly have refused to call a goal too many times in the past. they are stupid and need to change their definition of conclusive. Because that was a conclusive goal.

 

[Korpse]

Looks like the Senators have themselves a goalie in Hammond.

Haha. No, no they do not.

 

[penguins2946*]

It went under a pad that clearly went over the line. It's the same if they puck is in a glove that's well in the net, which they stupidly have refused to call a goal too many times in the past. they are stupid and need to change their definition of conclusive. Because that was a conclusive goal.

There was no clear view that showed the puck was in the net. You're wrong here. Logic can easily tell that it was a goal, there was no camera angle that showed the puck was in the net.

Sutter scores, 4-0 now.

 

[PensFanSince1989]

There was no clear view that showed the puck was in the net. You're wrong here. Logic can easily tell that it was a goal, there was no camera angle that showed the puck was in the net.

Sutter scores, 4-0 now.

Yes there was. The fact that you can't see the black puck in the net is irrelevant. You know where the puck is. It's conclusively a goal. The fact that it's under the pad does that's clearly in the net doesn't change that. Unless somehow physics changed and the puck entered some sort of void and disappeared, it was a conclusive goal. The NHL needs a better definition of conclusive.

 

[Shaftception]

It went under a pad that clearly went over the line. It's the same if they puck is in a glove that's well in the net, which they stupidly have refused to call a goal too many times in the past. they are stupid and need to change their definition of conclusive. Because that was a conclusive goal.

It is stupid, but it's not written that way, only conclusive evidence of the whole puck visibly unobstructed over the goaline, they'd have to rewrite it to allow assumption, which I doubt they'll ever do because it'll open up the possibility of the 1 in 1000 chance a game is decided by such a goal and it creates media scrutiny. They'll invent new technology for such a case before they'll allow logic to dictate a goal, no matter how obvious a goal should be.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

I think the first one to 7 wins in Dallas

 

[penguins2946*]

Yes there was. The fact that you can't see the black puck in the net is irrelevant. You know where the puck is. It's conclusively a goal. The fact that it's under the pad does that's clearly in the net doesn't change that.

There was no shot that showed the puck was in the net. I don't know why you can't get that. You can assume the puck was in, and it definitely was, but they can't overturn calls based on assumptions.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

6-5.

TB hangs on. Mixed feelings for this Habs fan. Glad the Coyotes lost so Toronto gains 2 points on them, sucks TB won.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

6-5.

Crazy game.

Dallas has been carrying play most of the night.

It's like the somehow lured the Wings into their style of not much defense but lots of offense.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Cole with embellishment to draw a penalty.

 

[PensFanSince1989]

There was no shot that showed the puck was in the net. I don't know why you can't get that. You can assume the puck was in, and it definitely was, but they can't overturn calls based on assumptions.

I'm not sure what you're having trouble getting. Lets say the puck is in the glove. You know the puck is in the glove, you see it go in the glove. You see it come out of the glove at the end. You see the glove in between go all the way into the net and even touch the back of the net.

Under your standard, that can't be overturned because you can't see the physical puck when it's in the net, even though it's conclusively a goal. If that's the NHL's definition of conclusive, it needs to change it. I realize how the NHL has called it in the past and this isn't the first time they've gotten it wrong based on some Pejorative Slured notion of what 'conclusive' means. But again, that doesn't make it right.

 

[PensFanSince1989]

It is stupid, but it's not written that way, only conclusive evidence of the whole puck visibly unobstructed over the goaline, they'd have to rewrite it to allow assumption, which I doubt they'll ever do because it'll open up the possibility of the 1 in 1000 chance a game is decided by such a goal and it creates media scrutiny. They'll invent new technology for such a case before they'll allow logic to dictate a goal, no matter how obvious a goal should be.

It's not assumption. I'm not assuming the puck is under that pad, that is all the way over the line. I see the puck go under the pad that's all the way over the line.

 

[LetsGoBLUES91]

Greiss has been very good for the Pens tonight. Always frustrating when a backup comes in and does something like that.

 

[Shaftception]

It's not assumption. I'm not assuming the puck is under that pad, that is all the way over the line. I see the puck go under the pad that's all the way over the line.

This will be the last I respond because there's no clearer way to put this.

The rule states there must be visual evidence of a 100% unobstructed puck over the goal line. If it's in a glove, if it's behind a post, if it's under the goalie's fat ass, as long as there's no shot where there's white space between the puck and the red line, it's not a goal.

You should know this since a pitt staff member of their video production crew was fired for apparently withholding an angle during a video replay against phi years ago that showed the goalie pull the puck out behind the post which logically would've meant it was a goal, the call was no goal.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

It's like the somehow lured the Wings into their style of not much defense but lots of offense.

Stars do that to almost everybody. It's so fun to watch.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Stars do that to almost everybody. It's so fun to watch.

Fun to watch, but not a winning strategy for the Wings unfortunately.

Most times the Wings score 5 goals, the game is in the bag for them.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

I think the first one to 7 wins in Dallas

Called it.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

Oooh Abdelkader did totally interfere there. Tough break, Stars.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

The Stars defence needs an overhaul. Ridiculous.

 

[Nicko999]

6-6 now... What a crazy game.


Who said scoring was down?