Post-Game Talk: Leafs Lose 7-3

[ACC1224]

Good one

I know logic can be difficult, best to laugh it away.

 

[RunItBackAgain]

I know logic can be difficult, best to laugh it away.

I mean the game is over we lost and looked like trash. I didn't see the puck across the line. If you did, good for you.

 

[hockeyes]

You’re saying they lied? Why would they do that?

No, I don't think they lied. I think the ref called it a good goal on the ice due to a mistake (it was obviously very close, easy mistake to make), saw the replay and couldn't personally see an obvious reason to overturn so said it was a good goal. The problem of course, is it's possible for them to be wrong, but it is a little inexcusable to not know the goal line extends post to post even if you can't see it. The NHL isn't sending their best, that is for sure.

 

[RunItBackAgain]

The NHL isn't sending their best, that is for sure.

"best" at what though? Cause they sent their best at something

 

[Dekes For Days]

Yep. Two more videos of the puck not completely crossing the line.
It's amazing how many people get fooled by a little bit of snow. Heck, even the league did.

 

[ACC1224]

No, I don't think they lied. I think the ref called it a good goal on the ice due to a mistake (it was obviously very close, easy mistake to make), saw the replay and couldn't personally see an obvious reason to overturn so said it was a good goal. The problem of course, is it's possible for them to be wrong, but it is a little inexcusable to not know the goal line extends post to post even if you can't see it. The NHL isn't sending their best, that is for sure.

They said it was conclusive. The review is done at an office, not solely by the ref.

I believe the post is slightly wider than the goal line.

I mean the game is over we lost and looked like trash. I didn't see the puck across the line. If you did, good for you.

I didn’t see it cross the line the league did

 

[1specter]

Guys, the goal was called as it was. Move on and go to sleep

 

[Sizzle]

I'm constantly reminded to trust my own eyes over the opinions of random HF informants.

If the puck had a chip like soccer you'd be able to see it wasn't fully over the line, im pretty confident in saying that. For the ref to call that a "goal" on the ice means he clearly saw it in the net (hint - he didn't). Thats the frustrating part for me, doesn't matter playoffs, exhibition game whatever. Its the league not wanting to show up their official imo.

Edit - I will certainly admit its veryyyy close and would be tough to determine in a quick review.

 

[RunItBackAgain]

They said it was conclusive. The review is done at an office, not solely by the ref.

I believe the post is slightly wider than the goal line.


I didn’t see it cross the line the league did

Well I don't think it's too much to ask for the capture of it across the line. Where is the crossbar camera?

 

[ACC1224]

Well I don't think it's too much to ask for the capture of it across the line. Where is the crossbar camera?

Ask them then but I don’t believe they are obligated to show it.
The bigger issue IMO is Samsonov allowing the goal.

 

[hockeyes]

They said it was conclusive. The review is done at an office, not solely by the ref.

I believe the post is slightly wider than the goal line.

They can tell me whatever they want, unless they are going to release evidence and clearly explain what made it conclusive, I'll assume they are just covering their own asses. Why? Because it would be so easy to just do it, the only reason you wouldn't is because you can't.

The post isn't wider than the goal line, there is about a million photos you can easily google to see for yourself. Certainly not more narrow to explain 1/4th of a puck being in front of the back of the post.

 

[RunItBackAgain]

Ask them then but I don’t believe they are obligated to show it.
The bigger issue IMO is Samsonov allowing the goal.

I agree but we've already beaten that to death. 19.5 hours left

 

[Dekes For Days]

It must be wild to have absolute, unwavering faith that every call in the history of the NHL has been 100% correct, in the face of piles and piles of contrasting evidence.

 

[ACC1224]

They can tell me whatever they want, unless they are going to release evidence and clearly explain what made it conclusive, I'll assume they are just covering their own asses. Why? Because it would be so easy to just do it, the only reason you wouldn't is because you can't.

The post isn't wider than the goal line, there is about a million photos you can easily google to see for yourself. Certainly not more narrow to explain 1/4th of a puck being in front of the back of the post.

This makes very little sense.

 

[andora]

They can tell me whatever they want, unless they are going to release evidence and clearly explain what made it conclusive, I'll assume they are just covering their own asses. Why? Because it would be so easy to just do it, the only reason you wouldn't is because you can't.

The post isn't wider than the goal line, there is about a million photos you can easily google to see for yourself. Certainly not more narrow to explain 1/4th of a puck being in front of the back of the post.

Kinda looks like it is

 

[Sizzle]

This makes very little sense.

If its this hard for all of us to decide after looking at it for 24 hours then ask yourself how a ref in live action from 10-15 feet away with obstructions was able to see it?

 

[Osmows OReilly]

It must be wild to have absolute, unwavering faith that every decision made by Kyle Dubas in his tenure with the Leafs has been 100% correct, in the face of piles and piles of contrasting evidence.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Yes, obviously no person or league is 100% perfect. That's the whole point. Please don't edit my posts.

 

[Ports]

Rielly played well enough to win last year. He was the best defenseman in the series. Tavares literally single handedly won that series against Florida too.

I guess it’s just me but I expect more from veteran players who wear the C and A and are highly paid to win in the playoffs.

 

[ACC1224]

If its this hard for all of us to decide after looking at it for 24 hours then ask yourself how a ref in live action from 10-15 feet away with obstructions was able to see it?

I don’t think he was that far away but that’s a fair comment for sure. I’m just talking about the review process. Arguing that even after review it’s still wrong is a little silly.

 

[authentic]

I know logic can be difficult, best to laugh it away.

Live footage of ACC1224 laughing it away

 

[hockeyes]

Kinda looks like it is

Looks like what? Be specific please. You are cherry picking a forward overhead angle that doesn't fool anyone with a basic understanding of angles.

 

[AndyWozniewski]

You can tell the ref didn't see it go in. He called it a goal after seeing Perry's celebration. And then there wasn't enough in the video to conclusively take it away, so they stayed with the call on the ice.

 

[notbias]

yup one of the dumbest thing I've ever seen in hockey

it is crazy how impartial analysts and coaches said it was something he should have done, and then people who hate Keefe have an issue with it... wonder who's opinion is more valid...

He challenge the play after a review of something completely unrelated where they could not call it back for what was challenged... what a dumb play.

 

[PromisedLand]

it is crazy how impartial analysts and coaches said it was something he should have done, and then people who hate Keefe have an issue with it... wonder who's opinion is more valid...

He challenge the play after a review of something completely unrelated where they could not call it back for what was challenged... what a dumb play.

there was no goalie interference. not sure what keefe was challenging there but ok.....