GDT: PDF Game 3 | Ducks @ Flames 5/5/15 7:30 MT

[Ace Rimmer]

Ugh. Well, honestly this is one where you have to hate the rules, not hate the decision. It wasn't technically conclusive. Why the **** couldn't it be seen on the overhead, though? Why isn't it in a line with the crossbar and the goal line?

Yeah that overhead cam is complete crap, rather pointless to have it there.

 

[Bladerunner]

TBH I'm pulling for Ducks (Bruce B factor), but I think the Flames got robbed on that call. Puck looked like it was at least a few mm over the line.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

These refs are pathetic, I'm just beside myself.

 

[Lunatik]

I'm seriously close to turning this **** off and going to bed.

 

[Mobiandi]

You'd think with it being 2015, we could have cameras in the posts or crossbar to provide conclusive evidence and prevent this **** from happening again 11 years later

 

[Lunatik]

This was not a goal (conclusive), similar to Gélinas vs Tampa, seen white doesn't mean it's a goal cause the puck was a little bit in they air (physics). I cannot believe that they don't have a camera on the net or something like that cause the angle they show on television is just terrible.

go to the main board and justify it

 

[WTG]

 

[DCDM]

I'm seriously close to turning this **** off and going to bed.

If Maroon had scored I would have thrown something.

 

[Anglesmith]

What red-line are the refs looking at?

 

[Wayne Primeau]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1891325

 

[St Wardo]

Ugh. Well, honestly this is one where you have to hate the rules, not hate the decision. It wasn't technically conclusive. Why the **** couldn't it be seen on the overhead, though? Why isn't it in a line with the crossbar and the goal line?

Yeah, that's my gripe too. Why, after 11 years, they still haven't figured out a better system is frustrating.

 

[Channelcat]

This was not a goal (conclusive), similar to Gélinas vs Tampa, seen white doesn't mean it's a goal cause the puck was a little bit in they air (physics). I cannot believe that they don't have a camera on the net or something like that cause the angle they show on television is just terrible.

No, the puck was travelling along the ice. You can see it on the replay where you actually see it leaving the stick and travelling along the ice all the way across the line.

 

[Lunatik]

that's across the line by at least a few inches, bobbling or not that is clearly across conclusively. we got completely ****ed there.

 

[Tofveve]

This was not a goal (conclusive), similar to Gélinas vs Tampa, seen white doesn't mean it's a goal cause the puck was a little bit in they air (physics). I cannot believe that they don't have a camera overhead or something like that cause the angle they show on television is just terrible.

It wasn't conclusive enough to overturn the on-ice call bottom line.

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

I wanna puke.

 

[varsaku]

In an age of technology, how has goal line technology like in soccer not being implemented in hockey. Goal line technology is very accurate and knows when it completely crosses the line.

 

[Bonk]

Wow. Great shot.

What an awful call.

 

[Tofveve]

Omg our pass decisions.

 

[DiMaGa]

You guys got screwed on that call sorry.

 

[Mobiandi]

**** this ****

 

[Calculon]

Stajan

Dumb penalty to take

 

[Ari Gold]

Problem with that angle is that it's an elevated puck.

Best course of action is to view the distance from FA's pads to the goal line.

Very hard call indeed...

We are seeing the white under the puck, not what's beside the puck.

 

[Northern Neighbour]

That was incredibly stupid by Stajan. What is he thinking?

 

[Mitts]

Dumb play.

 

[Tofveve]

**** me. It appears the control room is using cameras from the 80s.