Terrible No Goal for Habs against Rangers

[dkd]

Puck was 100% in the moment Henrik's pad hit it. Would've been an amazing save if it was actually saved outside the net. Toronto said no goal. what a joke.
#montrealtypical.

Click to read more...

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Looks like it was a good call when NESN just showed it, puck not all the way across.

 

[radicalcenter]

I thought it was in too, but it was a close call and the ref on the ice said no goal

 

[Kokoschka]

They need to change that rule asap, I've been saying that for some time now. There's a couple of those every year, admittedly, this was one of the more obvious ones. Get inconclusiveness out and common sense in. Where the heck can the puck be in that sequence if not behind the line?

 

[Constable]

if you looked at before they stopped the frame, youll notice it hit directly on the toe of his pad, curled up a bit, then went out

 

[dkd]

if you looked at before they stopped the frame, youll notice it hit directly on the toe of his pad, curled up a bit, then went out

When it was in.. yea.

 

[gary laser eyes]

Rangers got away with one. Puck was definitely in, just no conclusive camera shot for Habs unfortunately.

 

[Kokoschka]

Looks like it was a good call when NESN just showed it, puck not all the way across.

I'd say it actually was across, but the puck just had too much speed, so the camera couldn't catch it.

 

[JD1]

Definitely in when it hit his pad

 

[dkd]

Rangers got away with one. Puck was definitely in, just no conclusive camera shot for Habs unfortunately.

I know it can go both ways but I still don't get why they use Nokia 0.02 Mega Pixel cams if they make billions in revenue.

 

[Kokoschka]

So, I'll give this a shot:

Right call, stupid rule.

That's where every one of these kinds of thread is always ending, might as well get there now.

 

[vinzlol]

They need to change that rule asap, I've been saying that for some time now. There's a couple of those every year, admittedly, this was one of the more obvious ones. Get inconclusiveness out and common sense in. Where the heck can the puck be in that sequence if not behind the line?

And who exactly is meant to be the ''common sense'' reference in such situations ?

Rules are fine as they are right now. Right now it's impossible to tell just how much the puck WAS over the line or not. It does look like it was for a split second, but you can not say it was 100000% proof. Be real.

 

[Richter Scale]

I'll just copy and paste this here from the GDT:

Coming from an NYR fan, logic says that was a goal.

But based on the moronic way the Toronto war room reviews goal calls, they made the right call. Not a single camera angle definitively (or as they say it "conclusively") showed the puck completely across the line (i.e. you can see white between the red line and the puck).

They have made several of those types of calls against the Rangers this season, so I don't really feel that bad about it. But the NHL either needs to allow logic into the equation, get some better friggin cameras, OR get some puck sensors going so we don't need to keep dealing with this crap.

 

[Doctyl]

Puck probably in, but you are not allowed to use logic in this league. Cant see it in the net, no goal.

 

[EveryDay]

Typical Montreal!!!!! Always the same **** against MTL, when they go to Toronto they ALWAYS 100% of the time refuse the goal.....

 

[the paisanos guy]

They need to change that rule asap, I've been saying that for some time now. There's a couple of those every year, admittedly, this was one of the more obvious ones. Get inconclusiveness out and common sense in. Where the heck can the puck be in that sequence if not behind the line?

Completely agree. It's not even a matter of inconclusiveness, that was conclusively a goal by I think any reasonable metric. It's just the "there has to be a single frame shot of it all the way behind the red line" is a pretty arbitrary definition of conclusiveness.

Definitely not the first time this has happened and definitely won't be the last. Frustrating to see nonetheless.

 

[hoc123]

Can someone get a video of it.

 

[RoyalDuder]

Pretty obvious that it was inconclusive. It was called no goal on the ice and you needed clear proof, which there wasn't.

 

[Algernop Kreider]

It was pretty clearly a goal. However, there's plenty of precedent that anything that requires thinking beyond what you can clearly see will not be overturned.

The Rangers have already had 3 no-goals this season by this same standard.

 

[MakeTheGoalsLarger]

I was expecting a no goal because of the typical " there were no evidence....the call on the ice stands". they need to change that rule.

i dont know if its just me but the referees seem to more often than not call a "no goal" when it is close. Given the lack of goals nowadays, i think the NHL should do something about this.

 

[Doctyl]

If it makes you feel any better NBC has been *****ing about it for like the past 20 minutes.

 

[Captain Mountain]

So, I'll give this a shot:

Right call, stupid rule.

That's where every one of these kinds of thread is always ending, might as well get there now.

Pretty much this. Blame the rules, not Toronto or the refs (although they've been something special this game).

 

[TT1]

2nd time this has happened to us this season..

 

[QJL]

It was honestly that close. I think the puck crossed but I never saw a still image of it across the line. I never saw white between the line and puck. Tough call for the refs. NHL review needs to boost their fps

 

[gary laser eyes]

I know it can go both ways but I still don't get why they use Nokia 0.02 Mega Pixel cams if they make billions in revenue.

I'm pretty sure the goal line cameras they use are near the ceiling (so as to be out of the way) and all the way zoomed in to get that shot. Not sure how much better you can get at that detail from that far away. I'm no video expert, though.