You Make the Call: Islanders/Sabres Game 4 - Goal or No-Goal?

[Meathead]

This should be interesting.

I will post this on both teams HFboards (http://hfboards.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=-1&f=18) and we will see how the fans of each team feel.

I predict there will be a teensy discrepancy lol.

And please, no arguing. lol

[Mitchy moo]

Puck got lost, ref blew whistle & then it shows up behind Miller. No one can say when it crossed the line because no one saw when it did. Frozen puck, frozen play.

[camelcowboy]

Ref says its not a goal thats all that matters to me

[Michael82]

I thought that Ryan Miller had it stopped and then the Islanders pushed him into the net with the puck. If anything, it should be goalie interference. No goal!

[Meathead]

heres the best view ive seen so far

http://67.15.211.14/~immixmor/downloads/Goal.WMV

and i will say that it shows the most conclusive evidence that the puck was traveling toward the back of the net when millers legs closed. it was bouncing between the pads but appeared to be generally moving toward his toes

however in Windows Media Player you can set the speed to slow and if you do that you will see that the last possible view of the puck shows it touching the line but absolutely not over. after that millers pads close and theres no way to tell where it ends up before the pushing contact is made

a better view but still absolutely inconclusive

[Typ0]

if they want to use replay then they need to mount a few hundred cameras in and around the net to get some good evidence.

[chernobylwraiths]

I think it was probably a goal, IF the refs didn't waive it off.

[MikeInRoch]

I do not see how anything can conclude, from that video, that it was a goal.

[SabreEleven]

I think it was probably a goal, IF the refs didn't waive it off.

and if the referee's never blow their whistle's, they'll never be face off's either.

[SabreEleven]

Islanders are complaining about two disputed goals? this one and Vanek's goal in game 3.This one I give them a small amount to comlpain about but I still haven't seen conclusive evidence. But the Vanek's goal was definetly legitimate. The ref never called goal on that play but video review does? I seen the angle where it showed it in....The Islander's are just looking for stuff to motivate themselves...

[shelby]

It was absolutely not a goal. The ref blew the whistle. End of story.

[Meathead]

based on this latest view on youtube i would change my vote to probably a goal. this view is the clearest ive seen and you can see the puck moving distinctly albeit slowly backwards. on the last frame where you can see the puck it appears to be touching the back of the line and possibly over but there just isnt enough detail to see if it clears the line

however i will point out that if you take a straightedge and connect the line on both sides of the net you will notice that there is a SHADOW right in front of where the line is under millers pads so it APPEARS to be clearly a goal when it still has a couple inches to get to the REAL line. pretty amazing and a cool coincidental illusion if you ask me. no wonder some people are so convinced its a goal, i would be too if i hadnt discovered the shadow

its still inconclusive and if i were a video ref thats what i would call because you simply cannot definitively tell, but more than likely it crossed the line just before he got shoved into the net

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MvZqXStTOoE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MvZqXStTOoE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[don137]

2 things the rule states when the referee loses sight of the puck he blows the whistle. There is a reason for that so there won't be any potential injuries with all the traffic. The vast majority of the times the goalie has the puck but sometimes he doesn't. Does not matter it is the rule and the referees lost sight of the puck. Secondly the video does not prove the puck crossed the line before contact was initiated by the Islanders and I have never seen a goal allowed despite goaltender interfernce.
Between the two it is no doubt no goal.

[LtBillsFan66]

It was a goal.

[Meathead]

right but the whistle thing is a technicality

sure it would have been virtually impossible to call but a) the puck was loose and b) it probably crossed the line

so in the real world its going to be a no goal but if there was some kind of under ice camera and a review process to consider it they very well may have ruled it a goal

[shelby]

:dizzy:
Halbert, go play outside.

[MikeInRoch]

It was a goal.

Not based on the video. But that's ok.

[Ebenezer]

based on this latest view on youtube i would change my vote to probably a goal. this view is the clearest ive seen and you can see the puck moving distinctly albeit slowly backwards. on the last frame where you can see the puck it appears to be touching the back of the line and possibly over but there just isnt enough detail to see if it clears the line

however i will point out that if you take a straightedge and connect the line on both sides of the net you will notice that there is a SHADOW right in front of where the line is under millers pads so it APPEARS to be clearly a goal when it still has a couple inches to get to the REAL line. pretty amazing and a cool coincidental illusion if you ask me. no wonder some people are so convinced its a goal, i would be too if i hadnt discovered the shadow

its still inconclusive and if i were a video ref thats what i would call because you simply cannot definitively tell, but more than likely it crossed the line just before he got shoved into the net

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MvZqXStTOoE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MvZqXStTOoE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
if the Isles want to protest based on that video they are better off focusing their efforts on hockey...that is so inconclusive...there is a one second hold where the video gets brighter and the puck is still in the creases...after that it's like looking into Loch Ness on an overcast day...you can see as many Nessie's as you wish.

[Dozerdog]

Look at the reviewed goal in game 3.

Let's just say for ****s and giggles the puck did not sneak in by the poat. It came right back out and was loose in the crease, the whistle blew - but we had just put it in the second time.

Same thing in my book.


On the flip side- give them the goal. They lose 4-3. Stop whining Islander fans!

[Ebenezer]

Look at the reviewed goal in game 3.

Let's just say for ****s and giggles the puck did not sneak in by the poat. It came right back out and was loose in the crease, the whistle blew - but we had just put it in the second time.

Same thing in my book.


On the flip side- give them the goal. They lose 4-3. Stop whining Islander fans!
I think Vanek, Max and Roy all scored on that goal...didn't it go in three times?

[don137]

Look at the reviewed goal in game 3.

Let's just say for ****s and giggles the puck did not sneak in by the poat. It came right back out and was loose in the crease, the whistle blew - but we had just put it in the second time.

Same thing in my book.


On the flip side- give them the goal. They lose 4-3. Stop whining Islander fans!

Agreed...They were dominated for most of the game....