I hope Lou is talking to the NHL....

We all know that the Devils organization does things low key and doesn't like to complain much in the press, not that they have the Montreal or Toronto press to go and make a stink to. But, I really hope Lamoriello is letting Bettman know that Toronto has to do a better job come the playoffs, because I just see one ugly trend going on in there. These guys really need to layoff the Tim Horton doughnuts and pay better attention.

Zubrus:

"I thought his pad was in the net. That's why I was pretty sure it was a goal. Honestly, it's not even a subject right now. They called it off. We won the game. Big deal."

Its stupid to go to another building, let alone another counrty to find out if a play in question is a goal or not. Last night was a joke. The entire left side of Thomas was in the net. Where the hell could the puck have been?? I've seen times when it was ruled a goal when the goaltender has fallen into the net. There is no reason why this wasn't called a goal. It is an impossibility for that puck to have not crossed the goal line. Just because you cannot clearly see it doesn't negate it! If I drop a hammer and you don't see it, does it mean it didn't drop? I know common sense isn't that common, but come on now!

I would really like to abolish all this Toronto garbage.

Zubrus:

I'm not worried about yesterday, I'm worried about tomorrow.

The bigger problem with that call last night was this:

There was NO call on the ice. The referee on the ice look like he was caught by surprise, not sure if he wasn't paying attention or what but he did not make a call one way or the other. After seeing the replays he just looked lost, he's looking around for the goal judge who was no where to be found.

How this led to the goal horn going off is beyond me....where did that call for the goal come from?

We have FOUR on ice officials and how many off ice? There really is no excuse for there to be FOUR guys and not one of em waves their arms to say no goal or points to say goal.

It all evened out anyways because I think Rupp was offside on the Devils tying goal.

Elias got away with a trip in OT, but then Gionta got called for high sticking when he didn't even hit Hnidy who should have won an Academy Award for that act. The long and short of it is that there is no way to predict what would have happened if the goal was called correctly. Whatever, we won, lets hope this doesn't happen to us in the playoffs!

Some team is going to get royally ****ed come playoff time because of those imbiciles. And I hope it isn't the Devils.

It all evened out anyways because I think Rupp was offside on the Devils tying goal.

Nope, he wasn't offside. If a player has full control of the puck, he can enter the zone before the puck. Rupper had that the whole time so when he went in, it wasn't offside.

Some team is going to get royally ****ed come playoff time because of those imbiciles. And I hope it isn't the Devils.

Well if it the same stuff that happened the last couple weeks keeps happening, then it probably will happen to the devils.

I just don't understand how they can show a clip where half the puck is clearly seen hitting the side of the net passed the goal line and somehow call it inconclusive. The only thing inconclusive is the referees job security. They are terrible this year.

Its stupid to go to another building, let alone another counrty to find out if a play in question is a goal or not. Last night was a joke. The entire left side of Thomas was in the net. Where the hell could the puck have been?? I've seen times when it was ruled a goal when the goaltender has fallen into the net. There is no reason why this wasn't called a goal. It is an impossibility for that puck to have not crossed the goal line. Just because you cannot clearly see it doesn't negate it! If I drop a hammer and you don't see it, does it mean it didn't drop? I know common sense isn't that common, but come on now!

I would really like to abolish all this Toronto garbage.

Unfortunately those are the NHL rules. Every team is hampered by them. I can count numerous times when the Oilers ahve ahd a gola called off because the play in question you could not actually see the puck but common sense would tell you it is there and accross the goal line. In that case the league (the people in Toronto reviewing the play) are told to call the play inconclusive. In this case the call made by the official on the ice is what stands. If the ref had originally called it a goal it owuld be one and if he called it no goal then it would be no goal.

Nope, he wasn't offside. If a player has full control of the puck, he can enter the zone before the puck. Rupper had that the whole time so when he went in, it wasn't offside.

I want you to find me this said rule. If a player has control of the puck and they cross the line before the puck they in turn put themselves offside.

Rupp had one leg inside the blueline and one leg outside when he was carrying the puck into the zone.

Unfortunately those are the NHL rules. Every team is hampered by them. I can count numerous times when the Oilers ahve ahd a gola called off because the play in question you could not actually see the puck but common sense would tell you it is there and accross the goal line. In that case the league (the people in Toronto reviewing the play) are told to call the play inconclusive. In this case the call made by the official on the ice is what stands. If the ref had originally called it a goal it owuld be one and if he called it no goal then it would be no goal.

Its embarassing. A reasonably prudent person should be able to deduce that a puck is in the net following logic. Logically, if the puck is in my glove, and my glove is in the net, then the puck is in the net and its a goal, regardless of whether or not you can see the puck. In this case, the puck had to be under the goaltender's left skate or pad. Either way, the entire left side of his body was in the net, ergo, its a goal. Things in the league need to change asap. They need to stop saying things like "inconclusive" which means open to doubt. There is no doubt that the puck was in the net, and it just makes it more embarassing that the goaltender said it was in the net.

memories of brett hulls goal against hasek that one time in the playoffs still makes me cringe

Its embarassing. A reasonably prudent person should be able to deduce that a puck is in the net following logic. Logically, if the puck is in my glove, and my glove is in the net, then the puck is in the net and its a goal, regardless of whether or not you can see the puck. In this case, the puck had to be under the goaltender's left skate or pad. Either way, the entire left side of his body was in the net, ergo, its a goal. Things in the league need to change asap. They need to stop saying things like "inconclusive" which means open to doubt. There is no doubt that the puck was in the net, and it just makes it more embarassing that the goaltender said it was in the net.

I do not disagree that the rule is stupid, but those guys in Toronto have to abide by rules given to them by that **** head Gary Bettman. It was no different when they had the stupid skate in the crease rule. Having the tip of your skate in the crease does not interfere with the paly so why the hell should it not count as a goal? Then of course the great Brett Hull debate.

I guess what I am getting at direct your anger at the people who run the league (ie. Bettman and Campbell), not the people who review palys in Toronto.

So if you have to see the puck, if the goalie gets the puck in his trapper, closes his hand and put his hand in the net, its no goal cause you cant see the puck?

So if you have to see the puck, if the goalie gets the puck in his trapper, closes his hand and put his hand in the net, its no goal cause you cant see the puck?

By the rules of the league run by Gary Bettman, yes. Sounds stupid I know, but thats the rules enforced by the great commish.

Like I said it all goes back to the refs on the ice. If they called it a goal and then went up stairs and the guys up there called it inconclusive, then it would stand as a goal. If the ref on the ice said it was no goal then it would be no goal.

By the rules of the league run by Gary Bettman, yes. Sounds stupid I know, but thats the rules enforced by the great commish.

Like I said it all goes back to the refs on the ice. If they called it a goal and then went up stairs and the guys up there called it inconclusive, then it would stand as a goal. If the ref on the ice said it was no goal then it would be no goal.

The ref on the ice didn't say a damned thing. He just sat there looking stupid while the goal horn went off.

What I really don't understand is why did the goal horn go off if the Ref on the ice did not call a goal?

What I really don't understand is why did the goal horn go off if the Ref on the ice did not call a goal?

The goal horn is connected to the dude who sits behind the net and turns on the goal light.

If the ref sat there with a stupid look on his face he obviously did not call it a goal, so therefore his decision would have had to of been no goal. Either way when it went up stairs they called it inconclusive because they could not see the black peice of rubber crossing the line. Then it came down to the call on the ice and the ref obviously called it no goal.

The goal horn is connected to the dude who sits behind the net and turns on the goal light.

If the ref sat there with a stupid look on his face he obviously did not call it a goal, so therefore his decision would have had to of been no goal. Either way when it went up stairs they called it inconclusive because they could not see the black peice of rubber crossing the line. Then it came down to the call on the ice and the ref obviously called it no goal.

Which makes the dude who sits behind the net and turns on the goal light look stupid.

I thought the ref had signaled a goal but that was not the case, he only blew the whistle. But the strange thing is, he did not blow the whistle til the goalie uncovered the puck. If he lost sight of the puck, shouldn't he have blown the whistle immediately instead of waiting on the goalie?

The reaction of Thomas should have said it all. He slammed that puck out of the Net like "*****, they saw it" He had a grin on his face the whole time. I wonder what Zubs Said to him when he skated over. It gave Thomas a smile.

I bet it was "your gonna get away with one here!"

Either way, the Devs won. We will hear something on it later i am betting.

The goal horn is connected to the dude who sits behind the net and turns on the goal light.

and the goal light never went on either..... there was a lot of confusion on the ice, then the horn went off...

Which makes the dude who sits behind the net and turns on the goal light look stupid.

I thought the ref had signaled a goal but that was not the case, he only blew the whistle. But the strange thing is, he did not blow the whistle til the goalie uncovered the puck. If he lost sight of the puck, shouldn't he have blown the whistle immediately instead of waiting on the goalie?

Yes he totally should have. But again they totally screwed up. There is no doubt in my mind it should ahve been a goal. But I have seen this flawed league call to many of those type of goals off. Sucks to be the goal light guy. but that ahs happened alot where the light and horn go off and play just continues. Usually makes a good case to ensure that the play will get reviewed.

I agree that they should put some kind of tracking sensor on the puck. A little blue tooth device that transmits a signal to the receivers build on either side of the net. Then it can determine whether it crossed the line or not by using a doppler effect calculation to triangulate the puck's location.

and the goal light never went on either..... there was a lot of confusion on the ice, then the horn went off...

Oh I thought the light went on. The two are not connected but usually when the guy turns the goal light on the guy will turn the horn on. I assume the guy behind the net couldn't see the puck was in when Thomas lifted his pad and the guy who controls the horn saw it was in and should ahve been a goal since the ref blew his whistle so late.

Like I said either way its a bothed call, but it ahs nothing to do with the guys up stairs. All their job is to tell the league if they see a black peice of rubber completely cross the line. If they don't they have to say it either didn't or it is inconclusive.

I agree that they should put some kind of tracking sensor on the puck. A little blue tooth device that transmits a signal to the receivers build on either side of the net. Then it can determine whether it crossed the line or not by using a doppler effect calculation to triangulate the puck's location.

Haha thats awesome, no need for that really. The game of hockey ahs beena round for how long now and there usaully isn't alot of controversy surrounding a goal. The problem comes from within the league, get Bettman's ass out of office and this league would improve ten fold.

Anyhow jsut want to clarify that I am not a troll, I am from the Oilers board. But since the Oilers are out of the palyoffs I have chosen to cheer for the Devils in the palyoffs. They have a great team and I love to watch em play, hope they can do some damage agian this year in the playoffs.

Of course Lou's talking to the NHL.. so's the GM of every team that's effected by Boston getting an extra point with 2 games left in the season.

I'm not worried about yesterday, I'm worried about tomorrow.

I don't think there's anything anyone can say or do to alleviate that worry. The team's over it, and if they are, so should we.

I agree that they should put some kind of tracking sensor on the puck. A little blue tooth device that transmits a signal to the receivers build on either side of the net. Then it can determine whether it crossed the line or not by using a doppler effect calculation to triangulate the puck's location.

I said it in the GDT - goalie mask cams. Thomas admits it was in, hence he saw it which means a goalie cam would have caught it.

Haha thats awesome, no need for that really. The game of hockey ahs beena round for how long now and there usaully isn't alot of controversy surrounding a goal. The problem comes from within the league, get Bettman's ass out of office and this league would improve ten fold.


Well, its my first step to robotic NHL players! Once the puck is transmitting, then you can build robots that can skate on the ice and play hockey cause it can locate the puck.

Haha thats awesome, no need for that really. The game of hockey ahs beena round for how long now and there usaully isn't alot of controversy surrounding a goal. The problem comes from within the league, get Bettman's ass out of office and this league would improve ten fold.

Anyhow jsut want to clarify that I am not a troll, I am from the Oilers board. But since the Oilers are out of the palyoffs I have chosen to cheer for the Devils in the palyoffs. They have a great team and I love to watch em play, hope they can do some damage agian this year in the playoffs.

Feel free to grab a playoff avatar ;)

Nope, he wasn't offside. If a player has full control of the puck, he can enter the zone before the puck. Rupper had that the whole time so when he went in, it wasn't offside.

I don't think thats the case, but I'm no rules expert.

I'm not complaining, but I wouldn't have been surprised if that had been whistled down. I've seen that happen before which is why I don't think that is the rule.

Since the ref didn't know it went it, he should have made Thomas stay perfectly still so he could see if the puck was in the net before Thomas pushed it out.

This is what happens when you take the Goal Judge away.

this is what happens when you call a city in another country to determine what happened here. :shakehead

This is what happens when you take the Goal Judge away.

Doesn't the goal judge carry about as much sway with the refs/nhl as the beer vendor roaming the aisles?

Doesn't the goal judge carry about as much sway with the refs/nhl as the beer vendor roaming the aisles?

just about, hence the removal of them.

I don't think thats the case, but I'm no rules expert.

I'm not complaining, but I wouldn't have been surprised if that had been whistled down. I've seen that happen before which is why I don't think that is the rule.

according to wikipedia :

1. Attacking players' skate position: One of a player's skates is not in contact with or behind the blue line of the attacking zone before the puck enters that zone.
2. Puck position: The puck must completely cross the outer edge of the blue line to be considered inside the attacking zone for the purposes of offsides.

Rup did push the puck ahead of him before he entered the zone. When he moved it behind him because of the defending player, the puck never went over the line again. So I'm pretty sure it was onside.

Canada was on strike that night, dont you watch South Park?

Canada was on strike that night, dont you watch South Park?

Where's my money budday?

Where's my money budday?

I'm not your buddy, guy.

I'm not your buddy, guy.

I'm not your guy, friend :madfire:

according to wikipedia :

1. Attacking players' skate position: One of a player's skates is not in contact with or behind the blue line of the attacking zone before the puck enters that zone.
2. Puck position: The puck must completely cross the outer edge of the blue line to be considered inside the attacking zone for the purposes of offsides.

Rup did push the puck ahead of him before he entered the zone. When he moved it behind him because of the defending player, the puck never went over the line again. So I'm pretty sure it was onside.

It was close!

http://hfboards.com/imagehosting/4315447f506d532463.gif

The reaction of Thomas should have said it all. He slammed that puck out of the Net like "*****, they saw it" He had a grin on his face the whole time. I wonder what Zubs Said to him when he skated over. It gave Thomas a smile.

I bet it was "your gonna get away with one here!"



From Gulitti's blog:

Zubrus said he asked goaltender Tim Thomas during the delay for the video review if he thought it was in and Thomas nodded. "I asked him if it was a goal and he gave me a little (nod) as if it probably was a goal. He thought it probably went in, but when you don't see for sure, you just don't know."

http://njmg.typepad.com/devilsblog/2008/04/many-of-you-are.html#more

I don't think thats the case, but I'm no rules expert.

I'm not complaining, but I wouldn't have been surprised if that had been whistled down. I've seen that happen before which is why I don't think that is the rule.

I am a rules expert on this - it's the same at every level of play. If you are in control of the puck - you can skate backwards across the blue line and have the puck even be the very last thing to cross and it's onsides. Rupp did a 180 turning with the puck outside of the zone while entering - that is completely legit and onsides.

I am a rules expert on this - it's the same at every level of play. If you are in control of the puck - you can skate backwards across the blue line and have the puck even be the very last thing to cross and it's onsides. Rupp did a 180 turning with the puck outside of the zone while entering - that is completely legit and onsides.
agreed...I have been playing hockey for quite some time and at every level you are allowed to bring the puck in offsides so long as you have control of it

The goal horn is connected to the dude who sits behind the net and turns on the goal light.

If the ref sat there with a stupid look on his face he obviously did not call it a goal, so therefore his decision would have had to of been no goal. Either way when it went up stairs they called it inconclusive because they could not see the black peice of rubber crossing the line. Then it came down to the call on the ice and the ref obviously called it no goal.

There is no more dude that sits behind the nets, he is way up in the rafters. Also, while I know it was a goal, I prefer the current rule over the alternative. Just imagine if the judges did not need visual evidence how many times we would be screwed. Anytime the puck would disappear on Brodeur they would call a goal against us.

83.1 Off-side - Players of the attacking team must not precede the puck
into the attacking zone.
The position of the player’s skates and not that of his stick shall be
the determining factor in all instances in deciding an off-side. A player
is off-side when both skates are completely over the leading edge of
the blue line involved in the play.
A player is on-side when either of his skates are in contact with, or
on his own side of the line, at the instant the puck completely crosses
the leading edge of the blue line regardless of the position of his stick.
However, a player actually controlling the puck who shall cross the
line ahead of the puck shall not be considered “off-side,” provided he
had possession and control of the puck prior to his skates crossing the
blue line.
It should be noted that while the position of the player’s skates is
what determines whether a player is “off-side,” nevertheless the
question of an “off-side” never arises until the puck has completely
crossed the leading edge of the blue line at which time the decision is
to be made.
If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his own
defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in such
defending zone, the off-side shall be ignored and play permitted to
continue.
There's the official off-sides rule for ya.

Canada was on strike that night, dont you watch South Park?

Where's my money budday?

I'm not your buddy, guy.

I'm not your guy, friend :madfire:

IM NOT YOUR FWIEND BUDDY!

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b364/nathiscool/numanuma.jpg

Don't ruin the episode for me!!! I didn't see it yet, I'll catch it online when I get home.

I want you to find me this said rule. If a player has control of the puck and they cross the line before the puck they in turn put themselves offside.

Not anymore. They've gotten much more lenient on offsides.

Elias got away with a trip in OT, but then Gionta got called for high sticking when he didn't even hit Hnidy who should have won an Academy Award for that act. The long and short of it is that there is no way to predict what would have happened if the goal was called correctly. Whatever, we won, lets hope this doesn't happen to us in the playoffs!

LOL, Hnidy is a *******.

He's the same guy that sold the punch from Brashear like he was shot with a buffalo gun. And then he got right up.

There's the official off-sides rule for ya.

Thanks homie. Even the Bruins commentators said it was a good goal because of that rule.