Western Conference First Round: (2) Edmonton Oilers vs (3) Los Angeles Kings

[PenguinHunter]

For Edmonton's sake...glad this is over early.

And that Draisaitl escaped non-injured.

I feel like the last couple years he was playing very distinguishly hurt during the first round.

[everfeb]

https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/stat...79184289497303
Not sure how you can tell anything from this blurry photo, from 20 feet from the net.

This panel breakdown has the shot from inside the net:
https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/stat...86860192932313
The Sportsnet Panel also said on the intermission broadcast that they used the camera inside the net which showed the glove, clearly inside the net, to award the goal
Kelly Hrudey and Biesksa made a big deal out of the fact that you could see the black puck inside the white webbing of the glove and suggested all goalies would start spray painting their glove and webbing black so it was hard to make out the puck inside the glove on review...

Like I said I think it was the "right" call but was very surprised it was the call that was made.

I agree with EF's 2nd post. Puck was in the net. I'd of been shocked if they called it no goal.

[Invictus]

Screenshot 2024-05-02 144342.png

Pretty obviously in the net

[2014olympicgold]

Screenshot 2024-05-02 144342.png

Pretty obviously in the net

I was always under the understanding you can't "assume" the puck is in the net, you need to see it. And the angle from the boards on the goal line is the one they used to determine it was in, but man is that angle blurry.

Maybe I have the rule wrong tho. Maybe you can "I know the puck is in his mitt, you can see it in the mitt from Angle A. From Angle B you see the whole mitt in the net". I'm just thinking of those no-goals when you know the puck is under the goalie, because you see it under his ankle, then his foot goes in the net, then he pulls his foot out of the net.

Not denying that I think it's a goal tho.

[Rylant]

Screenshot 2024-05-02 144342.png

Pretty obviously in the net

Is it, though? What if the puck is not in the pocket of the glove? What if it's in his palm? I am pretty confident looking at that picture that it is in the net, but I am not 100 percent certain that the puck is 100 percent over the line.

I remember in the early years of reviewing this kind of goal, and the puck was under the goalie, and the goalie was 100 percent in the net and across the line. Even though you could clearly see that the puck wasn't outside the net, they still didn't allow the goal on the grounds that they weren't sure where the puck was, and they couldn't see it. It was strange, but I get the logic. If the criteria is that you must see the puck completely over the line, that is different from knowing that the puck is across the line of you can't see it.

Not being a smart ass here, I am legit curious; Is the rule that you must see the puck across the line? Or that you must be certain that the puck is across the line?

Rylant

[Invictus]

You can see where the puck is in the glove by another video angle.
You can then put the two together and come to the conclusion it was 100% without a doubt in the net. I don't think we've gotten that double angle type of goal before.

I got a different picture - the puck is circled.

Screenshot 2024-05-02 162330 2.png

[Rylant]

You can see where the puck is in the glove by another video angle.
You can then put the two together and come to the conclusion it was 100% without a doubt in the net. I don't think we've gotten that double angle type of goal before.

I got a different picture - the puck is circled.

Screenshot 2024-05-02 162330 2.png

I definitely get your point. But look at that high quality picture. Is that a puck I am looking at? Maybe. If you showed that picture to 100 people who didn't know what they were looking at, and asked them what it was, not 1 of them would say it's a puck.

Rylant

[Invictus]

I definitely get your point. But look at that high quality picture. Is that a puck I am looking at? Maybe. If you showed that picture to 100 people who didn't know what they were looking at, and asked them what it was, not 1 of them would say it's a puck.

Rylant

True, but the situation room knows what they are looking at, and the video the picture is from shows the puck entering the glove and that is indeed the puck.
Like offsides, video paints the much better picture (even if it’s still so blurry )

[Axeman33]

I definitely get your point. But look at that high quality picture. Is that a puck I am looking at? Maybe. If you showed that picture to 100 people who didn't know what they were looking at, and asked them what it was, not 1 of them would say it's a puck.

Rylant

If you asked 100 people who actually watched hockey, I'd be willing to bet 100% of them would say it's a puck and thats a goal. Who cares what the others who dont know what they are looking at think.

[Rylant]

If you asked 100 people who actually watched hockey, I'd be willing to bet 100% of them would say it's a puck and thats a goal. Who cares what the others who dont know what they are looking at think.

My point is, that is not CLEARLY the puck. We THINK it's the puck, because that's what we are expecting to see. The black in the image that we assume is the puck doesn't look much different from the black parts of the rest of his glove. If somebody told you that what we think is the puck, is actually the protective portion of the finger part of the glove, would you be able to definitively say they are wrong? We think it's the puck; it's definitively not clear.

Rylant

[Axeman33]

My point is, that is not CLEARLY the puck. We THINK it's the puck, because that's what we are expecting to see. The black in the image that we assume is the puck doesn't look much different from the black parts of the rest of his glove. If somebody told you that what we think is the puck, is actually the protective portion of the finger part of the glove, would you be able to definitively say they are wrong? We think it's the puck; it's definitively not clear.

Rylant

I cant say I agree with you, but that's fine. I think it's clearly the puck and that it's clearly over the line. What else could it be? When you watch the play, the player shot the puck in that direction. The goalie clearly caught the puck in his glove, which was clearly well over the goal line. Again, what argument could be it that it is NOT the puck? It has nothing to do with what we expect to see. It's exactly what we see.

[DangerCat]

The only part of the glove that wasn’t over the line was the padding on the wrist. The only place the puck caught in a glove can be is the netting which is clearly no questions asked over the line. There’s not a universe, in which the properties of matter are consistent with ours, that the puck is not over the line. This was 100% the right call.

[lobo1969]

The only part of the glove that wasn’t over the line was the padding on the wrist. The only place the puck caught in a glove can be is the netting which is clearly no questions asked over the line. There’s not a universe, in which the properties of matter are consistent with ours, that the puck is not over the line. This was 100% the right call.

If it was a Hyman scoring attempt however, that goal would have emphatically waived off and Hyman would have been given 2 for hurting goalie's feelings.

[DangerCat]

If it was a Hyman scoring attempt however, that goal would have emphatically waived off and Hyman would have been given 2 for hurting goalie's feelings.

Oh 100% Hyman would’ve been tied with Matthew’s if all his waived off goals had counted hahaha

[everfeb]

Did I miss it somewhere....what if anything are the Kings saying about this?