Did It Cross The Line?

Really simple. Do you think that Daniel Briere’s wrap around attempt crossed the line with less than 14 seconds left in the 3rd period of Game 4 against the Rangers?My opinion is that the momentum of the shot did take the puck over the line, but without a freeze frame that clearly shows the entire puck over the line, it cannot be assumed that the puck did cross the line. By the same token that Rachunek’s intent could not be taken into consideration with the “kicking motion” disallowed goal, same can be said about the momentum of the puck in this case.

If anything, the NHL owed this to the Rangers after having Rachunek’s goal not count in Game 3 and the barrage of bad penalty calls on anyone wearing royal blue.


49 Responses to Did It Cross The Line?

  1. mikster says:

    I think it was likely in, but by following the rulebook the way it is written……it was the right call as there was no evidence of the puck crossing the line.

    Sorry Ruffy boy……..Pomineville got away with the puck hitting his glove by “accident” and in the net. Rachunek’s goal was disallowed with a ridiculous reason that he made a direct distinct kicking motion, which wasn’t. You’re not going to get away with it a third time.

    Rangers deserved the win in that game. They’ve played Buffalo very well in the last three games, despite losing one. If the Rangers were not dumb enough to lose Game 2, this series would have been 3-1 Rangers by now.

  2. tancred says:

    I think the puck was in.  I would even say that the overhead replay shows it.  But I also think the League knows what its doing and has a better understanding of its own rules, so I can go with their call.  

    While I respect your opinion, puckhead94, I don't see any reasoning behind your claim that the NHL "owed this to the Rangers."  What if there was conclusive evidence that everyone could see that the puck went over the line?  The NHL should negate it anyway, simply because it "owed" a favorable call to the Rangers?  I wouldn't see that as fair or just.  Bounces and bad calls go both ways.  There are probably missed or close calls numerous times during one game alone.  It happens.  I don't think there should be any subsequent bad calls made just to make up for previous ones; nothing should be owed.  
  3. wheresthesoda says:

    You can't really say they owed it to the Rangers, but it was the right call. It was inconclusive if it crossed the line, so they had to stick with the on ice call which was no goal.

    I thought it crossed the line but Henrik's pad was covering it, so they had to say no goal. Whatever, game 5 in buffalo….Lets Go Rangers

  4. nonhl2005 says:

    I have another question, why is the NHL so behind the times that they don't have the best camera available for the MOST IMPORTANT camera in the arena? That camera is like circa 1980. The zoomed in picture was fuzzy, the speed of the film is too slow to clearly show the full path of the puck from the stick to the pad frame by frame. One frame has the puck on the line the next it's out of sight under the pad. That video is worse then the Clydesdale – Zebra Budweiser Super Bowl commercial.

  5. NjDEVSFN says:

    i think it went over the line the moment it disappeared.

    they obviously have a camera positioned SLIGHTLY behind the goal line way above the net.

    they should have one positioned slightly IN FRONT of the goal line above the net.

    there should be at least 2 cameras with the sole purpose of watching each goal. i guess that would be 4 cameras, but you know what i mean.

    i think the FoxTrax should be reintroduced but only for goal-review purposes. as awful as it was for live play, it would be a godsend for instant replay.

  6. toronto77 says:

    I'm 100% sure that the puck crossed the line, you just can't see it because lundqvist's pad hids it. A while ago on TSN they were talking about putting some kind of chip in the puck so when it crosses the line the post will light up. I think they have already experimented it in younger leagues, but I don't know if the NHL is willing to go that far.

    dun worry sabres fans you guys already got this series, all you gotta do is keep winning at home and the rangers are screwed.

  7. my_sphincter says:

    It was in.  No question about it.  Bad call IMO. 

    What about the penalty that caused power play on which the Rangers got the "game winning" goal?  No one even mentioned that play.  Apparently it is OK if you have the puck to take your hand off your stick and impede the progree of another player, but as soon as that player takes a hand off his stick, he gets a penalty!  That was a piss poor call!

  8. mikster says:

    I think puckhead meant that the league could have allowed the goal and honestly speaking, i thought they were going to favor Buffalo and count it too since so far they “helped” Buffalo with two goal reviews against the Isle’s and they did it twice with the Rangers as well. So, it could have been counted, could have not, and the NHL was damned if it didn’t and damned if it did. So, they made a call that the Rangers deserved since they screwed them twice.

    And, that one frame where the puck was visible, it did not yet cross the red line since there was no white between black and red (puck and red line).

  9. mikster says:

    You’re right; they should install high speed cameras that give better-smoother frame rate.

  10. mikster says:

    Don’t talk to me about piss poor calls after Game 3. Sabres were given all sorts of chances in Game 3 with the biggest BS calls i’ve seen in the playoffs.

    As for the goal……….you cannot make a judgement on an assumption that it was in. You saw Joe Schmoe steal a necklace, and while he may be the only suspect possible, you have no proof that he did. You can’t accuse him then.

    I think it was in too, but the right call was made because in a way…….what if it didn’t 100% cross the line? And..you’d think that Briere would raise his arms as he was the one with the best view. He was closest to the puck, he locked his eyes on it and was watching it…..why didn’t he show any signs that it was definitely a goal?

    Could be because it possibly wasn’t.

  11. wingerxxx says:

    If there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary, it's not a goal.  It's in the rulebook. 

    I know I am a biased Rangers fan, but the rule is pretty black and white.  At no point in watching the video replay, can you see the puck cross the line.  Even though, yes, the puck probably did cross the line…"probably" being the word there. 

    The right call was made, and Ruff was good enough in his press conference to try to move on from the call.  The Rangers definitely deserve to be tied up with Buffalo right now. 

  12. Glucker says:

    its as much a goal as Rachunek's was.

  13. pratt25 says:

    already got the series??….the Sabres have been outplayed 3 out of the 4 games, they are lucky to be in the series. They will fight back though they is too much talent on the team.

  14. mcpeach2 says:

    Do I think it went in….yes
    But the official made the call on the ice no goal.
    Since there was no indisputable evidence the call on the ice stood.
    If the ref called it a goal, that would have stood also.

    Oh well move on, heart attack over.

    Sabres can't complain

  15. mcpeach2 says:


    It might have made the review easier

  16. habsoverserver says:

    I was at the game and I thought it was a goal based on the replay shown at MSG.  But, my opinion is meaningless.  I don't think there is any cause to argue.  Evidence was not strong enough to overturn the ruling on the ice. 

    I don't think the NHL owed anything to anyone and I do not believe that the call was based on anything other than its own merits.

  17. Lint07 says:

    the right call has been made, no doubt.

  18. NHLman says:

    After inspecting one of the pictures with Macromedia Fireworks I believe the puck did not completely cross the line. It was still on the line by the tiniest of margins, probably somewhere in the neigborhood of 1/8 inch. It looks to be a good call.

  19. chanman says:


    Pominvilles goal was first disallowed, then after review it was counted. It could have (probably did) gone off the stick shaft, and that is what the call was based on. The Refs have made 3 bad calls in the Sabres 2 series, the one against the Isles, the the gm 2 "kicked in" goal. (IMO it was a distinct shove, but a kick, no. Should have counted.)
    And this. The puck was in the net, lets be honest. I know the Sabres have had 2 go for them, and this one against them tells me that the refs have got a problem, and this is embarrassing the NHL.
    Cant they get a camera with a faster shutter or whatever necessary to ensure they can see the puck at all time?

  20. chanman says:

    why is it so doubtless?

  21. chanman says:

    Mik, wether or not a player celebrates is irregardless if the puck was or was not in the net. He was being checked and pushed around anyway, and the slam in/kickout happened as fast as it could. 
    If there is any chance it could be a goal, I would assume the player to assume it, and go crazy. That whole concept is not to base a goal on.
       Game 3s no goal was, IMO (and obviously yours too) a goal. I don't know what BS calls you are talking about other than that.

  22. LeafyMcLeaf says:

    Sorry to stray off topic, but if everyone could please visit the link to my "Bring Home the Cup" entry. I am pretty sure getting on the ballot has something to do with your hits. So if everyone could at least click the link, and when the ballot comes, vote for me.

    I know, I'm ugly, and fat, and yes, the dog tag I was wearing has a Maple Leafs logo on it.


  23. Lint07 says:

    because the referee called no goal at the time of the play.

    And to reverse the referee's call, you have to see the puck 100% cross the line. Yet no angle showed the puck completely cross the line.

    which is why the right call was made without a shadow of a doubt.

  24. malkin_71 says:

     In here it clearly shows the puck cross the line Its like the Gealinas goal(nogoals who cares)all over again( well not really Gealys would have won them the cup).

  25. Garny says:

    It was in by logical thinking but you can't jsut assume it was in you need evidence that is unconditional and the camera didn't provide that so you can't assume it was in…i beleive it was in just like everyone else but they have no proof to prove it…was there white ice between the puck and the line? did lundqvist actually stop it JUST in time? who knows and the issue is dead…if you are going to call back playoff goals Dallas and Buffalo might still be playing….

  26. BruMagnus says:

    CLEARLY a goal.

    Some conspiracies out there for sure.

  27. Williams1505 says:

    I think that it was in…..But….who cares…the rangers are back..and hope they take out buffalo…..

  28. mikster says:

    They can, they should, and they most likely will improve replay technology for goal reviews. But the call was the right one. There was no 100% proof of that puck in even if you can assume it most likely was.

  29. mikster says:

    The penalties that the refs were just nitpicking on the Rangers.

  30. mikster says:

    Dude, you could be Billy Joe’s (from Green Day) brother or cousin!

  31. mikster says:

    Ummm, no it doesn’t. And “clearly” is really an extreme way to put it.

  32. GlenSather says:

    It was the right call because no one can say they saw the puck completely cross the line. End of debate.

  33. flamingsenator says:


  34. flamingsenator says:

    im very surprised that the nhl haven't put in better cameras yet….so much controversy in the playoffs….they havent learned…….but i heard they are getting them next season….so thats good

    sid the kid's advertising can only go so far….these stupid technical problems take the integrity out of the game……….so is putting brett hull on a panel of "experts"

  35. my_sphincter says:

    Here is the problem with your arguement…


    I am neither a Rangers nor a Buffalo fan, but I hate to see games decided because of a bad call (or several in the case of game 4).  The game winning goal was scored on a power play caused by a CLEARLY bad call by the refs.  That has NOTHING to do with the refs in game 3 or any other game.  By bringing that up, you are basically saying that if a ref makes a bad call one game, he has to even it up in the next.  That is just pure stupidity!  2 wrongs do not make a right.  As for the goal, IT WAS IN!  There is no question about it.  This rule about seeing the puck cross the line is ridiculous.  For instance, if the puck is in the goalie's trapper and the trapper is in the net, it should be a goal.  I have, however seen a case like this called no goal this year because the video was deemed inconclusive. 

    With today's technology, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to tell whether or not a goal was scored.  Hell, I have a dog and there is a wire buried in my back yard.  When the dog crosses over the wire, she gets a little zap.  WORKS EVERY TIME!  Surely ther has to be a way to tell if the puck crossed the line without having to see it.

  36. my_sphincter says:

    "you need evidence that is unconditional"
    This is not a court of law, it is a hockey game.  The consensus is that it was in.  It is much more likely that it was in than out.  That really is all you should need.

  37. 27roenick97 says:

    did it cross the line? yeah…

    should it have counted as a goal? no…

    the last time you see the puck, its just before it crosses the line. the next frame shows no puck completely. If you look perform some quantum physics and advanced physics–which i won't explain–it empirically shows the location of the puck, fully in the white, during that frame. Seriously, Henrik made a great attempt but the puck disappears b/c it is covered by his pads, which were inside the goal (at least the section of where the puck was headed)… 

    The call of no goal was right: the rules are completely black and white–>if you can't see it, you can't call it, and the refs didn't.

  38. cecilturtle says:

    Hank's pads surly obscured the view of the puck just as it reached the point of it's event horrizon.  Even Hawking would "now days" have to agree with Toronto's thinking… That there was just not enough information known about the theorised possibility of visual distorton due to the conditions on earth and at MSG when having to take into account the following variables; The camera angle placed more towards the back of the net.  The speed and path of the puck intersecting simaltaniously with the force and movement of the goalies pads.  While all the while, the puck, pads, and ice shavings flying through the air (all at different velosities) are converging together to meet at the goal line (event horrizon) at the exact same time… Clearly causing the most likely possibility of visual distortion too ever accurately with 100% confidence over rule the officials original call.   

    Cecil Turtle
    Standup Physicist a/k/a Bullsht Artist!

  39. GlenSather says:

    27roenick97 how can you say you can see the puck cross the line but yet its no goal? That doesn't make sense.  We all have watched it over and over again and you never see the puck completely cross the line.  The notion that the league gave it to the Rangers is bullshit.  The Rangers haven't been given anything nor have the complained about anything. 

  40. pensfan29 says:

    simply put… it went in

  41. puckhead94 says:

    Yeah, the conspiracy is that the NHL wants the Sabres to keep going in this series. How else can you explain the punch-in goal and the phantom kicking motion?

    The bottom line is in this case, they just couldn't make enough of a case to screw the Rangers.

    The NHL has been pro-Buffalo since the playoffs started. Ask Islander fans. The Sabres promote the same type of wide-open high scoring hockey that the NHL wants to promote, therefore, Gary Bettman sleeps in a Drew Stafford jersey.

    Did it go in? Yeah, probably, but so did Rachunek's goal. Deal with it.

  42. chanman says:

    Understand, yes. It was, technically, "the right call" b/c I would assume Koharski to NOT have spidey-sense, rendering him incapable of seeing what happens in one 1/8th of a second.

    #1 The puck was in the net.

    #2 If the puck goes into the net, it is a goal.

    If the ruling traspires to be "no goal" when indeed, according to steps 1 & 2, then it is NOT the right call.

    This is getting to be a political debate instead of facts and truth.

  43. Lint07 says:

    how do YOU know it crossed the line completely? I sure don't.

    I SUPPOSE it did, but I couldn't be sure.

    and that's exactly why the referee's call has not been overruled.

    I sure would be pissed if I was a Sabres' fan, but hey that's the way the rule is made.

  44. rojoke says:

    There is no chip in the puck.  In the AHL they tested a net which has LED lights on the goal posts and crossbar which are connected wirelessly to the goal light behind the glass.  It actually looks kinda cool.

  45. 27roenick97 says:

    i'm not completely in love with your tone, so i'll make this real simple

    you see the puck as its on the line.  when its slowed down to frame by frame, look at the last two frames before it disappears.  you can figure the general direction of where its going.

    the puck magically disappears then… where'd it go?  under henrik's pads, which are clearly within the white.  if you can, follow the linear logic here.  the puck disappears under henrik's pad; we know where the puck disappeared in relation to the pad; the pad is in the white of the goal.  thus, i thought it was a goal, in the sense that the puck crossed the line completely. 

    however, the nhl is explicit in that if there is no conclusive visual evidence, the ruling must remain as called by the ref, which was no goal.  since what i've above outlined is supposition, we (or the refs) cant use this and must be governed by what we see.  I didn't see a puck in the net, with some white between it and the line, thus I believe the no goal was the right call. 

    I made no notion that the league "gave it to the Rangers" either.  Honestly, i'm equally biased against both teams and would hope that the ice melted or something…

  46. 27roenick97 says:

    i do believe you pulled that completely out of your ass… but it sounded good anyways…

  47. Radio says:

    Where else is the puck if not over the line? In that context, the only way that it's not a goal is if it *doesn't* dissappear from view — the puck strikes Lundy's pad that is behind the line.

    The review rules are flawed.

    Conclusively a goal.

  48. adambuffalo says:

    Was it a goal, yes. Should it have counted, probably not.  Either way it doesn't matter. The Sabres played like Sh!t and didn't deserve to win the game.

  49. BruMagnus says:

    I agree the officiating and upper-level echelons are biased. It's *****ing the game.

Leave a Reply