Comments on: Did It Cross The Line?

By: BruMagnus

BruMagnus — Sun, 06 May 2007 11:13:52 +0000

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

By: adambuffalo

adambuffalo — Sat, 05 May 2007 08:02:06 +0000

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.

By: Radio

Radio — Fri, 04 May 2007 01:40:33 +0000

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.

By: 27roenick97

27roenick97 — Thu, 03 May 2007 23:21:10 +0000

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

By: 27roenick97

27roenick97 — Thu, 03 May 2007 23:19:00 +0000

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...

By: rojoke

rojoke — Thu, 03 May 2007 20:28:56 +0000

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.

By: Lint07

Lint07 — Thu, 03 May 2007 19:45:31 +0000

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.

By: chanman

chanman — Thu, 03 May 2007 19:36:44 +0000

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.

By: puckhead94

puckhead94 — Thu, 03 May 2007 16:57:31 +0000

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.

By: pensfan29

pensfan29 — Thu, 03 May 2007 15:48:02 +0000

simply put… it went in