Explanation of "no goal" call in Game 2

"This review was as difficult as we get," said Mike Murphy, Senior Vice President of Hockey Operations. "It took so much time because we need conclusive proof (to change a no-goal or goal call made on the ice). Even with all those tight (and high-definition) views, I could not conclusively say that the puck was entirely across the goal line."

Murphy said the net twine partly obstructed an overhead view on both the Versus and TSN telecasts that might have prompted some fans to speculate LaRose had scored.

"As the overhead camera view is enhanced, both the red line and the white ice become more blurred and the net meshing becomes more of an obstruction," said Murphy. "After looking at it numerous times from several different angles, I can't say with 100 percent certainty that the puck was completely over the line."

about 3 years ago Stanley Cup of Chowder 8 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

what's the rule

For pucks on edge? A puck needs to be completely over the goal line for it to be scored as a goal, but what happens in the case of a puck that rolls, lands, or bounces on its edge (I’m talking about the really narrow circumference/intersection between the round face and the side, not the side itself)? Theoretically, the part of the puck contacting the ice could be completely over the goal line, but if one were to extend the imaginary plane of the goal line upwards there could be a part of the puck still intersecting it.

Though of course I would have rather seen the Bruins win, I would have hated to see last night’s game be potentially decided by that call. Ward made it a moot point anyway.

by jctsai12 on May 4, 2009 1:24 PM EDT reply actions

The entire puck most be over the goalline, so in the scenario you just mentioned it would be no goal.

Stanley Cup of Chowder: A Hearty Serving of Hockey in The Hub

by Stanley Cup of Chowder on May 4, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions

"No goal"

On behalf of the sane hockey viewing world…even those of us with crappy low resolution TV’s saw that the puck on its edge was over the goal line. Lord man!! Ray Charles could see it was over the line!! Bottom line is that the on ice official made a tough call and it was wrong. The NHL simply dropped the ball on what turned out to be an insignificant goal. So take that garbage excuse from Mike Murphy and paste it to the puck for LaRose’s next goal Beside all that the game is NOW OVER!! On to game 3 here in the LOUDEST HOUSE IN THE NHL!! GO CANES!!
The Opposition-

by 54fighting on May 4, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions

The game would have ended 3-0 either way

Stanley Cup of Chowder: A Hearty Serving of Hockey in The Hub

by Stanley Cup of Chowder on May 4, 2009 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions

I think they got the call wrong, but I understand why they ruled the way they did. If it was called a goal on the ice, it would have stood.

Stanley Cup of Chowder: A Hearty Serving of Hockey in The Hub

by Stanley Cup of Chowder on May 4, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions

agree totally … if it was the other way and the Canes were scored upon, I’d have the same doubts as any Bruins fan. The call on the ice as “no goal” made this a “no goal.”

CanesCountry.com: An Eye On Carolina Hockey

by Cory Lavalette on May 5, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions

I think both sides can agree that it was a good thing the call had no affect on the outcome of the game. Haven’t seen a replay of it as I was at the game (they gave us nothing… not ONE replay) so I have no opinion on the legitimacy of the call, I am just glad that a questionable call had no impact on the series. Keeps the integrity intact.

by BobbyOrrsBastard on May 5, 2009 2:40 PM EDT reply actions