A Lesson In Science For The NHL: If The Glove Is In, The Puck Is Too
I was watching a recent hockey game between the Detroit Red Wings and the Nashville Predators when I saw something that kills me every time it happens.
A player shot the puck and the goalie caught the puck in his glove, but he caught it when his glove was in the net. The ref immediately waved no goal, which was a good call, but when it was reviewed, the call was not overturned. This was wrong.
Supposedly, there was no conclusive evidence to say that the puck was in the net.
I don't give a damn if you can't see the actual puck itself. If the back of the glove is in the net, it is a goal.
A glove is contoured to direct the object to the furthest point back, and in the process allow it to slow down over a greater distance and amount of time than if it were to hit something, like a board. There is no magic force field at the front of the glove keeping the puck at the front of the glove.
Everyone knows this.
It would make sense, then, that when you can see the back of a glove in the net, as well as seeing where the puck is going and where the glove moves when the puck goes in it (just as conclusively as in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U50E9rpNecU), this would be a goal.
I've seen this several times over the course of the past few years, and every time it drives me crazy. Just because you don't see the puck itself does not mean you don't know where it is. Bring me to Toronto, pull up all the videos of glove "saves" like this one, and I will show you, without a doubt, where the puck is. I can scientifically prove it too, if you'd like.
In this situation, the game wasn't on the line, so it wasn't that big of a deal. This rule needs to change before a game is on the line. I'm sure the NHL doesn't want a fiasco worse than the crease debacle in the 1999 Finals.
You've got video replay with the intention of sorting these things out. The problem is, there's no point in having video replay if you don't have a damn clue what you're doing.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?