Checking the Laundry: Inconclusive Goals
This week on CTL, Tyler and Andy take a look at goals that were waived off because they were inconclusive. NHL, IIHF, all you could want, right here folks!
Tyler: Andy Andy!
Tyler: No HNIC tonight!!!
Andy: Oh no!
Tyler: What am I going to do during those three hours?!?!
Andy: You should...
Tyler: CHECK THE LAUNDRY!!
The Great Debate:
Andy: Well, I can’t blame the ref, it was hard to see the puck because the goalie was blocking his view, and it was a really close call. However, it did go in and should’ve been a goal.
A Ranger whacked the puck into the side of the net, just between the post and the netting. Thus, even if it did not cross the line at first, it did eventually do so. Since no Ranger got all excited and began jumping up and down, it was understandable that the ref thought it had just been thrown out while it was still on the goal line. Either way, it’s a goal, no doubt about it.
Tyler: Okay, I can’t say the puck didn’t go in because it clearly did. All I can say is that after the puck went in the net, the play continued for quite awhile. I always thought that if the play continued after something like that, then the goal could no longer count, even if it did go in the net.
Moreover, later in the play Rozsaval hits Wellwood from behind and the play is stopped to call a penalty. How can it be possible that the Rangers were scored on, then the play went on, then they got a penalty, and then the goal is still reviewed!?! The Refs made the right call here, no goal.
Andy: It was clearly a goal Tyler, I’m sorry, but it was. We’ve seen this a lot in the NHL, the ref says no goal, but the cameras tell a whole different story.
Andy: On the last camera angle, you can clearly see it’s in. At first it’s a little questionable, but then you just know it’s in! I don’t even think you can argue this one, you can see white ice surrounding the puck, and it’s clearly in.
I don’t know why Biron actually thought he saved that one, but then again, he wasn’t exactly too concentrated on seeing where the puck was going. He missed on his first attempt to catch it, and made a final stretch to get it.
I have no idea what the refs were thinking, but well, that’s what you get for mixing one too many drinks. Like I said before, I don’t know how you can argue this one unless you hack into the NHL’s database and delete the last angle (don’t try it Ty, I already saved a copy into a secret USB drive hidden somewhere in Chile!) this was clearly a goal.
Tyler: I can see how one would make the mistake of thinking this was a goal. In the replay, there were many different angles shown, none of them clearly show the puck over the line; Andy you must realize if there is no conclusive angle showing the puck over the line then the Referee has to call it inconclusive and therefore the call on the ice stands (in most inconclusive cases that call is “no goal”), since it was called on the ice to be “no goal” the final call was the same.
You say that there is no doubt in your mind the puck was over the line and say it is “surrounded by white,” I honestly do not know how you can think that and would love for you to tell me.
Andy: Tyler! On the last angle that is shown, the puck clearly goes in and there is ice between it and the red line. Therefore, it is a goal. Let me draw it out for you
>|< << that is Biron.
_/\______ <<<that is the goal line.
· <<< that is the puck.
As you can see, it is in the net. =)
Tyler: This may just be me being a biased Canadian hockey fan, but that puck was in!!! No doubt, even at the time everyone there thought it was in except Martin Gerber. This goal was waived off saying it was inconclusive. The reason was because it was in his glove and we couldn’t see the puck, all I have to say to that is (exactly what The Hockey News said about a week later), Really? I mean...really!?
Gerber's entire glove was over the line. No way that his glove was that far (all the way) over the line and the puck-that was inside of it-was not.
Andy: Ty, don’t make me e-slap you. You cannot make a full conclusion that the puck was in. Even I can’t say that it wasn’t in. It’s inconclusive because Gerber caught it with his glove; he was at the right place at the right time, and he deserves that save.
There isn’t much I can say because it was inconclusive, but Gerber deserved that save, and since you cant tell that it’s in our out, let’s just let it count.
Tyler: I can’t believe you can say that! Not only would this goal have tied the game and possibly lead more goals in the game for Canada, but it could have changed the rest of the Olympics. How, can anyone, including the refs, look at this shot and where the puck was (in Gerber’s glove inside the net) and say no goal?
Andy: Okay Avery, you scored, good for you. I honestly don’t understand why he had did those push ups, it wasn’t that great of a goal, he should’ve just saved it for another time when the crowd would’ve loved him. Knowing Sean, he probably stole the move from Ovechkin and did it before Ovie had a chance to do it, hahaha.
Tyler: Come on, when you score a goal you celebrate. That’s what Avery did there was nothing wrong with it. The puck may have bounced off Vokoun and went in, but if Avery hadn’t shot it towards the net it would have never gone in.
The celebration may have been a little over the top, but why not? There’s no rule that you can’t do that (unlike the NFL-No Fun League).
Andy: Tyler, it’s Avery, that’s all I have to say.
Do you think Checking the Laundry is getting duller every week? Well, do something about it! If you have something you want Andy and Tyler to debate on Checking the Laundry, please leave your suggestion in the guestbook, on our Leafs This Week site, or e-mail us at email@example.com.
All topics are welcome; we will put the ideas to a vote on next week’s edition of Checking the Laundry. The topic with the most votes will be the feature topic on the next edition of CTL, and, of course, the name of the person that suggested the winning topic will have their name linked at the top of the article.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?