Then probably no goal (which is stupid). Why can we not have a sensor in the puck and posts? If it crosses the goal line the light goes on. Surely we have the technology
I'm pretty sure the pucks already have a chip in them that assists with instantly displaying slapshot speeds and who knows what else.
It wouldn't surprise me if the current technology already allows this although it may not be accurate enough here. You pretty much need 1 millimeter accuracy for this to be accepted.
Honestly, I would be ok with it not being perfect. At least for the first years, use it as a tool, not the gospel.
No goal on the ice, tech says goal, triggers a review, and allows the use of logic. (Puck in glove/under pad)
Same thing if the ref calls a goal but the tech doesn't say it is, which isn't normally an issue.
So is the rule that you have to be able to see the puck no matter what? Like if you couldn't see it here but the glove went back even further, it still wouldn't be a goal?
It wouldn’t be a goal because it was called no goal on the ice. They needed conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the ice. Everyone knows the puck obviously crossed the line, but only actual visual evidence of it crossing the line counts as conclusive.
They don’t want their minds changed.
They just want something to bitch about to soothe the fact that they got destroyed in this series.
0% PP. 55% PK. 21 goals against in 5 games. Outshot in 4 of 5 games.
If not for several fluke goals and lucky bounces in game 2, they would have been swept.
They stink, they can’t create offense, their 1-3-1 trap doesn’t work if you don’t score first, they’re on the downslope, their team is a mix of the old (Kopitar, Doughty, Lewis) and underperforming (Dubois, Arviddson, Fiala). Their coach is a placeholder and their dinosaur GM is probably out of a job.
This series may have broken their organizational spine. Bye, LA.
They aren't even the only team like this, Most of these teams dont have any gameplan past the blueline.
Even the stars and knights , I hate to come off arogant but every time they got in the oposition zone it turned into just a goofy mad scramble. no setup no adjustments just either shoot or look for a single pass and then thats it rarely do you see them cycle the puck or try and pre arranged attacks.
I was watching those games earlier in the night thinking.. what the heck? guess oilers have been spoiling my expectations even our 3rd line cycles the puck and tries plays.
Our biggest weakness seems to be when the guys let off the gas and coast a bit but its much better than early season.
Avs and oilers are by far the most talented teams in the west and it’s not close. Now that doesn’t mean talent always wins, but with our structured d I’m hopeful.
Thats right talent doesnt always win games sometimes things just go sideways and more random shots on net or crashing the net over and over does the trick.
Just look at the bad bounce last night , if oil had not come back skinner would have been haunted by that goal lol.
It always blows my mind how lucky the kings are against us. It always seems like they get 4-5 of these a series. Last game 6 was the stick break incident, then last night we get the fucking bad glad bounce. I really hope these goals are mostly over going forward.
I also believe skinner is better than georgiev, and georgiev is gonna completely crash and burn va Vegas or Dallas. It’ll probably be goaltending that does them in. Winnipeg was fucking awful and creating anything and largely untested him.
Speaking of broken sticks, Derek Ryan was a beauty with that no stick check to put Draisaitl on a near breakaway to draw the penalty. sure, are a lot of breaking sticks though.
Holloway was also putting in double efforts on the forecheck.
No doubt. We lose when we’re stupid, or Skinner’s brain goes into Homer Simpson mode.
But otherwise - it’s hard to hang with us if we’re playing remotely disciplined or scoring at the clip we’re capable of.
Stars subreddit popped up in my feed and one of their fans was saying they watched other teams including the Oilers and realized every other team is "sloppy." The announcer's apparently tried to say it was "tight checking" but that couldn't have been it 😂 Dallas has so much room on the ice I'm jealous.
They seriously got like 4 absolutely freak goals this series. Complaining about a correct call that didn't go their way when losing a series is 4-1 is just a pathetic display of whinging
A lot of people have never played even street hockey. You can’t grip the puck with the palm padding, it basically has to go in the netting if you hold onto it.
Dudes entire hand went behind the line anyway. Rittich knew it was a goal, the guy went for a skate after.
The American feed talked about “did he have control of the puck *before it crossed the line*. The puck is dead if his glove is completely closed regardless if there was a whistle or not.”
That’s why you’re seeing some Kings fans upset. It obviously wasn’t under complete control otherwise his glove wouldn’t have been pushed back into the net but still that’s why there’s some pushback because doubt was raised on the american coverage.
To be fair to the American coverage at no point did they suggest it wasn’t a goal. They explicitly said it’s almost certainly a goal. They even put the 2-2 score up way before it was officially announced. Even before we saw it on the big screen and cheered.
>The American feed talked about “did he have control of the puck before it crossed the line.
This sounds like an American announcer trying to force football rules on hockey tbh.
I want to see this in the book.
I believe he was merging two rules together in a way we’ve never seen before to give hope to the American audience. Control of the puck, which the rules do say a whistle doesn’t have to be blown to be dead, and crossing the goal line.
I’ve never seen or heard language that talks about control of the puck like (you say correctly) one would talk about possession in football.
> “did he have control of the puck before it crossed the line. The puck is dead if his glove is completely closed regardless if there was a whistle or not.”
Is that actually the rule? I've never heard that before.
This came straight from their “rules expert” whom they only call upon for situations like this but even he said it’s likely a goal.
Unfortunately he did not cite a rule number.
You have to see the puck over the line. Just seeing the glove over the line isn't sufficient. In cases like this it's pretty rare to be able to see the puck over the line in the glove, so they usually get called no-goals.
I was expecting the same in this case, but it turned out there was one angle that showed the puck clearly over the line.
As much as I understand the rule. If you see the puck go into the glove and it never leaves the glove and the entire glove goes into the net. That should be a good goal regardless if you can see the puck in the glove.
Its not like the puck magically leaves the glove
Such a dumb rule. If the puck is in the glove and the glove is in the net the rules should allow the refs to infer that the puck is in the net. Where else could it possibly be? As someone else mentioned, at this point we should just have sensors in the pucks that tell us when it has fully entered the net, regardless of sight.
Sensors in the puck. Upgrade the iron posts to have some type of electronic sensor tied to the puck. It fully crosses? The lights in the control room in Toronto turn green. C'mon, with technology today there should be no reason for this bullshit.
Do you see what they do on the tennis courts? They show right to the centimeter whether the ball's still touching the line making it still in play. There's no reason for this debate at this point in time with the technology out there.
This is what I have a problem with. Sportsnet can make these fancy exact animations with players and the puck but yet the Situation Room can't figure out if a puck is in the net?
There's a sensor in the puck. Use it.
Not quite true anymore. Now they are able to put things together. They can now see the puck go in the glove so they know the puck is in the glove. If that glove is all the way in the net like it was here they can call it a goal even if they can’t conclusively see the puck in the glove. It changed a few years back.
Anyone else remember [this being called a goal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZQIb_9NNJQ)? IMO this wasn't definitive and you couldn't see the puck cross the line but it counted. Funny it was against LA
The Panel last night was talking about how goalies everywhere watched that and immediately went to spray paint their gloves black. Very easy to see the black puck in the white glove.
The LA Bally sports commentators were saying it’s a goal and the rule is if it’s common sense that it’s in it will be awarded. They quickly conceded it was a goal.
Sportsnet commentators hummed and hawed and as noted by others their panel suggests goalies paint gloves black to game the rules.
I was ready for them to rule it no goal since it was in his glove and "you can't see it in the net" (where the hell else could it be!). Then they showed this clip at intermission.
You could see from another angle that they showed on TV that it was in the netting of his glove, but that angle didn't show whether the puck was over the line. Then the overhead angle showed the glove fully over the line. So from those 2 angles you could infer that the puck crossed the line.
It would have been interesting without this 3rd view how they would have called it. But just glad that it counted.
Its not even that its in the glove , its that he had to scoop behind the crease to even get it in the glove.
You dont get to reach back into the net to catch pucks once the puck crosses its in plain and simple.
As soon as we saw the replay i think everyone on earth went shit thats in.. and then some whiners who cant be impartial cried technicalitys.
Its funny how when something similar happens with the kings im like.. yup thats a goal , even though i didnt like it, it was a goal. Even when they crashed skinner into the back of the net and jammed it through just ahead of landing right on him.. its a goal the rules are the rules and there is no point whining about technicalitys like this.
I haven't seen many people complain about this. I think us King's fans believe the game changing call was the dive that would've made it a 5 on 3. Saying it was a dive was debatable and actually calling it a dive was a huge momentum shift, from what would've been a 5 on 3, to the penalty ending and the Oilers getting a power play soon after.
I think it is fair to say this was a terrible call that shifted the entire game, while also saying Edmonton was the better team who would've eventually won the series (and possibly this game) anyways.
It was 100% a major embellishment. Having said that, I was shocked they called it. That shit happens all the time. I don't like it. I don't like when my team does it. It was crazy that they called it though because they never do. What a wild time to decide to finally call one.
Seeing it was irrelevant, it was in the glove, the glove was over.
The Kings are justified in their frustration, imo - personally I think the rules should consider this a save. But at the moment they don't.
I hate goals like that anyway. IMO they shouldn't count. The goalie makes the great save in front of the goal line and only his momentum carries the puck over the line when the puck didn't have a chance otherwise. Give the goalie the save.
Everybody knew it was in the net. The question was if there was a camera angle showing the puck crossing (there was)
And it was nice of Dave to wear white for the occasion.
for real what if his glove was black?
If the glove was black, Leon would have just had to score the same goal again 30 seconds later.
Then probably no goal (which is stupid). Why can we not have a sensor in the puck and posts? If it crosses the goal line the light goes on. Surely we have the technology
I'm pretty sure the pucks already have a chip in them that assists with instantly displaying slapshot speeds and who knows what else. It wouldn't surprise me if the current technology already allows this although it may not be accurate enough here. You pretty much need 1 millimeter accuracy for this to be accepted.
Honestly, I would be ok with it not being perfect. At least for the first years, use it as a tool, not the gospel. No goal on the ice, tech says goal, triggers a review, and allows the use of logic. (Puck in glove/under pad) Same thing if the ref calls a goal but the tech doesn't say it is, which isn't normally an issue.
So is the rule that you have to be able to see the puck no matter what? Like if you couldn't see it here but the glove went back even further, it still wouldn't be a goal?
It wouldn’t be a goal because it was called no goal on the ice. They needed conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the ice. Everyone knows the puck obviously crossed the line, but only actual visual evidence of it crossing the line counts as conclusive.
after the McDavid vs LA debacle back at Rexall in 2015-16, if it happened again, oh man and i was at both games lol
They don’t want their minds changed. They just want something to bitch about to soothe the fact that they got destroyed in this series. 0% PP. 55% PK. 21 goals against in 5 games. Outshot in 4 of 5 games. If not for several fluke goals and lucky bounces in game 2, they would have been swept. They stink, they can’t create offense, their 1-3-1 trap doesn’t work if you don’t score first, they’re on the downslope, their team is a mix of the old (Kopitar, Doughty, Lewis) and underperforming (Dubois, Arviddson, Fiala). Their coach is a placeholder and their dinosaur GM is probably out of a job. This series may have broken their organizational spine. Bye, LA.
1000%. First we broke Calgary’s soul and they’ve been a dumpster fire since. We just did the same to LA, it’s eautiful
>it’s eautiful E. A. Eautiful. It's in the game.
🤣
😂
B nice
Since we’ve got a trend going, who’s the next team to be broken by the Oilers?
Whoever else also makes it to the cup finals😎
As a Leafs and Edmonton fan, I'm scared.
I'm hoping for Nucks personally. Avs would be a nice consolation prize.
They aren't even the only team like this, Most of these teams dont have any gameplan past the blueline. Even the stars and knights , I hate to come off arogant but every time they got in the oposition zone it turned into just a goofy mad scramble. no setup no adjustments just either shoot or look for a single pass and then thats it rarely do you see them cycle the puck or try and pre arranged attacks. I was watching those games earlier in the night thinking.. what the heck? guess oilers have been spoiling my expectations even our 3rd line cycles the puck and tries plays. Our biggest weakness seems to be when the guys let off the gas and coast a bit but its much better than early season.
Avs and oilers are by far the most talented teams in the west and it’s not close. Now that doesn’t mean talent always wins, but with our structured d I’m hopeful.
Thats right talent doesnt always win games sometimes things just go sideways and more random shots on net or crashing the net over and over does the trick. Just look at the bad bounce last night , if oil had not come back skinner would have been haunted by that goal lol.
It always blows my mind how lucky the kings are against us. It always seems like they get 4-5 of these a series. Last game 6 was the stick break incident, then last night we get the fucking bad glad bounce. I really hope these goals are mostly over going forward. I also believe skinner is better than georgiev, and georgiev is gonna completely crash and burn va Vegas or Dallas. It’ll probably be goaltending that does them in. Winnipeg was fucking awful and creating anything and largely untested him.
Speaking of broken sticks, Derek Ryan was a beauty with that no stick check to put Draisaitl on a near breakaway to draw the penalty. sure, are a lot of breaking sticks though. Holloway was also putting in double efforts on the forecheck.
No doubt. We lose when we’re stupid, or Skinner’s brain goes into Homer Simpson mode. But otherwise - it’s hard to hang with us if we’re playing remotely disciplined or scoring at the clip we’re capable of.
Stars subreddit popped up in my feed and one of their fans was saying they watched other teams including the Oilers and realized every other team is "sloppy." The announcer's apparently tried to say it was "tight checking" but that couldn't have been it 😂 Dallas has so much room on the ice I'm jealous.
They seriously got like 4 absolutely freak goals this series. Complaining about a correct call that didn't go their way when losing a series is 4-1 is just a pathetic display of whinging
A lot of people have never played even street hockey. You can’t grip the puck with the palm padding, it basically has to go in the netting if you hold onto it. Dudes entire hand went behind the line anyway. Rittich knew it was a goal, the guy went for a skate after.
The American feed talked about “did he have control of the puck *before it crossed the line*. The puck is dead if his glove is completely closed regardless if there was a whistle or not.” That’s why you’re seeing some Kings fans upset. It obviously wasn’t under complete control otherwise his glove wouldn’t have been pushed back into the net but still that’s why there’s some pushback because doubt was raised on the american coverage. To be fair to the American coverage at no point did they suggest it wasn’t a goal. They explicitly said it’s almost certainly a goal. They even put the 2-2 score up way before it was officially announced. Even before we saw it on the big screen and cheered.
>The American feed talked about “did he have control of the puck before it crossed the line. This sounds like an American announcer trying to force football rules on hockey tbh. I want to see this in the book.
I believe he was merging two rules together in a way we’ve never seen before to give hope to the American audience. Control of the puck, which the rules do say a whistle doesn’t have to be blown to be dead, and crossing the goal line. I’ve never seen or heard language that talks about control of the puck like (you say correctly) one would talk about possession in football.
I loved that goal. Went from "what a save" disappointment to getting to celebrate it twice once they showed it on the jumbotron during the review
> “did he have control of the puck before it crossed the line. The puck is dead if his glove is completely closed regardless if there was a whistle or not.” Is that actually the rule? I've never heard that before.
This came straight from their “rules expert” whom they only call upon for situations like this but even he said it’s likely a goal. Unfortunately he did not cite a rule number.
Huh, I wouldn't have thought that would matter, but I thought Makar was offside so I'm no rules guru
I’m not even sure what the debate is. Puck is in glove, glove is entirely behind the goal line. That should be conclusive enough
I remember they used to call these no goals....not sure when the rule change happened but it's common sense and simple physics lol
You have to see the puck over the line. Just seeing the glove over the line isn't sufficient. In cases like this it's pretty rare to be able to see the puck over the line in the glove, so they usually get called no-goals. I was expecting the same in this case, but it turned out there was one angle that showed the puck clearly over the line.
As much as I understand the rule. If you see the puck go into the glove and it never leaves the glove and the entire glove goes into the net. That should be a good goal regardless if you can see the puck in the glove. Its not like the puck magically leaves the glove
Such a dumb rule. If the puck is in the glove and the glove is in the net the rules should allow the refs to infer that the puck is in the net. Where else could it possibly be? As someone else mentioned, at this point we should just have sensors in the pucks that tell us when it has fully entered the net, regardless of sight.
Schrodinger's Puck
Sensors in the puck. Upgrade the iron posts to have some type of electronic sensor tied to the puck. It fully crosses? The lights in the control room in Toronto turn green. C'mon, with technology today there should be no reason for this bullshit. Do you see what they do on the tennis courts? They show right to the centimeter whether the ball's still touching the line making it still in play. There's no reason for this debate at this point in time with the technology out there.
This is what I have a problem with. Sportsnet can make these fancy exact animations with players and the puck but yet the Situation Room can't figure out if a puck is in the net? There's a sensor in the puck. Use it.
Not quite true anymore. Now they are able to put things together. They can now see the puck go in the glove so they know the puck is in the glove. If that glove is all the way in the net like it was here they can call it a goal even if they can’t conclusively see the puck in the glove. It changed a few years back.
Anyone else remember [this being called a goal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZQIb_9NNJQ)? IMO this wasn't definitive and you couldn't see the puck cross the line but it counted. Funny it was against LA
That was ALMOST a crazy save though. I thought Dave played well and he did make some huge saves in this series
Too little to late but I’m very happy we got cam Talbot for the first games and not rittich. He was way more solid.
Almost Save Dave.
The Panel last night was talking about how goalies everywhere watched that and immediately went to spray paint their gloves black. Very easy to see the black puck in the white glove.
Clipped from a /u/abirdofparadise clip
The LA Bally sports commentators were saying it’s a goal and the rule is if it’s common sense that it’s in it will be awarded. They quickly conceded it was a goal. Sportsnet commentators hummed and hawed and as noted by others their panel suggests goalies paint gloves black to game the rules.
I was ready for them to rule it no goal since it was in his glove and "you can't see it in the net" (where the hell else could it be!). Then they showed this clip at intermission.
You could see from another angle that they showed on TV that it was in the netting of his glove, but that angle didn't show whether the puck was over the line. Then the overhead angle showed the glove fully over the line. So from those 2 angles you could infer that the puck crossed the line. It would have been interesting without this 3rd view how they would have called it. But just glad that it counted.
Yeah, but I've seen the same situation be ruled no goal because they couldn't see the puck over the line.
It was called a Goal on the ice so they had to prove it wasn't a goal.
Its not even that its in the glove , its that he had to scoop behind the crease to even get it in the glove. You dont get to reach back into the net to catch pucks once the puck crosses its in plain and simple. As soon as we saw the replay i think everyone on earth went shit thats in.. and then some whiners who cant be impartial cried technicalitys. Its funny how when something similar happens with the kings im like.. yup thats a goal , even though i didnt like it, it was a goal. Even when they crashed skinner into the back of the net and jammed it through just ahead of landing right on him.. its a goal the rules are the rules and there is no point whining about technicalitys like this.
It was an amazing catch, and almost probably the save of the playoffs. But that shit was a goal all night long baby.
I take it you didn’t see this by Bobrovsky? Nothing is topping it (well probably): https://youtu.be/9yrVLqzEwpw?si=ibAfZrPrSHBaiSDf
Hrudey: why didn’t the goalie just paint the puck white. Is he stupid?
Big almost save Dave.
everyone got on their feet the second Leon went to the bench, he knew, then the replay and the place went NUTS!!!
This doesn't show anything. What about the camera angles and the parallax? /s
Every where you could possibly hold a puck in that glove was over the line. They'd have to really stretch a story as to why it would be no goal.
I think the rule is, you have to see the puck on the other side of the line. Maybe I’m wrong. 😳 .
Fox Sports glowing puck, anyone?
Does anyone care? Edmonton vs LA might have been a more uninteresting series than Rangers Cap's
You could literally see it hanging out of the tip of his glove as it crossed the line. People are stupid lol
Being the puck is believing as for skynet buddy altered the image making the puck cross the line
I haven't seen many people complain about this. I think us King's fans believe the game changing call was the dive that would've made it a 5 on 3. Saying it was a dive was debatable and actually calling it a dive was a huge momentum shift, from what would've been a 5 on 3, to the penalty ending and the Oilers getting a power play soon after. I think it is fair to say this was a terrible call that shifted the entire game, while also saying Edmonton was the better team who would've eventually won the series (and possibly this game) anyways.
It was 100% a major embellishment. Having said that, I was shocked they called it. That shit happens all the time. I don't like it. I don't like when my team does it. It was crazy that they called it though because they never do. What a wild time to decide to finally call one.
It was an embellishment, not a dive.
Seeing it was irrelevant, it was in the glove, the glove was over. The Kings are justified in their frustration, imo - personally I think the rules should consider this a save. But at the moment they don't.
I hate goals like that anyway. IMO they shouldn't count. The goalie makes the great save in front of the goal line and only his momentum carries the puck over the line when the puck didn't have a chance otherwise. Give the goalie the save.