08-06-2004 18:47									#361
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki Obviously, the refs all have Arts degrees. This would never have happened if they were all Comp Sci geeks.

Actually, a compsci geek would've loaded the puck and net up with technology so the goal in game 6 would've been counted immediately.

	08-06-2004 19:15									#362
	Full PM-box? Change here!

^ Two ways to deal with a loss when there are questionable calls:

1) Recognize that had your team played just a bit better, they wouldn't have been in a position to be affected by those calls and that they were ultimately responsible for their own fate (i.e. score on the PP in the first period of game 6),

2) Focus all your anguish at the loss on the officiating and absolve your team of all responsibility.

Option 2 gets you nothing but ulcers. Calgary actually got cut a big break with that penalty call against Pratt in the third where they finally scored -- if anything, that call should have gone against the Flame! Don't seem to hear anything about that particular questionable call.

Let it go, Asher. Unless you have some realistic, cost-effective way to stick all this "technology" into a hockey puck that gets slapped around on hard ice by hard sticks at speeds up to 100 mph.

	08-06-2004 19:19									#363
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by optimus2861 Let it go, Asher. Unless you have some realistic, cost-effective way to stick all this "technology" into a hockey puck that gets slapped around on hard ice by hard sticks at speeds up to 100 mph.

Even Fox managed to do this like 7 years ago(?) with the glowing on the puck. The glowing on the puck means the cameras know the EXACT location of the puck.

There are a variety of technical solutions they could employ, FAR more complex problems have been solved...

The reason you're not hearing anything about that call (which I agree, was questionable), is because it was a blatant even-up attempt because the officiating was so terrible.

	08-06-2004 20:02									#364
	Suffering from ads?

Flogging a dead horse, I know, but a new picture has surfaced a few milliseconds before the original, and it clearly shows that it did go all the way in. Look carefully at where the goalie's skate/pads are:

	08-06-2004 20:37									#365
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Sorry Asher, but I believed that it was a goal...until I saw your new pictures.

Now, I don't think it was.

ACK!

	08-06-2004 20:38									#366
	Remove this text

You do realize the direction the puck is heading in in the first pic, and where the skate is that stopped it, right?

	08-06-2004 20:38									#367
	Inflate your Upload Space

Look at the first picture. That puck is not past the line...

	08-06-2004 20:41									#368
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten Look at the first picture. That puck is not past the line...

Is this a joke?

Of course it's not past the line in that pic, it was taken by a newspaper photographer, so that happened to be when he took the picture.

What you should be able to notice is how far back the goalie's skate is that stops the puck, clearly enough space for the puck to go all the way over the line, even if it was "in the air". The angle is a lot better to show the depth actually there between the goalie's skate and the line...

	08-06-2004 20:43									#369
	Tired of ads?

So, do you have any pictures where the puck actually is over the line? That would be some actual proof for your point...

	08-06-2004 20:44									#370
	Support Apolyton

Looks like a close call that could have gone either way.

It didn't go Asher's way, though, and that's just not acceptable.

-Arrian

	08-06-2004 20:45									#371
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten So, do you have any pictures where the puck actually is over the line? That would be some actual proof for your point...

Look at the last picture. It is clearly over the line. Remember that that pic isn't the farthest the puck went in either, it's just the closest frame we have, since cameras are only 30fps and it happened a lot faster than that...

The point was conceded by everyone that it "appeared to be over the line", but they didn't have proof since they were concerned about depth -- if it was in the air, it could look farther in than it was.

The new pic that has surfaced shows that the goalie's skate was well behind the line, and we DO know it was his skate that stopped the puck.

	08-06-2004 20:48									#372
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Look at the last picture. It is clearly over the line.

No it isn't. You can barely see the puck to begin with and it's a horrible camera angle to use to determine how deep the puck is in. You need another side view, like the first pic.

	08-06-2004 20:49									#373
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten No it isn't. You can barely see the puck to begin with and it's a horrible camera angle to use to determine how deep the puck is in. You need another side view, like the first pic.

You can see the puck, you can even see the white border of the ice around the puck -- even easier when the image is polarized like in the last animation.

I just don't see how it could NOT have been in by the laws of physics. I'm sure if we HAD a perfect camera (another thing they could do, one of those 200-300fps highspeed high resolution cameras at various angles on the net...), it would show it, but we don't have that luxury. Instead of asking for a pic that doesn't exist, explain why you think it didn't go in.

	08-06-2004 20:51									#374
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I will not do any interpretation...
But even though on that last pic, the puck is behind the red line on the pic, doesnt mean it is behind the plane formed by the goal posts...
In 3 dimensions you have to be careful, a puck could be above the ice and not in the net and still be behind the red line you drew...
Not saying its not a goal, just saying to be careful niterepreting anything but a perfect photo from the side\above of the goal.

	08-06-2004 20:52									#375
	Suffering from ads?

So you don't have any definitive proof, then? Guess I'll have to side with the officials on this one...

	08-06-2004 21:03									#376
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I'm in Spain right now, where people don't even know what hockey is, but let's to Asher.

Clearly, the Flames are a talentless bunch of poo-lickers.

	08-06-2004 21:26									#377
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Flames coach Darryl Sutter, who came under fire from the league earlier in the week after he suggested that the New York office doesn't want the Flames to win, refused to say that his team had received a raw deal. "I looked it and that's got to be a conclusive play," he said. "I looked at it from two different angles. And unless you have a different one, you can't say it's a goal. "I mean, it's so close. You can't argue that point. I'm sure they did look at it.

	08-06-2004 21:35									#378
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Let me be the first to say it:

USA! USA! USA!

	08-06-2004 21:37									#379
	Tired of ads?

quote: Let me be the first to say it: USA! USA! USA!

I think my "Take that you ****ing Canucks!!!" expressed the same sentiment several hours ago...

	08-06-2004 22:00									#380
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Arrian

That was blatant posititioning on Sutter's behalf to get the player's mind off of it and on to the next game. He knew the NHL wouldn't reverse it anyway.

It's the same stuff he pulled with the whole "everyone is against us" tactic, taken from Gretsky's playbook from the Olympics.

There's a lot more going on here than meets the untrained American eye.

	08-06-2004 22:02									#381
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten So you don't have any definitive proof, then? Guess I'll have to side with the officials on this one...

I have proof behind a reasonable doubt, and I don't see why it's not in. The "officials" didn't even know it was close, so their opinion is kinda moot. The NHL brass after were trying to save face, because it would be a bad public image for them to award the Stanley Cup after the fact because their refs screwed up.

quote: In 3 dimensions you have to be careful, a puck could be above the ice and not in the net and still be behind the red line you drew... Not saying its not a goal, just saying to be careful niterepreting anything but a perfect photo from the side\above of the goal.

But the puck wasn't nearly that high off the ice, it would have to be substantially above the ice to provide that illusion in the last pic. The first pic shows it isn't as high as some people thought...

	08-06-2004 22:05									#382
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Or, alternatively, maybe he had a moment of objectivity?

The officials made a call. Perhaps it was the wrong one, but in order to have a convincing case, you need a clear shot of the puck across the line. Produce that, and you may have a case for a blown call.

-Arrian

	08-06-2004 22:08									#383
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Or, alternatively, maybe he had a moment of objectivity? The officials made a call. Perhaps it was the wrong one, but in order to have a convincing case, you need a clear shot of the puck across the line. Produce that, and you may have a case for a blown call. -Arrian

All of the evidence showing it has a high probability it's across the line is there, the reason we don't have any more evidence is "the officials" are inept.

You have to go with probability. It screws one team if you say it's a goal, it screws the other if you say it's not a goal. The highest probability is it was a goal, as these pictures show.

The only reason we don't know for sure is because the NHL officials are inept.

	08-06-2004 22:15									#384
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The puck is CLEARLY in the air as it heads toward the net... Khabibulin's pad comes out in a split-second, and knocks the puck away before it crosses. A 3-D optical illusion is created by the puck's height off the ice, creating the image of a goal from one, and only one, angle.

Problem solved.

	08-06-2004 22:19									#385
	Put an end to popups!

Ok, Asher, whatever. It didn't go your way, so the league is at fault. Waaaa.

Refs are human beings, and close calls like these happen in all sports. Sometimes it turns out the ref/ump was right (surprisingly often, actually), and sometimes they blow it. For *most* people, the key to determining a blown call is a clear picture of the play which shows it wasn't the way the ref called it. In baseball, this would be the slow motion replay showing the runner avoided a tag by several feet (thinking of Knoblauch's "phantom tag" in the '99 ALCS here). In hockey, this would be a video clip or still shot of the puck crossing the line. A clear shot, with the proper angle.

It doesn't exist, apparently, or it would have been all over the place. Given that, *most* people will figure the ref made a tough call on a close play, and leave it at that.

-Arrian

	08-06-2004 22:21									#386
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: The puck is CLEARLY in the air as it heads toward the net... Khabibulin's pad comes out in a split-second, and knocks the puck away before it crosses. A 3-D optical illusion is created by the puck's height off the ice, creating the image of a goal from one, and only one, angle. Problem solved.

That would make sense if Khabibulin kicked or even moved his leg out, wouldn't it? Unfortunately that is not the case, he thought the puck was infront of him.

The puck was not only shot at the net, it was on its side, so if it did touch the ice, it would roll in fairly fast anyway. There's no way a goalie could move a leg with that much weight on it, from the position he's in, to be faster than that puck.

	08-06-2004 22:23									#387
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Ok, Asher, whatever. It didn't go your way, so the league is at fault. Waaaa. Refs are human beings, and close calls like these happen in all sports.

Did you even watch the game? It's not the refs that are at fault, they couldn't see it. The league is at fault because they don't have a good way of detecting goals short of an overhead camera, which is sometimes obscured (as it is in this case).

We wouldn't be arguing right now if the league was not inept, because we'd know for sure one way or the other.

So I'll repeat: It's not the ref's fault, and I don't think you even saw the play if that's your argument.

	08-06-2004 22:30									#388
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Ah, I misread your beef with the league. I have it now: you feel they were at fault for not having a camera or other technology in position to tell for sure what happened.

There I agree with you.

-Arrian

	09-06-2004 03:27									#389
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: Let me be the first to say it: USA! USA! USA! I think my "Take that you ****ing Canucks!!!" expressed the same sentiment several hours ago...

Okay, sure, be proud that your American dollars paid for the roster of 15 Canadians, 3 Russians, 3 Czechs, 1 Swede and 3 Americans. Not to mention the MVP being Canadian.

	09-06-2004 03:37									#390
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Tampa outplayed Calgary this game, but it should have never happened. The NHL needs to invest in transponders and RFIDs or something. It's ****ing cheap, and totally fair.

Sour grapes.

They had plenty of chances to win game six, even with that one play.

Sad that Calgary can't bring home the bacon, but congrats to Tampa for showing that the East is superior to the West.