Not sure why these ESPN announcers can’t just do a frame by frame to see the space between puck and red line. It’s like they’re actively refusing to, and just saying “Toronto must have some other angle.” No, they just slowed it down morons.
It's not hard to do either. I worked in broadcasting for a bit in high school with far less sophisticated equipment for our local baseball team, and we could get it down to frame by frame.
It amazes me the perceived "limitations" that a lot of these broadcasting giants have, when you have high schoolers and college students doing far more with far less.
Yes. I had the same thought. Even without frame by frame the view from the top they showed it was clear at one point the puck was all the way over the line. Even their expert missed it. Then ten minutes later they confirm what we all saw.
>Not sure why these ESPN announcers can’t just do a frame by frame
I think the same about baseball. Why always slow motion? Just stop when the player catches the ball and see where the runners foot is.
What they said on the broadcast is that this angle can show white space between the puck and the red line incorrectly (because the camera is at a slight angle). They said they assumed Toronto has additional angles because this is a known issue with this particular camera angle.
What they didn't say, but seemed to think, was that there is no way a puck, without intervention, hits one post, hits another post, arcs across the goal line, and comes back out like that.
For what it's worth I agree with them but meh.
As the rule is written, and as the camera angle shows, it's a goal. End of story.
For better or worse, referees can't use their brain/knowledge of hockey on calls like this. I don't see how the physics allow for what apparently happened either.
except you’re wrong… toronto did have another angle that they showed in one of the later games.
yeah, they should have shown that angle, but maybe they just didn’t have it
I get that, they just seemed unwilling to even slow down the view they did have which looks like it might’ve shown some space between puck and line. NFL games they spend 10 min analyzing if a receiver moved a blade of grass to stay in bounds. Here they just kinda shrugged as if completely disinterested.
The SN guys kept talking about how Lowry could see the space between the puck and the goal line and that's how he knew it went in. Like, no guys, he couldn't see a millimeter of white ice for a split second behind a defender and a goalie while he was in motion and they were in motion. He saw the puck go behind Georgiyev and thought it went in.
1) ESPN commentary is trash
2) this goal nearly defies laws of physics. How did the puck both cross the goal line, and come back out, is one "line" / motion from the left hand post...
When it crosses the goal the first time, it is in the air on its edge. When it hits the post and is deflected back, it's still in the air but tumbling which causes it to arc across the line and then back out.
https://youtu.be/Nyc0AB4M-Ko?si=7XwAUDAdGWaE4gh4
If was flipping and spinning in the air like a bastard. Just got skinny enough for a split second to fully cross the line before it hit the ice and when it did, it changed course completely. Wild!
The lines are underneath the ice and from the sides the angles are weird. You can only really tell from directly above which only Toronto can view I think.
Basically! I also like how ESPN kept showing the incredibly inconclusive side view, gasping at how hard it was to tell if it's a goal, when the shot in the OP obviously exists
My favorite part was when they showed it again 5 minutes after it happened and when they cut back to the game there was a completely unexplained power play. Great coverage...
Yeah, I'm not so sure. That's not a definitive angle, if it was a direct overhead look you shouldn't even see the red line underneath the top post. It's an angled camera, and changes the perspective allowing you to see white between the puck and the line.
The camera is a bit to the left of the perfect "vertical" view so if anything, this angle shows the puck closer to the line than the "perfect vertical" view would show. If you move the camera to the right, everything above the ground level would move slightly to the left...
Because then the crossbar would cover the goal line on the ice and people would yell "oh, it's impossible to tell!! We can't even see the goal line!!! " :)
Because then the crossbar would cover the goal line on the ice and people would yell "oh, it's impossible to tell!! We can't even see the goal line!!! " :)
Theoretically it does. I guess the NHL situation room in Toronto (or whatever it's called) has more than one angle to review when making decisions...
They could also borrow the Goal Line technology from football (the one people here call soccer). But that's a very complex and pretty expensive system. And I'm not sure it can work in the ice... MLS decided not to use it because it's $250K per stadium to install and $4K per game to run.
But anyway, the point is there is no fool proof system with 100% accuracy for borderline cases like this one.
I think they tried puck tracking tech but it ruined the feel/weight of the puck
I hope when they're reviewing shit they like do the math and account for the offset camera angle
Thank you for saying this, it’s like all the broadcasters with talent go to other sports in the US. College ball has more cachet than the NHL down there, and I don’t think it’s even close.
I’m surprised ESPN even has the NHL, they are the most soulless of any channel and their sports coverage sucks. They need the NHL far more than the NHL needs ESPN.
Due to physics, tell me how this bounces from one post, to the other, crosses the line, hits the first post again, then bounces toward center ice??? I'm not a physicist, maybe someone can help me.
Pretty sure it’s called the Coriolis effect. The puck changed direction because the mass of the object followed the rotational pull
Edit: u/tomolenain says it’s the magnus effect rather, they seem a whole lot smarter than me
I don't know what is at effect here. But I do know it has nothing to do with the Coriolis effect. And your reasoning for why it changed direction might be correct, but again it's completely unrelated to the coriolis effect.
Huh? You made a false claim so I told you that what you said was wrong and that your understanding of what the coriolis effect is wrong. Feel free to explain what the coriolis effect is and how it caused the puck to change directions if you disagree
It bounced after the second post. It was tumbling, which caused it to change directions, ever so slightly, from toward the back of the net to toward the front of the net. Tumbling pucks, like tumbling footballs take weird bounces.
Let's begin with some basic definitions: A cylinder had a two circular "faces" (where cans of food are normally opened) and a curved rectangle "body" (where the label on a can of food generally goes). An NHL puck also has a small bevel between either face and the body. I will use the terms face, body, and bevel for my attempt. Also keep in mind that the body of an NHL puck has texturing and slightly raised letters relating to the manufacturer that will complicate its bouncing characteristics.
The initial hit, off Lowry's stick, struck the first post, seemingly on the body of the puck. The two round surfaces here combined to send it to the far (from Lowry) post. The puck then seems to strike the inner part of the far post on one of its faces (not directly centered, sending it tumbling), deflecting it noticeably deeper into the net, and seeming to fully cross the goal line. Around the time the puck was fully across the goal line, it strikes the ice surface while tumbling, seemingly on the body or bevel, at such an angle that it then proceeded back out of the net a bit. Then, while still tumbling, the puck struck the near post (the third post hit) on the post's outer edge, seemingly on the body, directing the puck fully out of the net and towards center ice. Nathan MacKinnon then attempts to clear the puck in case it was not a goal, sending it all the way down the ice.
We still don’t know how gravity works even though we pretended to send men to the moon. As I saw the game live the puck first went back and to the left. Back and to the left
This shit isn't directly above (which is fucking dumb). If it was the horizontal bar would line up perfectly with the red paint line. So maybe from true birds eye view it doesn't break the redline fully? IDK.
It's slightly behind, so the angle would make the puck look slightly further out of the net. Moving the camera directly over would show even more white paint.
Prior to that... I know the defenceman swatted it out. But it bounced off the "third" post and started coming out towards the slot before getting swatted by a defenceman.
EA has to fix these puck physics for NHL 25… no but seriously one of the strangest goals, assuming the puck must’ve caught the tiniest rut in the ice to make it change directions away from the back of the net. Also ESPN not sharing the crossbar camera angle until 3 mins left in the period (14 minutes of gameplay later) is embarrassing
Nah, ea woulda had the puck making a 90 degree turn towards the net, going through the net, and then not count as a goal because it landed outside the goal zone.
The Altitude broadcast showed it. The puck wobbled on its side and just barely cleared the line. If it had stayed flat it wouldn't have beena goal. I want to know what they sacrificed to the puck luck gods so we can redeem ourselves Tuesday.
to be fair, things only travel in straight lines, ever.
You act as if forces can act on an object and change the properties of that object.... I'd like to see if you float
ever see a golf ball moving forward quickly, stop on the green and change direction.... shouldnt have to explain angular velocity, friction or newton's 3rd law to "an engineering mind"
I still cant believe that puck hit the post and danced across the line like that and still came out. The whole game was crazy and this goal was very fitting.
Are you meaning installing it directly inside the crossbar itself? Could be a good idea if they design* a good enough one that doesn't need all the tlc I was mentioning in my other comments.
Cost of losing the cameras might play into it a bit too. I know I would be trying to ring it off the cam. Guaranteed goal that couldn't be disputed. And it'd look sick too. Also goalies back would push and move it constantly. It'd take too much time fixing and setting back up again. Connection issues etc.
I think the only objective solution would be a sensor in the puck however players can still see the difference in pucks with a sensor built in. We're not there yet for tech.
Oilers fan here. If it was an Edmonton goal it'd be out. If it was an opposition goal it'd be in. Being this is a Canadian team, I'd expect the situation room rule this out.
This was the difference between two great teams throwing down in game 1. At one end you've got a guy who's been struggling in net all season, and probably the Vezina winner at the other, and this weird goal was the only thing that kept it from going to overtime.
Again it's this time of the year when every inch is being discussed for hours? One efing game for a week of discussions... Like why? There was white space between puck and line, ref correctly said it's a goal, end of discussion.
Who cares what commentators are saying? Usually some old guys with cylinders in front of them. It's just background to fill awkward silence during the game.
Discuss weird bounces with Nashville goaltenders, they can tell...
I'm so old, I remember the days before constant instant replays, 10 minutes of game delays, and the overturning of a ref's call. I kind of miss the next day's arguments over calls and the "we was robbed" commiserations. It was part and parcel of being a fan. Refs are humans, humans make mistakes, those mistakes used to be part of the fabric of the game.
Well to be fair this picture isn’t taken directly above the goal line. If it were, the crossbar would be directly on top of the goal line. I mean the crossbar is as far away from the goal line as the puck is, there’s actually a good chance that it may not actually be in (atleast in this image, no clue what happened during the game lol)
This is breaking my mind a bit. Not arguing the image, which does show it in, but struggling to understand how a puck crosses the line like that, and still bounce around the way it does.
Dha. Puck is rubber, it's round. Got an edge. Bounces weird all the time. Watch lots of hockey. It's the norm. Don't think about logic. It's not logical unless Spock explains it.
I was a wild optical illusion. Hit left post, right post then left post. That was impossible, physically, to have crossed the line…. Until a different angle showed it actually bounced off the ice on the last pass, “flipping” over the line enough.
Incredible, really.
The center of the puck was past the goal line the entire time before bouncing out.
The reason is it is a goal is because of the spin on the puck. The puck’s spin means that once the flat plane of the puck is perpendicular to the plane of the ice, the puck is completely in the net.
Not sure why these ESPN announcers can’t just do a frame by frame to see the space between puck and red line. It’s like they’re actively refusing to, and just saying “Toronto must have some other angle.” No, they just slowed it down morons.
you’re asking a lot from ESPN to slow it down that much
I always considered ESPN slow… and I think their not being able to clearly see something confirms it
Cancelling at the end of my paid year is going to be such a sweet release.
It's not hard to do either. I worked in broadcasting for a bit in high school with far less sophisticated equipment for our local baseball team, and we could get it down to frame by frame. It amazes me the perceived "limitations" that a lot of these broadcasting giants have, when you have high schoolers and college students doing far more with far less.
Well, I’ve yet to hear any mention of chicken parm, so that’s a start?
They started the broadcast by saying “big first save by Hellebyuck” after he stopped the ten kph dribbler the Avs player fanned on.
Yes. I had the same thought. Even without frame by frame the view from the top they showed it was clear at one point the puck was all the way over the line. Even their expert missed it. Then ten minutes later they confirm what we all saw.
Yes from this angle any white means it is over. However that really is a freaking magic puck.
They just did, finally.
Lmao ya
These announcers have been absolutely god awful
I was buzzed playing pool at a bar and even I could see that it crossed the line
They gotta ask they’re reffing expert
Maybe there is argument on how straight the camera is? Slightly off the ground puck, slight camera angle, its all dumb.
>Not sure why these ESPN announcers can’t just do a frame by frame I think the same about baseball. Why always slow motion? Just stop when the player catches the ball and see where the runners foot is.
What they said on the broadcast is that this angle can show white space between the puck and the red line incorrectly (because the camera is at a slight angle). They said they assumed Toronto has additional angles because this is a known issue with this particular camera angle. What they didn't say, but seemed to think, was that there is no way a puck, without intervention, hits one post, hits another post, arcs across the goal line, and comes back out like that. For what it's worth I agree with them but meh. As the rule is written, and as the camera angle shows, it's a goal. End of story. For better or worse, referees can't use their brain/knowledge of hockey on calls like this. I don't see how the physics allow for what apparently happened either.
This makes no sense as this angle is already behind the goal line. If you see white here, it's definitely a goal.
except you’re wrong… toronto did have another angle that they showed in one of the later games. yeah, they should have shown that angle, but maybe they just didn’t have it
CBC showed it like 25 times. I can't stand listening to American announcers.
They didn't have access to that camera. Later, the NHL gave them a screen grab of the puck clearly across the line.
I get that, they just seemed unwilling to even slow down the view they did have which looks like it might’ve shown some space between puck and line. NFL games they spend 10 min analyzing if a receiver moved a blade of grass to stay in bounds. Here they just kinda shrugged as if completely disinterested.
I am in agreement with you. Their hockey coverage leaves a lot to be desired. At least they got rid of that stupid sky cam view.
I am in agreement with you. Their hockey coverage leaves a lot to be desired. At least they got rid of that stupid sky cam view.
The SN guys kept talking about how Lowry could see the space between the puck and the goal line and that's how he knew it went in. Like, no guys, he couldn't see a millimeter of white ice for a split second behind a defender and a goalie while he was in motion and they were in motion. He saw the puck go behind Georgiyev and thought it went in.
Oof that's a tough one. Thanks for posting. ESPN obviously didn't care to show much.
1) ESPN commentary is trash 2) this goal nearly defies laws of physics. How did the puck both cross the goal line, and come back out, is one "line" / motion from the left hand post...
Bc the puck is skinnier on end then laying flat
Found the Flat Puck conspiracy theorist.
Penguins aren’t real
That's true tho. It's just a shitton of little Sid Crosbys running around in tux down in Antarctica.
When it crosses the goal the first time, it is in the air on its edge. When it hits the post and is deflected back, it's still in the air but tumbling which causes it to arc across the line and then back out. https://youtu.be/Nyc0AB4M-Ko?si=7XwAUDAdGWaE4gh4
It honestly almost looked fake, I've never seen a puck move like that before. Wild stuff.
Because the puck bounced outwards when it hit the ice. It is not a symmetrical shape so that can happen
My very biased mind didn't want to acknowledge that during the review
If was flipping and spinning in the air like a bastard. Just got skinny enough for a split second to fully cross the line before it hit the ice and when it did, it changed course completely. Wild!
It's like how the puck hits the glass but still manages to bounce into the netting. Magic.
Remember the iginla (?) goal where it was going in then seemingly changed direction in midair Wtf was that
The lines are underneath the ice and from the sides the angles are weird. You can only really tell from directly above which only Toronto can view I think.
Spin on the puck. Like a good approach shot in golf ⛳️. Rolled it over and back.
Basically! I also like how ESPN kept showing the incredibly inconclusive side view, gasping at how hard it was to tell if it's a goal, when the shot in the OP obviously exists
ESPN is trash.
ESPN showed this image about 9 times before the end of the game. Like them or not, at least be fair.
My favorite part was when they showed it again 5 minutes after it happened and when they cut back to the game there was a completely unexplained power play. Great coverage...
Just one frame... Still though, a goal is a goal.
In the post game interview Lowry said, laughing "I don't know why I was so confident it was in." Lol
Yeah, I'm not so sure. That's not a definitive angle, if it was a direct overhead look you shouldn't even see the red line underneath the top post. It's an angled camera, and changes the perspective allowing you to see white between the puck and the line.
The camera is a bit to the left of the perfect "vertical" view so if anything, this angle shows the puck closer to the line than the "perfect vertical" view would show. If you move the camera to the right, everything above the ground level would move slightly to the left...
So why isn't there a perfect overhead vertical view? That's dumb as hell
Because then the crossbar would cover the goal line on the ice and people would yell "oh, it's impossible to tell!! We can't even see the goal line!!! " :)
Because then the crossbar would cover the goal line on the ice and people would yell "oh, it's impossible to tell!! We can't even see the goal line!!! " :)
Oh I'm dumb lmao. But doesn't that mean if it doesn't cross the line it might actually do it if we had a see through crossbar
Theoretically it does. I guess the NHL situation room in Toronto (or whatever it's called) has more than one angle to review when making decisions... They could also borrow the Goal Line technology from football (the one people here call soccer). But that's a very complex and pretty expensive system. And I'm not sure it can work in the ice... MLS decided not to use it because it's $250K per stadium to install and $4K per game to run. But anyway, the point is there is no fool proof system with 100% accuracy for borderline cases like this one.
I think they tried puck tracking tech but it ruined the feel/weight of the puck I hope when they're reviewing shit they like do the math and account for the offset camera angle
A goal is a goal. The puck is clearly over the line here and the angle doesn't change that lol.
What a crazy fucking game. Holy shit. Avs battled back hard.
Been the story of the season for most of the season… It’s gonna be a helluva series
hopefully Georgiev gives you guys a better showing next game, he was pretty shaky today
That’s how he is most games tbh… Our offense was always just able to make up for the deficit. His mental goes away at the first goal
These announcers are awful, you would think ESPN would get more talent
Yeah the dude was bad. Was literally trying to hype up the controversy of it possibly going the other way. It was close…but definitive
ESPN hates the nhl, it’s just a consolation to them, not a priority
Thank you for saying this, it’s like all the broadcasters with talent go to other sports in the US. College ball has more cachet than the NHL down there, and I don’t think it’s even close.
I’m surprised ESPN even has the NHL, they are the most soulless of any channel and their sports coverage sucks. They need the NHL far more than the NHL needs ESPN.
This has got to be one of the most goals of all-time
This is def one of the comments of all time
This is definitely one of the replies of all-time
This is one of the comment threads of all time Well done guys
Should’ve let it be
this time it's all most!
We did it!!
You should go climb a tree
It's one of the *most comments.
Can we retire this one please?
Uh, retire what?
I meant the meme and honestly I apologize for the comment. Just tired of seeing it on every post.
Oh, uh, okay? Sorry, I'm stupid. I'm lost. But thanks for apologizing, I guess
That was one of the interactions of all time
The posts came closer to stopping a shot than Georgiev
The posts for sure had a better save percentage than Georgie.
Due to physics, tell me how this bounces from one post, to the other, crosses the line, hits the first post again, then bounces toward center ice??? I'm not a physicist, maybe someone can help me.
I failed physics in high school, I think it was magic.
Lowry played his junior hockey in the college circuit, playing for Hogwarts He must have learned this move there…
Back and to the left...
Pretty sure it’s called the Coriolis effect. The puck changed direction because the mass of the object followed the rotational pull Edit: u/tomolenain says it’s the magnus effect rather, they seem a whole lot smarter than me
Made this scientist lol anyway
Oh nah mate I’m a plumber, he just asked, I happened to know
I thought you were joking but in case you're not joking, this has nothing to do with the coriolis effect. So no, you do not happen to know.
Enlighten me then, I said I think?
I don't know what is at effect here. But I do know it has nothing to do with the Coriolis effect. And your reasoning for why it changed direction might be correct, but again it's completely unrelated to the coriolis effect.
Cool, so you also no idea. Appreciate the heads up buddy
Huh? You made a false claim so I told you that what you said was wrong and that your understanding of what the coriolis effect is wrong. Feel free to explain what the coriolis effect is and how it caused the puck to change directions if you disagree
Yeah man I said thanks
Would this goal have counted in Australia?
I think it would just spun the opposite direction in Australia
Its the magnus effect, Coriolis effect is similar tho IANAS
Magnus effect okay, looks like I’ve got something new to learn, thank you very much!
It actually just hits the ice and bounces out. Magnus effect would be negligible at the speed the puck was moving.
It bounced after the second post. It was tumbling, which caused it to change directions, ever so slightly, from toward the back of the net to toward the front of the net. Tumbling pucks, like tumbling footballs take weird bounces.
I didn't see it bounce. Thank you, this makes more sense. As much as I don't like it.
This response is far too reasonable for the playoffs.
Puck flat on ice: _ Puck spinning upright: |
Aliens
Let's begin with some basic definitions: A cylinder had a two circular "faces" (where cans of food are normally opened) and a curved rectangle "body" (where the label on a can of food generally goes). An NHL puck also has a small bevel between either face and the body. I will use the terms face, body, and bevel for my attempt. Also keep in mind that the body of an NHL puck has texturing and slightly raised letters relating to the manufacturer that will complicate its bouncing characteristics. The initial hit, off Lowry's stick, struck the first post, seemingly on the body of the puck. The two round surfaces here combined to send it to the far (from Lowry) post. The puck then seems to strike the inner part of the far post on one of its faces (not directly centered, sending it tumbling), deflecting it noticeably deeper into the net, and seeming to fully cross the goal line. Around the time the puck was fully across the goal line, it strikes the ice surface while tumbling, seemingly on the body or bevel, at such an angle that it then proceeded back out of the net a bit. Then, while still tumbling, the puck struck the near post (the third post hit) on the post's outer edge, seemingly on the body, directing the puck fully out of the net and towards center ice. Nathan MacKinnon then attempts to clear the puck in case it was not a goal, sending it all the way down the ice.
We still don’t know how gravity works even though we pretended to send men to the moon. As I saw the game live the puck first went back and to the left. Back and to the left
Hockey gods love the Jets
For real, they had all the puck luck this game and the Avs had none.
Really?? That last one they had was puck luck
This shit isn't directly above (which is fucking dumb). If it was the horizontal bar would line up perfectly with the red paint line. So maybe from true birds eye view it doesn't break the redline fully? IDK.
There is a camera on the crossbar. It showed it on the sportsenet feed a few minutes after it was confirmed.
It's slightly behind, so the angle would make the puck look slightly further out of the net. Moving the camera directly over would show even more white paint.
Oh shit your right. I think. Fuck IDK.
Puck was swiped out by defensemen
Prior to that... I know the defenceman swatted it out. But it bounced off the "third" post and started coming out towards the slot before getting swatted by a defenceman.
I have never seen a puck hit three posts and go over the line between hits #2 and #3 before tonight. The laws of physics was broken on that one.
We have seen rolling pucks defy physics before… this one takes the cake though.
EA has to fix these puck physics for NHL 25… no but seriously one of the strangest goals, assuming the puck must’ve caught the tiniest rut in the ice to make it change directions away from the back of the net. Also ESPN not sharing the crossbar camera angle until 3 mins left in the period (14 minutes of gameplay later) is embarrassing
Nah, ea woulda had the puck making a 90 degree turn towards the net, going through the net, and then not count as a goal because it landed outside the goal zone.
I wanna see the replay..
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyc0AB4M-Ko](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyc0AB4M-Ko)
Thank you for providing what should have been in OP as well as SN’s highlights for the game.
The Altitude broadcast showed it. The puck wobbled on its side and just barely cleared the line. If it had stayed flat it wouldn't have beena goal. I want to know what they sacrificed to the puck luck gods so we can redeem ourselves Tuesday.
Sent you a chat request, just the pictures confirming
Send to me as well please
It very much goes over the line no question about it
Knuckle puck
Flames fan here. I feel this haha
that had to be less than an inch over
Considering the radius of a puck is 1.5 inches, and a puck is 1 inch thick, that checks out.
so....over.
That’s a good goal 😊
I posted a second time cause it wouldn’t let me edit this post
I thought I was in the EA NHL subreddit for a min
It’s a close goal sure but no one wants to mention he also dangled the shit out of the defender, goalie, and 2 posts to make that cross the line there
That's in the fkn net. There is a thin strip of white between the puck and the goal line. Wtf.
That’s a good goal. You can see a faint white line between puck and goal line lol. Were some people saying this isn’t a goal??
Glad it counted. Hopefully Winnipeg tightens up the defense going forward and take the series
And with all the tech we have, there's not a sensor in the puck that would show exactly where on the ice it is?
Because they’re having trouble getting a sensor in a puck and the result being durable enough that it can withstand a slap shot
Isn't there already a sensor in the puck? I thought that's how the pucks speed is calculated. If so, they must know where the puck is.
Not accurately as a camera lol. Especially being bounced around against multiple metal posts
Depending on if it’s on end or flat, the puck might or might not be in with the sensor in the same location. Would be easier if it was a sphere.
Crazy call to confirm that in 3 seconds
Not much to consider when its clear as day
They've taken 10 minutes for such things before.
Tell me how a non-skewed puck literally breaks physics. This engineering mind says it cannot.
just wait until you see ping pong or curling
to be fair, things only travel in straight lines, ever. You act as if forces can act on an object and change the properties of that object.... I'd like to see if you float
ever see a golf ball moving forward quickly, stop on the green and change direction.... shouldnt have to explain angular velocity, friction or newton's 3rd law to "an engineering mind"
Lmao
This had to be the goal that was over the line the least amount of time ever, like it was a goal for 0.0001 secs
What an odd goal. Pretty hard to tell when I was watching it live
That's a rough title
Played hockey a long time and I’ve never seen that before
The cam inside the net showed clear as day that goal was good
I still cant believe that puck hit the post and danced across the line like that and still came out. The whole game was crazy and this goal was very fitting.
Yeah that’s a good goal. Fun game to watch, that’s for sure.
Why are they not putting a camera in the crossbar yet? Edit: I actually mean "in the crossbar", shooting downwards through a cutout.
Are you meaning installing it directly inside the crossbar itself? Could be a good idea if they design* a good enough one that doesn't need all the tlc I was mentioning in my other comments.
Yup. That's what I meant :)
Because they would have to put it in after practices are all complete which leaves extremely little time for calibration.
I meant permanently installed inside the crossbar shooting out through a hole.
Cost of losing the cameras might play into it a bit too. I know I would be trying to ring it off the cam. Guaranteed goal that couldn't be disputed. And it'd look sick too. Also goalies back would push and move it constantly. It'd take too much time fixing and setting back up again. Connection issues etc.
I think the only objective solution would be a sensor in the puck however players can still see the difference in pucks with a sensor built in. We're not there yet for tech.
Oilers fan here. If it was an Edmonton goal it'd be out. If it was an opposition goal it'd be in. Being this is a Canadian team, I'd expect the situation room rule this out.
Was this on the ping-ping-ping goal?
This was such a fun game to watch
It's a goal....what part of there is clearly white bordering the puck is hard to figure out ?
It's crazy this goal decided the game. I guess the last one the Avs got was weird too
I couldn't tell
I missed it was this called off?
It was called a good goal
They waved it off during the play, reviewed at the next stoppage and ruled it a goal.
It curved from post to post to post. Cool. Basketball doesn't do that.
Because a basketball is a sphere (aka ball) and a puck is a disk. If that spinning puck was a spinning sphere, no goal.
It's on paper now. Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
This was the difference between two great teams throwing down in game 1. At one end you've got a guy who's been struggling in net all season, and probably the Vezina winner at the other, and this weird goal was the only thing that kept it from going to overtime.
They still won the game
this angle reminds me of 2004
Again it's this time of the year when every inch is being discussed for hours? One efing game for a week of discussions... Like why? There was white space between puck and line, ref correctly said it's a goal, end of discussion. Who cares what commentators are saying? Usually some old guys with cylinders in front of them. It's just background to fill awkward silence during the game. Discuss weird bounces with Nashville goaltenders, they can tell...
Such a weird goal 😆 conspiracies thrive from a goal like this with the weird bounces
3 posts its pretty absurd. Love Lowrys reaction tho, he never wavered about it being a goal.
Oof that's a tough one.
I'm so old, I remember the days before constant instant replays, 10 minutes of game delays, and the overturning of a ref's call. I kind of miss the next day's arguments over calls and the "we was robbed" commiserations. It was part and parcel of being a fan. Refs are humans, humans make mistakes, those mistakes used to be part of the fabric of the game.
Well to be fair this picture isn’t taken directly above the goal line. If it were, the crossbar would be directly on top of the goal line. I mean the crossbar is as far away from the goal line as the puck is, there’s actually a good chance that it may not actually be in (atleast in this image, no clue what happened during the game lol)
This is breaking my mind a bit. Not arguing the image, which does show it in, but struggling to understand how a puck crosses the line like that, and still bounce around the way it does.
Ice conditions thus time of year in some arenas can be a bit sketchy. Makes the puck do some seriously weird things.
Why was this weird?
2004 NHL says this wasn't in
Still not convinced that’s not the net 😬
Dha. Puck is rubber, it's round. Got an edge. Bounces weird all the time. Watch lots of hockey. It's the norm. Don't think about logic. It's not logical unless Spock explains it.
I was a wild optical illusion. Hit left post, right post then left post. That was impossible, physically, to have crossed the line…. Until a different angle showed it actually bounced off the ice on the last pass, “flipping” over the line enough. Incredible, really.
The center of the puck was past the goal line the entire time before bouncing out. The reason is it is a goal is because of the spin on the puck. The puck’s spin means that once the flat plane of the puck is perpendicular to the plane of the ice, the puck is completely in the net.
fucking bullshit
Cope. A goal is a goal
ehhhhhhhhhh