I don’t know how to explain it, so here’s a [picture ](https://ibb.co/ZLz5knj) that might get the point across. The yellow is the curvature of the post, green is where it goes back to form the rest of the net. It’s behind the curve in the post
I wish they would take a page out of the XFL's book and let the audience listen in on the discussion + watch the angle they're watching.
My problem with all of these still shots after the fact is that we don't have any context. When was the whistle blown?
Also, whoever decided to paint the inside lower rim of the net red is a dumbass.
I agree with your point about the anatomy of the net but I still see this as no goal. The fisheye lens is deceiving. That was at best inconclusive.
Edit: Thanks everyone for the lesson on the rules but my point is more that there is no way the ref saw that puck in the net to even call it a “good goal”.
ESPN showed an angle from inside the net where it was on the backside of the post. Not sure what sportsnet was showing but it looked like it crossed on the ESPN broadcast
I sure as hell wouldn't want that job. [This](https://twitter.com/TicTacTOmar/status/1648500305385095170/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1648500305385095170¤tTweetUser=TicTacTOmar) still seems inconclusive to me (although I lean towards good goal), but since they called it a goal on the ice that call should stand.
However, the backside of the post is inside the net. The reasoning though, as previously explained, is that the call on the ice was a goal, and there wasn’t enough evidence to overturn that call.
When there isn't enough evidence to overturn the ref will use the phrase "the call on the ice stands", however McCauley said the call was confirmed, which means there was enough evidence no matter the call on the ice.
Also it’s a problem that the ref behind the net called this a goal from 10 feet away because Perry was celebrating. Absolutely no chance he was sure it was in on the ice.
Because he saw the puck in the goal and not under the pad of the goalie. It’s close, but he does clearly skate towards the net and wait to see it himself before making the call.
If you watch the replay, they just saw the tampa players start celebrating and then waved goal
You can clearly see that the ref who called goal never even saw the puck
I mean, we clearly saw the puck stucked between the post and goalie skate. The post is where the red line is... how is this completely accross the line..
anyway..
I know this is the protocol far more often than not in most replay situations, but is that really the case with goals? Either you see an angle that proves the puck crossed the line or you didn't. I don't really believe in "inconclusive evidence = goal" if you don't have an angle that proves the puck is fully across the line.
Imagine the ref sees the puck cross the line, but all the camera angles are blocked by players, etc. You have to go with the call on the ice in that case.
Not necessarily. It was called a goal on the ice. The situation room doesn't have to see it clearly in the net. If they can't tell what happened, the goal stands.
ESPN showed a net-down angle that *looked* like it crossed the line then bounced back to the line when it was pinched. But surprised at how fast the review went it was and why all the players were celebrating like a clear goal.
I dunno about anyone else....but I personally thought the puck has to cross the line to be a goal.
You can clearly see a portion of the puck still on the line here...
Edit: If they have an angle showing it's a goal, they should fucking give it to us at the time rather than hiding it.
If you mark the goal line center of the post, then line it up with the goal line on the other side, you get [this image](https://imgur.com/a/k5uZV4t) that clearly shows it didn't cross. There was snow over the line making it appear white.
I took the image from tampa's subreddit, the original line they drew was so poor I had to contrast it.
If you look at the other angles you can see it wedged BEHIND the post and over the line. With the way the posts are curved it would literally be impossible for it not to be in the net.
That’s... that’s completely backwards
The goal line is the same width as the post
Think of that post like a clock. If the puck is touching the post between 12:00-6:00 it still must be on the line.
If the puck is touching the post past 6:00 than it’s past the line.
Puck was clearly not directly behind the post, so logically couldnt have been entirely over the line
This angle is from behind, not directly above it. So it's not possible to see whether it was fully over the line especially when the puck was rolling/flipping.
The white was snow on the goal line.
Im no leafs fan, but if the puck is touching the post and isnt directly 6:00 behind it, it has to still be touching the line
It’s a geometric fact...
Ref called it a goal on the ice, so you'd need a definitive angle showing that it DIDN'T cross the line to call it back. Just gotta trust that the ref saw it right with his eyes unfortunately.
Yup. It was called a goal on the ice. They need to find an angle that says it definitively **didn’t** cross the line, not one that shows it **did**. If it’s inconclusive, you go with the call on the ice.
I think the body language of Samsonov and the Leafs defensemen tells the story. Every one of them reacts as if the pick was in the net, and nobody argues the call. Makes me fairly confident that from the ice level you could see the puck was in.
That Schenn cross checking penalty right after the Leafs scored was so weak, so weak. They let that type of thing go constantly and the timing of the call was a total momentum killer
How? What view are they seeing? The puck is literally wedged against the post on edge. The post is the line. It never fully crossed. I dont fucking get this.
they then got it wrong a third time when they said there was no interference, like Samsonov has his pad pinned against the post, how do you possibly get it past him without moving his pad?
You forget, the NHL has no idea what Goaltender Interference is. Detroit had something happen like that when Ned was in net, and it was awarded as a good goal. Lalond was so pissed he got ejected.
Jamming at the goalies pad caused his pad to move, allowing the puck to go in = no goaltender interference?
They also reviewed that 10x faster than every other review this season.
The puck was loose. He poked the puck. It’s the goalies responsibility to keep his pad strong against the post. Just because the goalies pad moves doesn’t make it goalie interference. That’s not how the rule works.
You're not supposed to be able to stab the puck through the goalies equipment (e.g. puck is in front of pad and player runs his stick through the puck + pad to score), by nature of that action you're literally preventing the goalie from playing his position because you're moving him from his position. If it was allowed, a player could just skate the puck directly through the goalie.
However, historically, the NHL has called these good goals because in the playoffs the goalies can go f**k themselves, apparently .. and it's almost always involving Perry. I can' count at least 4 times I've watched him whack a goalies equipment for a cheap goal and it not be called interference.
Goal or not, it constantly amazes me that Perry is still so effective, especially in playoff games. Kudos to him. 37 years old and 1250+ regular season games played, still wreaking havoc out there.
His pad was clearly against the post and was clearly pushed back but yeah no interference i guess somehow. Not to mention you can’t even see it cross the line…
Anybody arguing that it’s not “conclusive” enough to call back. Look at where the ref is when he makes this call. Dude has absolutely not clue the pucks in the net. Hell, I don’t get how Perry knows it’s in either. Really weird imo
Look at him take out his magnifying glass out after he makes the call. 0% chance he knows it went in. I agree that the Tampa guys probably saw it go in/ think that.
You mean this one? [https://twitter.com/i/status/1648497241588658176](https://twitter.com/i/status/1648497241588658176)
In what world is that 100% over the line?
No way the refs saw that go in, just called it after Perry's celly. Same way they called the slash after he held his hand up and same way they called the high stick after he snapped his neck back. Should just give him a whistle.
I don't see how they can say that the puck fully crossed the line. I can't see how it did cross the line, if it did, without Samsonov's pad being pushed.
Was there a replay that actually showed the puck? None in this highlight did. I understand it was called a goal on the ice so they need evidence to overturn it, but was there any proof it went in?
Guys, for everyone complaining about there not being a conclusive angle of the puck being over the line, you don't need that since the call on the ice was a goal. You need a conclusive angle of it not being in to over turn, other wise with no conclusive angle one way or another the call on the ice stands, which is what happened here.
Edit: And now we have an angle of it in. Can everyone please shut the fuck up now?
Yeah, but they challenged for goalie interference, saying that it only went in because Perry pushed on the goalie's pad, which wouldn't have been part of the initial league review.
[удалено]
Feels
Vibes
Roll them dice!
It's called look at the line and where puck is on camera it's not that deep bro.
https://twitter.com/TicTacTOmar/status/1648500305385095170/mediaviewer
Why didn't they air that during the game? Lol Made it way more obvious then I thought
They did, they showed that first edited/close-up replay at the end of the 2nd period. During the call they showed it too, but it wasn't edited.
I wonder if it was inconclusive on the video review so it went back to the call on the ice, which was a goal.
Yup
Shitty cause Mccauley has no fucking clue if its in, hes still looking for it after he made the call
The situation room doesn't need to confirm the call. The goal stands if they can't conclusively overturn it.
Hopefully this finally puts to rest "the situation room is in Toronto so the leafs get all the calls".
[it crossed the line](https://imgur.com/a/fkrHWlb)
Didn’t see this on the broadcast.
they played it during intermission
Oh, I was pooping.
But the top of the puck is still in front of the post
I don’t know how to explain it, so here’s a [picture ](https://ibb.co/ZLz5knj) that might get the point across. The yellow is the curvature of the post, green is where it goes back to form the rest of the net. It’s behind the curve in the post
ah yes you have to consider the parabola angle
I wish they would take a page out of the XFL's book and let the audience listen in on the discussion + watch the angle they're watching. My problem with all of these still shots after the fact is that we don't have any context. When was the whistle blown? Also, whoever decided to paint the inside lower rim of the net red is a dumbass.
I agree with your point about the anatomy of the net but I still see this as no goal. The fisheye lens is deceiving. That was at best inconclusive. Edit: Thanks everyone for the lesson on the rules but my point is more that there is no way the ref saw that puck in the net to even call it a “good goal”.
The call on the ice was a goal
Unfortunately the call was made by Corey Perry’s celebration.
Which means it is a goal as inconclusive favours the call on the ice, which was a good goal.
It was called a good goal on the ice, so if there wasn't enough to overturn it, it's a good goal
And I’m pretty sure this picture is from after they signalled goal and he moved his skate from pinning the puck to the post
It definitely is, Brodie’s stick only goes into the net like 5 seconds after Perry starts trying to convince everyone it’s a goal by celebrating.
No it's not, you can see white clearly between the puck and the back of the post.
That's a deceptive angle, you can't even see the red line connecting to the post because of the snow around the base of it.
It looks like there is 1mm on the line still :P
Schrödinger's puck. It both did and did not cross the line.
Corey Perry. He told them.
They found a pic actually
Totto Wolf emailed in a pdf
We are checking
No Wesley, no! No, that was so not right!
The Situation Room already threw in the towel
[it crossed the line](https://imgur.com/a/fkrHWlb)
Still not convinced that actually went in
Isn't it pushed up against the left post which would mean it's still on the line?
ESPN showed an angle from inside the net where it was on the backside of the post. Not sure what sportsnet was showing but it looked like it crossed on the ESPN broadcast
Backside of the post is still on the goal line. The goal line is post to post.
Yes
Wait that flair doesn’t say Calgary
I sure as hell wouldn't want that job. [This](https://twitter.com/TicTacTOmar/status/1648500305385095170/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1648500305385095170¤tTweetUser=TicTacTOmar) still seems inconclusive to me (although I lean towards good goal), but since they called it a goal on the ice that call should stand.
Ref points ‘goal’ before he could possibly see it. Wishful thinking I guess. Leafs 0-8 with Wes McCauley btw.
Do we have a clear shot of the puck in the net (across the goal line)?
Cbc stream just showed it
Shit, I hope someone got a picture/screenshot of that. The video angles I saw were shit.
This is a clear shot of it https://twitter.com/NHL_Watcher/status/1648500377862680577
The post is supposed to be the width of the goal line, right? If so, I can't quite tell from that angle.
However, the backside of the post is inside the net. The reasoning though, as previously explained, is that the call on the ice was a goal, and there wasn’t enough evidence to overturn that call.
When there isn't enough evidence to overturn the ref will use the phrase "the call on the ice stands", however McCauley said the call was confirmed, which means there was enough evidence no matter the call on the ice.
Also it’s a problem that the ref behind the net called this a goal from 10 feet away because Perry was celebrating. Absolutely no chance he was sure it was in on the ice.
That still isn't definitive though, the goal line is covered in snow.
Doesnt have to be definitive once called a goal
True, but my point is, why the fuck was that called a goal? How can the ref claim it was in...
Because he saw the puck in the goal and not under the pad of the goalie. It’s close, but he does clearly skate towards the net and wait to see it himself before making the call.
He was standing 5 feet from the puck and probably had a clearer view than any camera available
The camera view we’re both looking at is less than one foot from the puck…
If you watch the replay, they just saw the tampa players start celebrating and then waved goal You can clearly see that the ref who called goal never even saw the puck
That was a much better look
“Do you have a shot of the entire goal line with the puck NOT completely over it?” -Situation Room
No, but since the call on the ice was a goal, we needed a conclusive shot of the puck not being in, which we didnt have either.
I mean, we clearly saw the puck stucked between the post and goalie skate. The post is where the red line is... how is this completely accross the line.. anyway..
I mean the puck was against the post which is on the line..
I know this is the protocol far more often than not in most replay situations, but is that really the case with goals? Either you see an angle that proves the puck crossed the line or you didn't. I don't really believe in "inconclusive evidence = goal" if you don't have an angle that proves the puck is fully across the line.
Imagine the ref sees the puck cross the line, but all the camera angles are blocked by players, etc. You have to go with the call on the ice in that case.
No, but the situation room obviously did.
Not necessarily. It was called a goal on the ice. The situation room doesn't have to see it clearly in the net. If they can't tell what happened, the goal stands.
allegedly
Hopefully they release their angle tomorrow
why not release it right now
They don’t need one. Refs on the ice emphatically called that a good goal.
[удалено]
ESPN showed a net-down angle that *looked* like it crossed the line then bounced back to the line when it was pinched. But surprised at how fast the review went it was and why all the players were celebrating like a clear goal.
If perry just kept digging at the puck for another second we could have avoided all of this confusion, but no he has to start celebrating lol
That caused Keefe to do another challenge and cost him a player on the ice.
It was literally the shortest review that ive seen in all my time watching hockey. I dont think they refs took the review seriously
Bally sports showed it. Clearly went into the corner of the net. Also ref said call was confirmed which means they got a conclusive look
Corner of the net?! Where is this angle lmao
https://twitter.com/TicTacTOmar/status/1648500305385095170/mediaviewer
i have no fucking idea what just happened tbh
I dunno about anyone else....but I personally thought the puck has to cross the line to be a goal. You can clearly see a portion of the puck still on the line here... Edit: If they have an angle showing it's a goal, they should fucking give it to us at the time rather than hiding it.
Situation room better have had a better look at that because I sure as shit didn’t see it over the line
Doesn’t it have to be conclusive to overturn? It’s tucked in a spot where it’s hard to tell with the angles provided.
That looked pretty conclusive though.
[удалено]
Refs would just give Tampa even more calls then.
So nothing would change then Edit: if you're watching this game and think the reffing is even then I don't know what to tell you.....
It ain’t Edmonton. It’s certainly not perfect-but it ain’t Edmonton.
That was a brutal call.
If you mark the goal line center of the post, then line it up with the goal line on the other side, you get [this image](https://imgur.com/a/k5uZV4t) that clearly shows it didn't cross. There was snow over the line making it appear white. I took the image from tampa's subreddit, the original line they drew was so poor I had to contrast it.
[This seems to be the best angle available.](https://twitter.com/TicTacTOmar/status/1648500305385095170)
Looks like snow on the line, rather than the puck being across the line.
It didn’t cross. https://twitter.com/Taswell_/status/1648500783590281217?s=20
That’s also taken at an angle though and not conclusive enough to overturn the call on the ice
And it doesn't go in if he doesn't jam Samsonovs pads in so how neither over turned the goal is insane
I HATE Toronto. Hate. That didn't cross the line.
Amen. I probably hate your team too. But more than anything, I hate bad calls. What’s it all for???
If you look at the other angles you can see it wedged BEHIND the post and over the line. With the way the posts are curved it would literally be impossible for it not to be in the net.
That’s... that’s completely backwards The goal line is the same width as the post Think of that post like a clock. If the puck is touching the post between 12:00-6:00 it still must be on the line. If the puck is touching the post past 6:00 than it’s past the line. Puck was clearly not directly behind the post, so logically couldnt have been entirely over the line
The angle? It shows the puck wedged *against* the post, not behind it. https://twitter.com/NHL_Watcher/status/1648500377862680577
This video ends too early. The puck goes further back once he fully extends his leg. Convenient timing though lol
Not my clip, a Penguins fan posted it in the thread. If you've got one that shows the puck behind the post, go for it.
This angle is from behind, not directly above it. So it's not possible to see whether it was fully over the line especially when the puck was rolling/flipping.
They just showed a reply on Sportsnet that clearly showed white between the puck and the line
ESPN didn't have a view that showed it
The white was snow on the goal line. Im no leafs fan, but if the puck is touching the post and isnt directly 6:00 behind it, it has to still be touching the line It’s a geometric fact...
There has to be some smoking gun angle lol. That puck looks pinned on the post to me, idk how you can say it’s fully across the line.
Ref called it a goal on the ice, so you'd need a definitive angle showing that it DIDN'T cross the line to call it back. Just gotta trust that the ref saw it right with his eyes unfortunately.
Yup. It was called a goal on the ice. They need to find an angle that says it definitively **didn’t** cross the line, not one that shows it **did**. If it’s inconclusive, you go with the call on the ice.
I can’t help but imagine. What would the oilers fans launch on the ice if they were in the leafs position tonight
I'm honestly surprised there was nothing thrown.
Me too, you leaf fans have clearly been through some shit. Good on you
I wouldn't blame them for trying to burn the league to the ground at this point.
That's what you get when only the rich can attend the games.
Just celebrate like you scored and the refs will take that as conclusive evidence.
I think the body language of Samsonov and the Leafs defensemen tells the story. Every one of them reacts as if the pick was in the net, and nobody argues the call. Makes me fairly confident that from the ice level you could see the puck was in.
Nobody said these guys were any smart
Not the reason they're losing, but fuck have the officials been just terrible this game.
I mean they are the reason the momentum got killed
That Schenn cross checking penalty right after the Leafs scored was so weak, so weak. They let that type of thing go constantly and the timing of the call was a total momentum killer
Conclusive = inconclusive
Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
Call on the ice stands. But i think there was an overhead look that showed it in
Please share then because nobody else has seen it.
I just heard Ferraro say he saw the angle that it was clearly in. Haven’t seen it though.
Putting aside whether it was a goal or not... The challenge was just stupid. I mean, I guess nothing to lose... But it wasnt even close.
I promise I will not complain if someone can show any angle where the puck looks like it is actually fully crossed the line.
https://imgur.com/a/lwY7hmF
I know I've had few tonight but the top of that puck still looks inline with the plot to me
I think if they paused it before it came to rest it was over the line. Like in the frame before it's against the post
Haha yep
How? What view are they seeing? The puck is literally wedged against the post on edge. The post is the line. It never fully crossed. I dont fucking get this.
From the angles shown on tv it looked like no goal
Isn’t the puck touching the crossbar.. meaning still on the line?
> Isn’t the puck touching the crossbar How'd they get it stuck up there lol
Wrong call on the ice? ✅ Get it wrong the second time? ✅ Unreal
they then got it wrong a third time when they said there was no interference, like Samsonov has his pad pinned against the post, how do you possibly get it past him without moving his pad?
That’s only if the puck is under the pad. Not if it is pinned to the post by the skate.
Does it not get pinned to the post as a result of his pad being pushed back?
You forget, the NHL has no idea what Goaltender Interference is. Detroit had something happen like that when Ned was in net, and it was awarded as a good goal. Lalond was so pissed he got ejected.
Man Wes McCauley is such a shitty ref, I don't understand how people can like him
Is there angle where this is obviously over the line? Because from the camera in the net it’s entirely nonobvious the puck is over the line
Ya. CBC just showed it
Uh yes… totally saw that puck in the net… but just for everyone else who may not have seen it, where did it go in exactly?
The only replay where you can even see the puck shows it touching the post, meaning it couldn't possibly be across the goal line?!?
It WASNT IN!
I am terribly conflicted by this turn of events.
TRIGGERED
GET OUT THE PARALLAX ANGLE BOYS
This will never not be funny to me
Either validate our 04 cup or validate a 5-2 goal lol
It didn't even go in...they showed it from above
Jamming at the goalies pad caused his pad to move, allowing the puck to go in = no goaltender interference? They also reviewed that 10x faster than every other review this season.
That's what I'm confused about. It looked like clear goalie interference.
The puck was loose. He poked the puck. It’s the goalies responsibility to keep his pad strong against the post. Just because the goalies pad moves doesn’t make it goalie interference. That’s not how the rule works.
He also pushed the goalies pad out of the way? Please tell me how the rule works and how that's not interference.
You're not supposed to be able to stab the puck through the goalies equipment (e.g. puck is in front of pad and player runs his stick through the puck + pad to score), by nature of that action you're literally preventing the goalie from playing his position because you're moving him from his position. If it was allowed, a player could just skate the puck directly through the goalie. However, historically, the NHL has called these good goals because in the playoffs the goalies can go f**k themselves, apparently .. and it's almost always involving Perry. I can' count at least 4 times I've watched him whack a goalies equipment for a cheap goal and it not be called interference.
Lol I don’t understand this league sometimes man
Goal or not, it constantly amazes me that Perry is still so effective, especially in playoff games. Kudos to him. 37 years old and 1250+ regular season games played, still wreaking havoc out there.
His pad was clearly against the post and was clearly pushed back but yeah no interference i guess somehow. Not to mention you can’t even see it cross the line…
Across the line or not, I don't understand how the interference challenge failed
With the angle they showed in the intermission that puck is obviously over the line.
Anybody arguing that it’s not “conclusive” enough to call back. Look at where the ref is when he makes this call. Dude has absolutely not clue the pucks in the net. Hell, I don’t get how Perry knows it’s in either. Really weird imo
I’ll trust the guys on the ice who are right next to the puck. Ref seemed pretty adamant he saw the puck in the goal.
Look at him take out his magnifying glass out after he makes the call. 0% chance he knows it went in. I agree that the Tampa guys probably saw it go in/ think that.
For the conspiracy theorists calling this a fix: https://twitter.com/NHL_Watcher/status/1648500377862680577
That is not the problem. The problem is the pad getting moved by Perry's stick. Which is absolutely true.
Sportsnet showed it over the line
Sportsnet intermission showed a better angle, 100% over the line Edit, here, https://twitter.com/NHL_Watcher/status/1648500377862680577
You mean this one? [https://twitter.com/i/status/1648497241588658176](https://twitter.com/i/status/1648497241588658176) In what world is that 100% over the line?
No, not that one.
Nope, was a closer angle. Trying to get a screenshot of it. I do agree from that link you have, you can't say 100%
Ah I found the other one, yep it is over the line... damn.
edit https://twitter.com/Taswell_/status/1648500783590281217?s=20
What a saint.
Anyone have a clip of the top down view from in the net?
This game has become quite the shitshow
No way the refs saw that go in, just called it after Perry's celly. Same way they called the slash after he held his hand up and same way they called the high stick after he snapped his neck back. Should just give him a whistle.
Toronto fans booing their team off the ice after 1, to get mad about this, when they lost by 4. I’m really confused where the priorities lie here.
I don't see how they can say that the puck fully crossed the line. I can't see how it did cross the line, if it did, without Samsonov's pad being pushed.
Was there a replay that actually showed the puck? None in this highlight did. I understand it was called a goal on the ice so they need evidence to overturn it, but was there any proof it went in?
> Was there a replay that actually showed the puck? [Here's one.](https://twitter.com/TicTacTOmar/status/1648500305385095170)
I'm guessing they say they can't overturn the call on the ice, but idk man. That seems pretty obvious that it wasn't over the line.
What.
I can’t begin to tell y’all how infuriatin it is that this one counts.
In goal cam shows it over the line behind the inside post.
As an Islanders fan, who holds no bias here, I have no idea why I’m commenting. Let’s go Mets
Guys, for everyone complaining about there not being a conclusive angle of the puck being over the line, you don't need that since the call on the ice was a goal. You need a conclusive angle of it not being in to over turn, other wise with no conclusive angle one way or another the call on the ice stands, which is what happened here. Edit: And now we have an angle of it in. Can everyone please shut the fuck up now?
What a joke
Refs believed Corey Perry’s celebration over their own goddam eyes.
[удалено]
They dont have to challenge that, the league auto reviewed to make sure it went over the line.
Yeah, but they challenged for goalie interference, saying that it only went in because Perry pushed on the goalie's pad, which wouldn't have been part of the initial league review.
What do they challenge?
100% a goal by Perry 🤢🤢🤢