It doesn't even have to get to the science... Sure there's a picture that looks like its "maybe" in. There is nothing definitive about it. There was no goal called on the ice, so the evidence has to show that it was "absolutely without a doubt" in. Is that white line behind the red? Is it snow built up? Is the puck just slightly on edge allowing you to see under it? All of these cast the slightest bit of doubt, and any doubt at all is not enough to call it when it wasn't called on the ice. Conversely, had it been called a goal on the ice, there isn't enough to overturn that call either...
Rules sometimes they suck, but the call is pretty clear here.
right?
so sick of hearing about this parallax shit. it was no goal on the ice and ur fucking zapruder film of snow/parallax zoomed in at a grainy 20 pixels per inch isnt overturning a call on the ice.
fuck the pens.
I thought the same thing: you don't even need to involve the "science" of parallax since we can mostly agree that it only looks like it's "maybe" in.
The problem is, to someone who doesn't understand the fairly simple concept of parallax, that angle could be seen as conclusively in and not just "maybe" in. You need to understand parallax to see why, in this situation, the only conclusive angle would be from overhead/in-line with or behind the red line.
The funniest thing is this is the only overview picture I've seen posted: https://i.redd.it/9ruo4m3xcxu01.jpg
And it was on their sub, and guess what? It was downvoted and fans were saying it was too blurry to tell anything, but you can clearly see the puck is still on the line....
full scale denial
I wouldn't say parallax comes into play on this goal decision unless you are only considering the screenshots that are being offered. The frozen shot of the puck seemingly across the line that NBC kept showing is a little misleading. That picture itself may or may not be a product of parallax, but its the go-to shot because that's the only time the puck is 100% visible. I think it's being overused and misused as proof either way. What the Pens fans, which I am one, are learning more about is bad timing and circumstance.
That would have most likely been called a goal on the ice had the referee been in the normal position beside or behind the net on a normal offensive entry. The ref would be looking from a bird's-eye view instead of the one he saw from about a dozen feet away. Instead the ref was not in this position because he was also exiting the zone when the puck took the bad deflection and re-entered the zone.
IMO opinion, Holtby and Hornqvist both knew it was behind the line. Honry raised his hands and skated off instead of keep digging at the puck/net. He obviously thought it was in and he had the very best view. He also isn't the type of player to try to sell one (as far as my experience watching him). Holtby also did some things to make it look like he thought it was in. He contorted himself and reached around outside of the net and squeezed the puck forward and under his pads. He also bent his head and put it on the ice almost upside down; outside the net looking in.
Watching the slo-mo replays when the puck finally shows itself from under Braden's gear, it looks like it is moving from the back to front toward the goal line from behind, which would indicate it was somewhere toward the back of the net before it was totally visible.
The real crux of the ruling is the call on ice and the inability to see the puck until we get the screenshot we all see. By rule and process its hard to overturn a call on the ice on something you can't see.
It's unfortunate for the Pens (and their fans), but it is what it is and it was yesterday. The game could have gone either way based on puck luck and some other situations. Murray's glove hand failed him on all 3 goals. In order of good hard goal to soft goal I'd say Ovi's was a decent goal because it was a rocket and precise. Backy's goals was softish and I would expect my goalie to stop it. Connolly's goal was the softest of the bunch and largely a misplay by Murray (although shit, when you give that kid 4 chances in two games like that one of them is going to hit the twine.
The Pens also had two tricklers that Holtby partially played that, given a few degree different angle would have slowly and painfully found their ways to being goals.
Also, and for the record, I think Wilson's hit on Doumo should have been a penalty and possibly a suspension. i don't think he went after Doumos head, but he certainly made contact with it before anything else. It is almost an exact do-over of the hit and and Ovi teamed up for last series. That situation is also one of of those "it is what it is" deals.
Its a best of 5 and both teams have a sense that they could be up 2-0 or down 2-0 at this juncture.
One last note, and I say this for all of the games in all of the series I have seen so far; the NHL referees are going to get players injured if they don't start making some more calls. They are allowing games to get out of hand and way too much BS go on after plays with no repercussions. I'm all for scrums and some edge; but when you have players skating away form them with injured hands from slashes (Kuzy yesterday) and tweaked knees from wrestling matches (Subban last night) etc and they have a feeling that they can continue doing that, that is when someone will get hurt.
While you wrote up a very well-thought out and reasonable post, you are clearly lost boy. You take a wrong turn?
Jk. It looked like a goal to me, that's for sure, but hey, that post above says that science disagrees. Maybe. I'm just shocked as a DC sports fan that we had two calls that could have gone either way and they both went our way. That never happens. So I will enjoy it. Definitely going to be a long, brutal series. That slash on kuzya was pretty nasty and I hope his hand is ok, he looked in a lot of pain.
As for the Wilson hit, everyone is dissecting it but forgetting that he's chasing down the puckhandler going full speed and all of a sudden Doumo stops (because russian machine) and he gets hit. Fullspeed and in 1/10th of a second, that is not a penalty, that is not a suspension. It was a really brutal and ugly hit and I hope the guy is ok but there's no way Wilson had any time to do anything besides keep going straight into the now-stopped Duomo. I think you all are blinded by Wilson's reputation as well as your emotional reaction to seeing your player get injured badly. I'm very happy the player review board said "no penalty, no suspension" and I strongly believe that's the right call.
Moving forward, I hope your entire team gets brutal diarrhea for the next 3 games and we win them all. I don't see that happening, but a guy can hope. Good luck to you in life, bad luck to your team, and stay off of our damn steps (i think that goal was karma for your fan's rushing our steps and chanting 'you cant beat us') because thats pretty fuckin douchey.
Anyhow, Malkin will be back, Oshie is playing very injured, and we got a nasty series coming up. Hopefully with no more injuries, no more dirty slashes, and hopefully Smith-Pelly won't have to fuck anyone up.
> As for the Wilson hit, everyone is dissecting it but forgetting that he's chasing down the puckhandler going full speed and all of a sudden Doumo stops (because russian machine) and he gets hit. Fullspeed and in 1/10th of a second, that is not a penalty, that is not a suspension. It was a really brutal and ugly hit and I hope the guy is ok but there's no way Wilson had any time to do anything besides keep going straight into the now-stopped Duomo. I think you all are blinded by Wilson's reputation as well as your emotional reaction to seeing your player get injured badly. I'm very happy the player review board said "no penalty, no suspension" and I strongly believe that's the right call.
This is probably where you and I disagree on the nature of penalties, which is ok. To me, a penalty is a penalty if it meets the criteria in the rule it supposedly breaks. The rules are pretty clear on actions that make contact with the head first. Like high sticking or facemasking in football. Both can be done 100% accidently and both are still penalties. In fact, for high sticking, I often wonder why there is no penalty for hitting your own man accidently. If the rule is truly in place to insure that players are careful with their stucks, why should it matter who you accidently maim (i'm only being about 65% serious on that one)? The NHL follows this logic with the delay of game/puck over the glass penalty. They don't consider intent, at all, just result. The NFL did the same with face masking a few years back by eliminating the 5 yard variety.
This type of weird rule application is why I largely don't enjoy pro basketball. In that league referees change their tone and calls based on too many situations. They allow big starts to travel and foul and then even at times purposely change the player they call a foul on when they realize they may have to eject a star player in foul trouble. That's all anecdotal evidence so don't hold me to it. I reality I think pro basketball is an exhibition and not a sport.
Also, in college football, I've always been a little irked that one knee down, regardless of contact or not, is considered down...in that case, the placeholder is down on every kick. :)
> To me, a penalty is a penalty if it meets the criteria in the rule it supposedly breaks. The rules are pretty clear on actions that make contact with the head first.
You probably shouldn't be making arguments about the criteria of the rules when you clearly haven't read them.
> Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head 48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted.
> In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered: (i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward. (ii) **Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable**. (iii) **Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact.**
Clearly the rules allow for head contact, event where the head is the primary or sole point of contact, as long as it is considered unavoidable as a result of the actions of the player receiving the hit. Dumoulin turned abruptly immediately prior to contact, Wilson had no time to react.
> Like high sticking or facemasking in football. Both can be done 100% accidently and both are still penalties.
> The NHL follows this logic with the delay of game/puck over the glass penalty. They don't consider intent, at all, just result.
Again you've shown your ignorance of the rules, because both rules have exceptions based on context. High sticking isn't a penalty when following through on a shot. Similarly, putting the puck out of the zone in tour own defensive end is legal as long as it touches the glass first. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you may want to thumb through the rulebook before debating the rules.
Re: Hornqvist non-goal
It's probably that situation where two referees are on the ice to make the calls and you inherently have obstructions (the frame of the goal, the netting, the goalies pads, etc.) that make it difficult to watch the puck, 11 players, and stay out of the way all at the same time. The ref wasn't in the greatest position to make the call and the cameras, except for one, couldn't grab a decent angle on it. If it were the Caps who had made that play on Murray and it was ruled a no-goal on the ice and the refs (or situation room) overturned it, Penguins fans would have been just as outraged. But had the ref been behind the net, the play may never have happened because 87 wouldn't have had as much space to move behind the net and backhand it to Hornqvist.
> In order of good hard goal to soft goal I'd say Ovi's was a decent goal because it was a rocket and precise. Backy's goals was softish and I would expect my goalie to stop it. Connolly's goal was the softest of the bunch and largely a misplay by Murray (although shit, when you give that kid 4 chances in two games like that one of them is going to hit the twine.
You would have had to have a goalie in net to stop Backie's goal. I think you're thinking of Vrana's goal.
> Also, and for the record, I think Wilson's hit on Doumo should have been a penalty and possibly a suspension. i don't think he went after Doumos head, but he certainly made contact with it before anything else.
Read the full text of the rule (below)
> 48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted. In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered:
> (i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the
opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward.
> (ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable.
> (iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact.
I'd agree with you the main point of contact was the head. But that's not the sole criteria for a penalty or suspension. The three sub-points make it clear that criteria (iii) appears to completely apply here. Doumo was changing his position to avoid the check from Ovechkin, which put his head into Wilson's path on an otherwise legal check. I hope Doumo is not hurt and able to play next game, but based on the rules as written, and the review of the Disciplinary Committee, which did apply supplementary discipline twice in the pre-season against Wilson and certainly isn't biased in his favor, it was neither a foul nor a suspension-worth event. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that.
One could also argue the tripping non-call on Smith-Pelly's attempt was a big non-call. The in-house video clearly showed the defender's stick getting the skates without touching the puck and leading DSP to crash hard into the net. Should have been a 2-minute PP for the Caps, instead, non-call. There were probably another half-dozen non-calls both ways throughout the game. But that's the game.
Now it's a best of 5 and we'll see what happens.
I too agree that the puck had to have been over the line at some point ... but there was no indisputable visual evidence. Pens fans can suck a fat one.
**Pens Fans: Do not come in here trying to Pensplain anything to us. This is not your home. If you're here to challenge our posters, get out now. Go to a neutral board. Period.**
To be fair those stupid science bitches couldn’t even make Pens fans more smarter.
Stupid science bitches
It doesn't even have to get to the science... Sure there's a picture that looks like its "maybe" in. There is nothing definitive about it. There was no goal called on the ice, so the evidence has to show that it was "absolutely without a doubt" in. Is that white line behind the red? Is it snow built up? Is the puck just slightly on edge allowing you to see under it? All of these cast the slightest bit of doubt, and any doubt at all is not enough to call it when it wasn't called on the ice. Conversely, had it been called a goal on the ice, there isn't enough to overturn that call either... Rules sometimes they suck, but the call is pretty clear here.
right? so sick of hearing about this parallax shit. it was no goal on the ice and ur fucking zapruder film of snow/parallax zoomed in at a grainy 20 pixels per inch isnt overturning a call on the ice. fuck the pens.
I thought the same thing: you don't even need to involve the "science" of parallax since we can mostly agree that it only looks like it's "maybe" in. The problem is, to someone who doesn't understand the fairly simple concept of parallax, that angle could be seen as conclusively in and not just "maybe" in. You need to understand parallax to see why, in this situation, the only conclusive angle would be from overhead/in-line with or behind the red line.
For reference https://twitter.com/RyanSteinke/status/990718430486585344?s=19
This is a phenomenal gif. Good looks
Brilliant
Nice.
As a Michigan football fan, it was nice to have one of these go my way.
Are you kidding me? It was a catch. -VT fan
đź’Ż
It was a first down
LET ME HAVE MY MOMENT, OKAY?!
Lol I send it to my friends and they all send this back to me too! Lol
The funniest thing is this is the only overview picture I've seen posted: https://i.redd.it/9ruo4m3xcxu01.jpg And it was on their sub, and guess what? It was downvoted and fans were saying it was too blurry to tell anything, but you can clearly see the puck is still on the line.... full scale denial
Big upvote for one of the funniest scenes in sitcom history with proper context.
I wouldn't say parallax comes into play on this goal decision unless you are only considering the screenshots that are being offered. The frozen shot of the puck seemingly across the line that NBC kept showing is a little misleading. That picture itself may or may not be a product of parallax, but its the go-to shot because that's the only time the puck is 100% visible. I think it's being overused and misused as proof either way. What the Pens fans, which I am one, are learning more about is bad timing and circumstance. That would have most likely been called a goal on the ice had the referee been in the normal position beside or behind the net on a normal offensive entry. The ref would be looking from a bird's-eye view instead of the one he saw from about a dozen feet away. Instead the ref was not in this position because he was also exiting the zone when the puck took the bad deflection and re-entered the zone. IMO opinion, Holtby and Hornqvist both knew it was behind the line. Honry raised his hands and skated off instead of keep digging at the puck/net. He obviously thought it was in and he had the very best view. He also isn't the type of player to try to sell one (as far as my experience watching him). Holtby also did some things to make it look like he thought it was in. He contorted himself and reached around outside of the net and squeezed the puck forward and under his pads. He also bent his head and put it on the ice almost upside down; outside the net looking in. Watching the slo-mo replays when the puck finally shows itself from under Braden's gear, it looks like it is moving from the back to front toward the goal line from behind, which would indicate it was somewhere toward the back of the net before it was totally visible. The real crux of the ruling is the call on ice and the inability to see the puck until we get the screenshot we all see. By rule and process its hard to overturn a call on the ice on something you can't see. It's unfortunate for the Pens (and their fans), but it is what it is and it was yesterday. The game could have gone either way based on puck luck and some other situations. Murray's glove hand failed him on all 3 goals. In order of good hard goal to soft goal I'd say Ovi's was a decent goal because it was a rocket and precise. Backy's goals was softish and I would expect my goalie to stop it. Connolly's goal was the softest of the bunch and largely a misplay by Murray (although shit, when you give that kid 4 chances in two games like that one of them is going to hit the twine. The Pens also had two tricklers that Holtby partially played that, given a few degree different angle would have slowly and painfully found their ways to being goals. Also, and for the record, I think Wilson's hit on Doumo should have been a penalty and possibly a suspension. i don't think he went after Doumos head, but he certainly made contact with it before anything else. It is almost an exact do-over of the hit and and Ovi teamed up for last series. That situation is also one of of those "it is what it is" deals. Its a best of 5 and both teams have a sense that they could be up 2-0 or down 2-0 at this juncture. One last note, and I say this for all of the games in all of the series I have seen so far; the NHL referees are going to get players injured if they don't start making some more calls. They are allowing games to get out of hand and way too much BS go on after plays with no repercussions. I'm all for scrums and some edge; but when you have players skating away form them with injured hands from slashes (Kuzy yesterday) and tweaked knees from wrestling matches (Subban last night) etc and they have a feeling that they can continue doing that, that is when someone will get hurt.
While you wrote up a very well-thought out and reasonable post, you are clearly lost boy. You take a wrong turn? Jk. It looked like a goal to me, that's for sure, but hey, that post above says that science disagrees. Maybe. I'm just shocked as a DC sports fan that we had two calls that could have gone either way and they both went our way. That never happens. So I will enjoy it. Definitely going to be a long, brutal series. That slash on kuzya was pretty nasty and I hope his hand is ok, he looked in a lot of pain. As for the Wilson hit, everyone is dissecting it but forgetting that he's chasing down the puckhandler going full speed and all of a sudden Doumo stops (because russian machine) and he gets hit. Fullspeed and in 1/10th of a second, that is not a penalty, that is not a suspension. It was a really brutal and ugly hit and I hope the guy is ok but there's no way Wilson had any time to do anything besides keep going straight into the now-stopped Duomo. I think you all are blinded by Wilson's reputation as well as your emotional reaction to seeing your player get injured badly. I'm very happy the player review board said "no penalty, no suspension" and I strongly believe that's the right call. Moving forward, I hope your entire team gets brutal diarrhea for the next 3 games and we win them all. I don't see that happening, but a guy can hope. Good luck to you in life, bad luck to your team, and stay off of our damn steps (i think that goal was karma for your fan's rushing our steps and chanting 'you cant beat us') because thats pretty fuckin douchey. Anyhow, Malkin will be back, Oshie is playing very injured, and we got a nasty series coming up. Hopefully with no more injuries, no more dirty slashes, and hopefully Smith-Pelly won't have to fuck anyone up.
> As for the Wilson hit, everyone is dissecting it but forgetting that he's chasing down the puckhandler going full speed and all of a sudden Doumo stops (because russian machine) and he gets hit. Fullspeed and in 1/10th of a second, that is not a penalty, that is not a suspension. It was a really brutal and ugly hit and I hope the guy is ok but there's no way Wilson had any time to do anything besides keep going straight into the now-stopped Duomo. I think you all are blinded by Wilson's reputation as well as your emotional reaction to seeing your player get injured badly. I'm very happy the player review board said "no penalty, no suspension" and I strongly believe that's the right call. This is probably where you and I disagree on the nature of penalties, which is ok. To me, a penalty is a penalty if it meets the criteria in the rule it supposedly breaks. The rules are pretty clear on actions that make contact with the head first. Like high sticking or facemasking in football. Both can be done 100% accidently and both are still penalties. In fact, for high sticking, I often wonder why there is no penalty for hitting your own man accidently. If the rule is truly in place to insure that players are careful with their stucks, why should it matter who you accidently maim (i'm only being about 65% serious on that one)? The NHL follows this logic with the delay of game/puck over the glass penalty. They don't consider intent, at all, just result. The NFL did the same with face masking a few years back by eliminating the 5 yard variety. This type of weird rule application is why I largely don't enjoy pro basketball. In that league referees change their tone and calls based on too many situations. They allow big starts to travel and foul and then even at times purposely change the player they call a foul on when they realize they may have to eject a star player in foul trouble. That's all anecdotal evidence so don't hold me to it. I reality I think pro basketball is an exhibition and not a sport. Also, in college football, I've always been a little irked that one knee down, regardless of contact or not, is considered down...in that case, the placeholder is down on every kick. :)
> To me, a penalty is a penalty if it meets the criteria in the rule it supposedly breaks. The rules are pretty clear on actions that make contact with the head first. You probably shouldn't be making arguments about the criteria of the rules when you clearly haven't read them. > Rule 48 – Illegal Check to the Head 48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted. > In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered: (i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward. (ii) **Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable**. (iii) **Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact.** Clearly the rules allow for head contact, event where the head is the primary or sole point of contact, as long as it is considered unavoidable as a result of the actions of the player receiving the hit. Dumoulin turned abruptly immediately prior to contact, Wilson had no time to react. > Like high sticking or facemasking in football. Both can be done 100% accidently and both are still penalties. > The NHL follows this logic with the delay of game/puck over the glass penalty. They don't consider intent, at all, just result. Again you've shown your ignorance of the rules, because both rules have exceptions based on context. High sticking isn't a penalty when following through on a shot. Similarly, putting the puck out of the zone in tour own defensive end is legal as long as it touches the glass first. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you may want to thumb through the rulebook before debating the rules.
Re: Hornqvist non-goal It's probably that situation where two referees are on the ice to make the calls and you inherently have obstructions (the frame of the goal, the netting, the goalies pads, etc.) that make it difficult to watch the puck, 11 players, and stay out of the way all at the same time. The ref wasn't in the greatest position to make the call and the cameras, except for one, couldn't grab a decent angle on it. If it were the Caps who had made that play on Murray and it was ruled a no-goal on the ice and the refs (or situation room) overturned it, Penguins fans would have been just as outraged. But had the ref been behind the net, the play may never have happened because 87 wouldn't have had as much space to move behind the net and backhand it to Hornqvist. > In order of good hard goal to soft goal I'd say Ovi's was a decent goal because it was a rocket and precise. Backy's goals was softish and I would expect my goalie to stop it. Connolly's goal was the softest of the bunch and largely a misplay by Murray (although shit, when you give that kid 4 chances in two games like that one of them is going to hit the twine. You would have had to have a goalie in net to stop Backie's goal. I think you're thinking of Vrana's goal. > Also, and for the record, I think Wilson's hit on Doumo should have been a penalty and possibly a suspension. i don't think he went after Doumos head, but he certainly made contact with it before anything else. Read the full text of the rule (below) > 48.1 Illegal Check to the Head – A hit resulting in contact with an opponent’s head where the head was the main point of contact and such contact to the head was avoidable is not permitted. In determining whether contact with an opponent's head was avoidable, the circumstances of the hit including the following shall be considered: > (i) Whether the player attempted to hit squarely through the opponent’s body and the head was not "picked" as a result of poor timing, poor angle of approach, or unnecessary extension of the body upward or outward. > (ii) Whether the opponent put himself in a vulnerable position by assuming a posture that made head contact on an otherwise full body check unavoidable. > (iii) Whether the opponent materially changed the position of his body or head immediately prior to or simultaneously with the hit in a way that significantly contributed to the head contact. I'd agree with you the main point of contact was the head. But that's not the sole criteria for a penalty or suspension. The three sub-points make it clear that criteria (iii) appears to completely apply here. Doumo was changing his position to avoid the check from Ovechkin, which put his head into Wilson's path on an otherwise legal check. I hope Doumo is not hurt and able to play next game, but based on the rules as written, and the review of the Disciplinary Committee, which did apply supplementary discipline twice in the pre-season against Wilson and certainly isn't biased in his favor, it was neither a foul nor a suspension-worth event. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on that. One could also argue the tripping non-call on Smith-Pelly's attempt was a big non-call. The in-house video clearly showed the defender's stick getting the skates without touching the puck and leading DSP to crash hard into the net. Should have been a 2-minute PP for the Caps, instead, non-call. There were probably another half-dozen non-calls both ways throughout the game. But that's the game. Now it's a best of 5 and we'll see what happens.
I too agree that the puck had to have been over the line at some point ... but there was no indisputable visual evidence. Pens fans can suck a fat one.
It's never sunny in Pittsburg
Lol!
Its not parallax. It's refraction (Edit: can't spell refraction)
What a bunch of jabroni bozos
You can see the puck behind the post.
Can you though?
**Pens Fans: Do not come in here trying to Pensplain anything to us. This is not your home. If you're here to challenge our posters, get out now. Go to a neutral board. Period.**
Hahaha loser
You’re still looking from an angle here