Sunday, June 06, 2004


No Goal, Part II?

Could the Flames have been celebrating a cup win last night? It might have been, as Martin Gelinas appeared to have had a goal that would have put the Flames ahead.

Now, Flames GM/Coach Darryl Sutter and the players of the Calgary Flames aren't making any sort of fuss over this issue, because they know they need to focus on the future and not the past.

If I were in the Flames head office, however, I'd be giving Bettman a pretty angry phone call right about now.

Was it a goal or not? We'll never know, and that's the problem.

The video replays that the NHL had on hand apparently did not provide conclusive evidence either way. CBC had one good angle, and ABC had an ever better one, that showed the puck may have gone in.

From ESPN: NHL executive vice president and director of hockey operations Colin Campbell said that the play was reviewed and that only one camera angle showed the puck and "from the angle it was inconclusive whether the puck crossed the goal line. Based on the angle of the image and the fact that the puck was in the air and on edge, there was insufficient evidence that the puck conclusively crossed the goal line."

Now, this is the biggest game of the year, so something this crucial should not have been overlooked so easily, nor should there be any sort of 'inconclusive' answer. There is no excuse for the NHL's lack of decision on the call.

It's the biggest game of the year, they've had 2 days to prepare, and this could ultimately cost one team the series. With all of the technology available to them today, why doesn't the NHL install special cameras or sensors for cases like these? How could they possibly only have ONE camera angle showing the puck?
They should go above and beyond the normal angles they have with their cameras, which have proven woefully inadequate in the past.

But why expect a league that still employs goal judges, and refuses to have their officials call the rules, to exercise some forward thinking and anticipate such events?

Their reaction to this event leads me to believe that they just don't care until it becomes a big deal in the media.

You would think the NHL could hire at least one person that can make decisions based on anticpated needs, rather than reactionary decisions based on past mistakes.

Hell, I'll even do it for free tickets to Canucks games.

Random Thoughts from Game 6

1. The Flames, once again, outshot the Lightning by a convincing margin. The Bolts D, however, did a fine job of clearing pucks from the scoring area. Khabibulin didn't have to make too many difficult second saves.

2. The Bolts are now 9-0 in the playoffs, and 31-0-2 overall, when Brad Richards scores a goal. Why doesn't Oliwa take a page from Bobby Clarke's notebook and give Richards a little tap on the leg? :) Richards, once again, provided the real spark on the Power Play for the lightning.

3. While Jerome Iginla was flying most of the game, Craig Conroy was doing his best to screw up his team's chances. Conroy took 2 bad, lazy penalties and wasn't doing his bit on the offensive end of things.

4. Robyn Regehr could be out for Game 7. He was seen leaving the Saddledome with a cast on his left foot. If he's out, then it will be open season for the big lugs like Andreychuk and Modin (Who has been too quiet) to run around the offensive zone.

5. The CBC (Ron MacLean) was treating the game like Don Cherry's farewell tour. The video montages of Don wearing crazy hats, and just the overall tone of the broadcast, sure makes it seem like the CBC has made up it's mind already.
Even Don seemed choked up, as he was laughing at the video montages. If Don is going out, he's going out on the high road.

6. Prediction for Game 7: Flames 3, Tampa Bay 2.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?