Tonight:Canucks at the Wild
- Backup goalie Curtis Sanford should get a chance to relive the days when he used to play hockey.
- Wild coach Jacques Lemaire is liable to get defensive. Again.
I’m looking forward to it, but I’m still a bit stuck on last night’s game against the NY Rangers—particularly that disallowed goal the Canucks scored (theoretically) in the second period.
When the NHL video gurus in Toronto decide that a goal isn’t a goal, I can usually see the logic in their call. There appears to be some obscurity in the footage, something which makes it inconclusive. But last night, when Sami Salo “scored” on Henrik Lundqvist in the second period, I didn’t see any such ambivalence. Unless something strange was going on with shadow puppets, the projected curvature of the earth, or maybe the impact of the moon on gravitational pull affecting the speed of light, etc… that looked very much like a goal to me.
I was confused enough that I wrote to Colin Campbell himself for more info and he was good enough to respond with the explanation: “The puck has to be conclusively across the goal line and when the referee calls it no goal we have to prove beyond doubt the puck is in.”
Fair enough, and I know he’s right, but geez…it sure looked “beyond a doubt” from where I was sitting. Maybe I’m the only one? No one else I’ve read seems to question it.
I realize none of this matters much given the 6-3 final score—and of course I’m victim to my own Canucks fan bias even when I try to filter it—but the ruling still baffles me.
P.S. I captured the video last night and grabbed these stills from it. None are enhanced at all—just straight screenshots from the TSN broadcast.
Update: Sorry—One more shot I should have included… this is a zoom in of Frame #3:
Update 2:35pm PT
After considering all the comments here and rethinking this whole thing, I revise my opinion—I think the NHL made the right call. However, I’m still convinced it was a goal (theoretically)... just one that couldn’t be allowed. Sarah (in the comments below) says it better than I do:
I think that it almost certainly did go the whole way over the line, because as Alanah said [in another comment] when you last see it clearly, just as it is about to clear the line, it is still moving fast and the defenseman’s stick hasn’t got to it yet. But unfortunately you never SEE it going over because his stick gets in the way. So I think they made the right call, they didn’t say it wasn’t a goal, just that they couldn’t prove that it was.
Ah well. I think it was worth some analysis, anyway. Keeps me from getting bitter. :)