Hartnell disallowed goal on Brodeur despite video review

[pascal6614p]

goal or no???



[33cowan95]

The puck went over the line, but they cant call it a goal unless it is 100% decisive.

[LeafsFan4Life1001]

Waste of 4:56 seconds I will never get back, there is also no way anyone can question a refs call on this play before the review... Way to close for the official to say it's a good goal without review

[mustbeburtreynolds]

@LeafsFan4Life1001 "This was a waste of x minutes of my time" is the most peabrained, dipshitted comment anyone could ever make. Jump off a cliff.

[coreyGOW]

the entire puck didnt go over theres about 1cm on the red line

[P0kem0nMast3r1]

@coreyGOW It went over the goal line bud, lol. 

[coreyGOW]

@P0kem0nMast3r1 NOPE NIGGER I SAY SO BOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY­YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

[stargunnerz]

@coreyGOW suck a dick it was in

[coreyGOW]

@stargunnerz stfu nigger the games over it was 2 years ago who gives a shit flyer just lost to brodeur FLYERS SUCK COCK

[vysstajn]

to si delate prdel tak je to gol nebo ne ???

[caramelgirl13]

LOL Jeopardy music!! So stressing

[paintballclassics101]

thanks for showing the final.......

[captainbare]

That was a goal



[TheDeeJ01978]

goal

[totalwar123]

the NHL is a joke.. bunch of overweight washouts who make-up rules as they go.. the league has the most ridiculous Officiating i have seen in any other sport..

[ickythump16]

@totalwar123 I question some people's existance based on comments like this..

[Masterown35]

you can tell the puck goes over the line. the commentators even said it was. it is a goal, no doubt. the nhl disalows so many goals that should be goals

[TrevorMinecraftGuy]

This would have been no goal anywase becuase you can never see the puck compleatly over the line

[fudgedragon9001]

They need cameras in the posts and crossbar

[mattcarlucci]

@fudgedragon9001 NHL.com has video of this new net they are proposing with a clear top so you can look straight down from an overhead camera. Either way, there is nothing you can do about the glove obscuring the view.

[CanucksArena]

@fudgedragon9001 then they would break every game -_-

[whiteblaze12345]

you cant tell if the puck COMPLETELY crossed the line good call

[ryemanshropshire]

@whiteblaze12345 If the puck crosses, just by a little bit. Its a goal. Are you not a hockey fan? You should know that. That is a goal! And a bad call!!! Go Leafs, GO!

[whiteblaze12345]

@ryemanshropshire Are you stupid? Maybe you should look up the rules before you say someone is wrong

78.4 Scoring a Goal - A goal shall be scored when the puck shall have

been put between the goal posts by the stick of a player of the

attacking side, from in front and below the crossbar, and ENTIRELY

across a red line the width of the diameter of the goal posts drawn on

the ice from one goal post to the other with the goal frame in its proper

position.

[cherryhead94]

@whiteblaze12345 either way the puck is entirely across the line...#stupidarguments...

[whiteblaze12345]

@cherryhead94 you can see conclusive evidence that the puck is completely over the line? no i dont think so you assume it is and since its call no goal on the ice you need to find conclusive evidence to over turn it

[YaBoyMillz1]

LoL laws of physics, what are these laws of physics that dictate this?

[101DonutBoy]

FUCKING BULL SHIT

[RedOktane]

You all know that the puck did go in the net.. face it, but I guess on video it didn't show.

On the other hand, if he would of called it in the first place, guaranteed it would of been a goal

[Evnted]

It was disallowed because there was no conclusive evidence that it completely crossed the goal line. There is no way you can determine where the puck was under his glove.

[hockeychampionsteven]

@Evnted yes you can watch closely and you see that there was a big black circle the size of the puck through the mesh of his glove that was a good goal and that the ref call it off due to broduer pulling the puck out of the net so fast. The ref couldn't see the puck cross the line in the first place because of the post BS CALL

[BigHickey25]

They really need more cameras to avoid this stuff. Making the gloves with a transparent material for the mesh and having the transparent material around the bottom of the net and such are some ideas they should really look at. It's not a save if the puck is in a glove and still over the line. This was a goal, but as the rules state it's not conclusive. Shame for Hartnell.

[thunder4377]

no goal. right call. it wasnt conclusive to show the entire puck over the goal line

[kewlnsimpguy]

The puck would probably not fully go over the line... it's not that small, and it probably touches the goal line at least a little bit.

[PHiLLiESfan8804]

GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL ITS A FRICKIN GOAL U. U STUPID NHL REF

[macmak246]

@PHiLLiESfan8804 no goal good call

[scomdnz9]

yea thats a goal.

[gonotredame40]

thats over.. it may be inconclusive but its obvious

[x30xSabresFan]

@gonotredame40 Inconclusive mean obvious . . .

[gonotredame40]

@x30xSabresFan they said it was inconclusive because they pretty much have to here. it was over the red line tho for sure.

[SamHannagan]

Actually I don't believe there is anything in the rule book that says it has to be conclusive to overturn the refs call.

[x30xSabresFan]

@SamHannagan You've never ead the NHL Rulebook . . .

[muLqzor]

@x30xSabresFan lol, who the fuck reads nhl rulebook, you know the basics of icehockey maybe slightly more if you live in US. Dont try to be Mr. Big here with stupid argument "You've never readed the NHL rulebook". Becouse im 110% sure you did not either, pls stfu.

[x30xSabresFan]

@muLqzor My Job is reffing. They made us read it, so how about you "stfu" and reply with some comment that is relivent.

It says "the only way to over turn the call on the ice [from an official] the evidence has to be conclusive."

Exact oppisote of what you said

and btw readed isnt a word oh and because is spelled because

[gnrisinmyblood1]

i find this hard to masturbate to

[NotQuiteTheMan]

its the benefit of the doubt. Like in baseball where the tie goes to the runner the doubt goes to the goal keeper

[Maverrick11]

this not being a goal is one of the biggest things wrong with the NHL right now

[Datsoccerkiid13]

Goal

[NJDFAN76]

how many times do the devils get robbed of a goal ? what goes around comes around

[Nagi21]

That's 99% a goal...

Unfortunately, it's 1% inconclusive... No goal...

[ys0ser10usss]

they should make it like tennis where they have the sensors on the line for review.. it'd be tough with the ice but we live in an age of technology...

[coolimpa]

@ys0ser10usss but then what if a stick or somethiing other than the puck went over it?

[ys0ser10usss]

@coolimpa they could put a sensor in the puck so thats the only object that would trigger the area in the goal, it sounds far-fetched but i bet they could do it

[FloppyBaby]

How is it that everyone can conclude that it's a goal, but its still not conclusive?

[jayblob716]

You can see through the webbing of his glove that its in. Kinda sucks that its disallowed but hey what are you gonna do right?

[kewlnsimpguy]

you crying?

[bruindude99]

Definitely a goal no doubt, but since the rules say that it has to be conclusive and since it really isn't ...., I think it should have been a goal myself but the rules on that are saying no goal :(

[Jerichoholic88]

Thats the difference between that no goal and the goal they called in the vancouver shootout earlier this year where they knew 100% that the puck was in luongos pad and his entire pad was in the net. Good call.

[NuclearPotatoSalad]

There was a dark hole and Marty's glove. Sent the puck to some different dimension. Well that is how Toronto sees it.

[phillies4100]

That wasa goal!!!!

[Datsoccerkiid13]

Goal

[nixkoo88]

If you look at it from 2:33-2:37 you can see the puck is a fraction of a millimeter on the line becuz if you follow the innermost red line (inside of the net) down through his glove the puck (supposedly the black object in his glove) the puck is still on the red line

[jaspreetgill1231]

So this doesn't count, but last night's goal against Vancouver was? God. 

[PBandJeIIy]

@jaspreetgill1231 I agree, that call was a terrible one. Plus the fact that it was the game winning goal in a shootout is even more atrocious

[xXxImM0rT4lxXx]

every1 know that is a goal, BUT the ref can't say it's a goal cuz u can't actually see the puck cross the line....

[wan8iv]

all u guys who say conclusive and you have to see it go over the line and be in the net well tonite in Vancouver you couldn't see the puck in the net and they didn't care

tonite. The NHL video guys hate the LAKings just like Dean Lombardi said

[Thumper17]

@wan8iv

It was in lous pad. The pads were in the back of the net. In this video, the glove is about 2 3rds over the line so the puck could be in the 3rd not over the line. There was nothing like that in the vancouver game. Puck in pads, pads 100% in net. = Goal.

[PBandJeIIy]

@Thumper17 True you may use logic, but the rule is that the puck must be seen on any camera angle past the goal line, no matter if it is inside the pad and the pad goes past the line. That's just the rule, because the puck was lost until after the ref waved the goal off.

[Thumper17]

@PBandJeIIy

Their is no rule that states a puck must be seen, read the rules. They only need to prove 100% that a puck could not be anywhere other then in the net. Which was done in the Louongo goal.

[MrDaemonB]

it was entirely over the line,by as much as an inch,I am not sure what the goal judging were thinking, bit i could see the white between the line so its a good goal

[getallgunzhere]

the puck didnt completly cross the line. there was just a little bit of the puck that didnt cross the line. i like this call

[JPriceless101]

Probably a goal but I can see why this call stood. You don't see the entire puck across the line. If you want to see refs committing highway robbery, you should search "Red Wings disallowed goal". NHL refs are laughable at times.

[Meguas2]

As the rule is written.. they can easily call that no goal, as they did... common sense tells you it is in though, but they can't use that. Meh.

[Qwertey16]

Goal.

[flyersfan0099]

Obviously a goal, but can't be called without conclusive video evidence. Its the right call and the wrong call at the same time. The Flyers won anyway, so it wasn't a total catastrophe.

[cowboyzsuk81]

War room in toronto: "yea the puck clearly goes across"

Ref:"yea it looks like a good goal"

War Room:"should we give it the ok?"

Ref:"Nah Mr. Bettman told me that if i make any good calls for the flyers tonight that i'll lose my job"

War Room:" yea true..i know Mr. Bettman has a beef with the flyers..lets rule it a no-goal"

[Kpimpsley]

No conclusive evidence good call

[TheSabresForever]

That was a goal.

[matthebrat1228]

the refs realized it was probably in but the rule clearly states you need to actually see the black of the puck completely crossed the goal line,,, in this case it isnt, hence, no goal... great call

[Edawg649]

so the goal is not given despite every logical deduction and the laws of physics dictating that the puck is in the net

[GrkFlyersFan]

I was at this game. That was a goal, but I didn't know it until after I got home. Karma prevailed though, as the Flyers went on to win this one.

[rcbasher101]

obviously no goal. What are you complaining about?

[NewsInKidsEyes]

@rcbasher101 ..... are you perhaps retarded?

[rcbasher101]

@NewsInKidsEyes are you perhaps retarded? it was in the glove and clearly inconclusive........ no goal. Just because Flylers homers say its in doesn't mean its true. Learn the rulebook before looking like a downy

[NewsInKidsEyes]

@rcbasher101 the video evidence is inconclusive, yes i agree. However, everyone knows that it is in his glove and past the line. But yes you can not see the puck past the line because his glove is blocking it. and i am not a Flyers 'Homer' im a leafs fan...

[FloppyBaby]

@rcbasher101

Dude... watch the video. Learn the rule book. If the puck crosses the line, its a goal.

[rcbasher101]

@FloppyBaby Do you know what conclusive means? The call on the Ice was no goal, so it has to be 100% conclusive to be overturned, which it wasn't. Maybe you should learn the rulebook

[PodRacer900]

@FloppyBaby hey man your half right the rule is that if the whole puck crosses the line but it was on the line plus u said "it If the puck crosses the LINE"

[anizzardo]

1:26 you can clearly see it is the puck

[Insan3Gam3r]

This happened in the Senators' 3-2 victory against the Leafs two days ago. The puck was obviously in the net because it was under Kovalev and Kovalev was completely inside the net, however because the puck was not visible when it crossed the line, it was disallowed. Also, the refs had called no-goal on the ice, which means the goal would have counted if the initial call on the ice was a goal... If it's inconclusive, the call on the ice stands.

[97NAW]

GOAL but no goal because its not 100% conclusive even though 100% was over with my assumption

[themafia306]

First off, let me say that I am not a Flyers fan, nor am I a Devils fan. I'm a Canucks fan and I have grown up with hockey all my life.

With that said, pause at 1:41. EVEN THROUGH the mesh of the goalie's glove, you can see a small round circle that is the puck...and white ice in between the dark circle that is the puck, and the goalline. Then you can also see the red ice that is the goal line.

Therefore, there is CONCLUSIVE evidence that this was a goal. Bad call by the refs.

[Insan3Gam3r]

@themafia306 It can't be 100% proven that the black object was the puck. It could've been Brodeur's glove or something else. Yes, it was almost certainly the puck, but that's not the point. The point is that when there's a video review of a possible goal, it has to be 100% conclusive (meaning there is other possibility that they're wrong) in order for the call to be overturned, otherwise the call on the ice stands. Had the referee called goal on the ice, it would have counted. Fair call.

[malkin71fan]

that was a tough call but i have to agree with the refs on this one i have nothhing against the flyers.... but you cant clearly tell that the puck went completely across the goal line cuz of brodeur glove it completely coverd it  up so u cant tell if it went across or not

[ShortStoriesByRyan]

you don't have to stop the puck. you have to make everyone THINK you stopped the puck.

[hockeydude2]

simple you need to see white ice between puck and goal line. You can assume where the puck should be

[Camps2630]

A goal shall be scored when the puck shall have been put between the goal posts by the stick of a player of the attacking side, from in front and below the crossbar, and entirely across a red line the width of the diameter of the goal posts drawn on the ice from one goal post to the other with the goal frame in its proper position. The goal frame shall be considered in its proper position 

[apdanglez]

@Camps2630 and btw pause it at 1:39 its clearly a goal

[Kartracer6]

it's got to be conclusive

[stosh21]

Right call. Even though the puck probably crossed the line, it isn't conclusive

[FloppyBaby]

@stosh21 What the fuck are you talking about? Do you not see the puck cross the fucking line by about 6 inches? Toronto doesn't like Philadelphia.

[johnwarman54]

@FloppyBaby I beg to differ. Toronto loved the flyers during the finals last year.

[FloppyBaby]

@johnwarman54 Haha, for real man. Always trying to screw them.

[xXMrDylanXx]

@stosh21 ... umm actually i think thats clearly over the line

[TENNISMANIAC144]

@apdanglez, nhl rules say its the whole puck has to be across, seriously look it up, you're retarded if you still think its 3/4, mario even sighted the rule number

[bmh17444]

unbaised judgment, this has to be ruled as no goal. you have to clearly see the PUCK across the goal line. Part of his glove is across the line, but you cannot prove with visual evidence that the puck is over. i hate the devils, but i think its the right call

[buddy24195]

GOAL

[49PurpleRain]

That so went in. I remember watching this game. I was so mad!

[Mario177188]

From what I saw, I saw a small bit of puck revealed touching the goal line. Good call.

[apdanglez]

@Mario177188 you can see the whole puck over the line if your not blind

[Mario177188]

@apdanglez 2:25 Look closely through the netting just outside the top of Brodeur's glove. You'll see a small sliver of black still on the line when Brodeur begins to swat the puck out. No goal.

[apdanglez]

@Mario177188 doesnt matter learn hockey if 3 quarters of the puck is over the line then its a goal

[Mario177188]

@apdanglez How about you take a little time to read the NHL rules? 78.4 requires the ENTIRE puck be across the red goal line between the posts and under the crossbar. 3/4 may by YOUR rules, but not the NHL's.

[apdanglez]

@Mario177188 no it doesnt o my god i play AAA hockey we use the same rules your prolly a bender

[Mario177188]

@apdanglez Then go to the NHL website, go to the rules and show me exactly where it says the puck only has to be 3/4 of the way across the goal line in NHL hockey. AAA is junior hockey. Obviously not the same as the pros.

[Camps2630]

@apdanglez you do know that the puck has to COMPLETELY cross the line in order to it be a goal, not just 3/4 of it, you MUST see white from the puck to the goal line(red)

dont now what AAA you play, maybe they dont have rules/penalties, and if thats the case...im not sure why you're even playing in tha league

Conclusion, this is a NO goal...

[apdanglez]

@Camps2630 ok buddy im on one the best AAA teams in michigan victory honda 16u i already have a full ride to ohio state

[hockeyyismylife]

@apdanglez WOW YOU'RE SO COOOL THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR HOCKEY PROWESS ON YOUTUBE INSTEAD OF PRACTICING AND GETTING BETTER AT HOCKEY.

[apdanglez]

@hockeyyismylife actually i practice 2 hours a day of ice and 1 hour off ice

[sodmanning1]

@apdanglez you are a dipshit...i cant believe that you play AAA hockey and dont know the rules of the NHL. I play also and i know the rules for both my games and the games in the NHL..

[Flyers20Fan]

probably 3 times this year the flyers scored and there was no doubt but u couldnt c it that well so toronto called it no goal which makes no sense

[TheHockeyDudez]

i want to be a goal judge in toronto because i would look at it say goal or no goal without regret

[villanova85]

It was nother goal disallowed against the flyers!!