also, this is the reason why the nhl now has a war room in toronto, that watches every second of every game, with about 8 pairs of eyes on each game, plus the 2 or 3 pairs of eyes watching in each rink.
the difference between the picture of the puck in the net, and the pictures you use to refute it, are that one happened in real time, and the others are purposely drawn to confuse the mind. also your pic of the puck sitting on the clear tile over a red line, is beeing looked at from a much lower angle, than the camera that looks from over head, or the angle of the picture you used to start this. above all of this, is the fact that the ref never bothered to get a review for the goal.
That was probably the best forensic take of that goal, however upon review, a ref has to answer 1 simple question, was it definately in the goal, nobody on earth can look at that video and say yes it was. so the goal is denied, not enough visual evidence to call it
I broke down the overhead frame by frame with the most zoom (on imovie) and the puck disappears under Khabibulin's pad between being hit by Gelinas and heading out of the crease. However for 2 frames there is a very small segment which is dark, appears not to be part of the pad (because it doesn't follow the edge of the pad), and appears to be across the line.
My verdict: I think it was in, however I am only 50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% sure therefore inconclusive evidence
I broke down the overhead frame by frame with the most zoom (on imovie) and the puck disappears under Khabibulin's pad between being hit by Gelinas and heading out of the crease. However for 2 frames there is a very small segment which is dark, appears not to be part of the pad (because it doesn't follow the edge of the pad), and appears to be across the line.
My verdict: I think it was in, however I am only 50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% sure therefore inconclusive evidence
What if we were to not look at the puck, but the goalie pad itself? Is the toe part of the pad (the point of impact with the puck) far enough into the net to support the notion of a goal?
This is the most controversial goal, because I know Oilers fan's who say it counted, and I even know some life long lightning fans who say it counted and they got lucky, then you have Flames fans say it counted, and then there are some who say it didn't count.
It didn't cross the line! End of story. The birds eye view is the only angle to look at. The puck is slightly in the air making it look like it had crossed the line in the other angle. NO GOAL!
there was no kcking motion, he was stopping and it went in off his skate. in the rule book its not a goal if there is a distingt kicking motion. it went in and we got robbed of the cup. everyone else shut your mouth
White surrounding it means nothing if you actually understand that it can easily happen and not be in, thanks to the magic of THREE DIMENSIONS AND ANGLES. Derp. Wake the fuck up.
This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. First of all, the coverage was not on NBC it was on ABC moron. And secondly, just cause you put together a montage of stupid shit that is somehow supposed to prove your point? That just because sometimes things aren't as they appear to be this isn't as well? Sometimes things are as they appear to be... like you being a fucking moron!
I couldn't finish watching this video because it pissed me off so fucking much. I can't believe how someone can be so blind by ignorance and arrogance. People in TB know that puck was in, they just won't admit it.
@Corncrops Ignorant & arrogant, that sums up flamer fans. Look at the overhead angle! Guess it's easier to cry about it than to accept the reality that your team LOST and never would've been there in the first place if the refs hadn't favored them out of fear of offending Canadian fans.
HD or not back in 2004, the puck did not cross the goal line, im sure the referee and the guys in toronto made the right call, they do 99.99 percent of the time. All they do is look at replays after replays, they might have a angle that we don't get the see. I have been reviewing close calls since i was 3 yr old. I love doing this, this is my life and i would say its no goal aswell.
@okpapereat - The play was not reviewed. That's part of the reason Flames fans are so upset by the call. Granted, there is absolutely no way to overturn the ruling given the angles used, but still...
@kirant I see, i saw that whole play again, thought there was a review but i could say thats not in, i reviewed it for hours and find no conclusive evidence it cross the line. I know Calgary is upset, i live here. but was cheering for tampa all the way.
@tbl35 - It was never reviewed in the game and would have no point to review it post game. I was watching the game and had friends at the game (and, should you trust Wikipedia, it agrees with me). We both never saw the ref turn to the staff in Toronto for help. It's one of the major issues with the playoffs.
As I mentioned before, I don't think there would have been an overturning of the on-ice call given the angles used in 2004, but I do know the call was never reviewed by the NHL.
@TheXen0 The puck is IN. I beleve that this video is a waste of time. Even the angle thatwas more clear showed it was in fully. So just live with it. IT WAS IN!
@rideyellow i have the feeling calgary will win their next stanley cup vs tampa bay. Oh and who was a game and a goal short from going to the stanley cup finals?? Montreal? no they got eleminated first round. Philly? no they got eliminated second round? Tampa? YES because they lost to the stanley cup champions in round 3.
@thematteodihockey Wait, Calgary is irrelevant? Is that what your post said? Good luck meeting TB in the finals, cause we'll have 4 more cups by then; all legitimate, just like the one in 04.
If you Flames fans can't understand the coin test and accept the fact that the puck wasn't in, you will soon take the title for Most Stubborn Fan-Base away from Boston. And all this BS about it being a conspiracy doesn't make any sense. CALGARY HAD ANOTHER CHANCE TO WIN THE CUP, BUT COULDN'T GET IT DONE. People might believe there was a conspiracy if it was game 7, but it was game 6 and Calgary's quest for the cup went on. After that, they got outplayed by the Lightning, so just let it go.
I think its funny that people think your Tampa fan. I noticed you used centimeters instead inches. Enough video evidence for me to notice your not a Tampa fan. Glad there is one Flames fan not beating a dead horse though.
It's not like when it wasn't a goal that was the end of the game, because it wasn't the end, there was still time left and calgary could have scored again but they didn't
You've got me quite convinced. I believed 100% it was a goal until now. I still do believe the puck traveled the extra centimeter and crossed the line. Although, with the force which the rebound was kicked out, it could be argued that Khabiboulin "kicked into the puck", possibly meeting it halfway. Just watch footage to validate my point there. I have to say I agree, but that is based on the evidence we have. The technology that wasn't around then or even now will be here in the future to solid
Hey Tampa Fan, you can play around with your lids, tape, pucks, and camera but the one fact that does remain is that never in the history of the NHL has a team ever been awarded a Cup that people believe was robbed from another club. That must be a cheap feeling. EVERY OTHER TEAM EARNED THEIRS!! Watch out for KARMA!
"never in the history of the NHL has a team ever been awarded a Cup that people believe was robbed from another club."
I assume you seem to be new to hockey because the 1999 Buffalo Sabers disagree. And why would the feeling be cheep the Lightning were the better team and deserved to win. They earned it just like every other team before and after them.
@TheXen0 thats why every team in the NHL even said calgary should have had that cuz clearly the puck was in the net i was in front row behind the net of tampa and i saw it BEHIND the line and clearly in im not trying to start shit im just saying
@meany1023 When you say "every team in the NHL" do you mean everyone you know at work and school? That's not every team in the NHL. Of course you can make me shut up if you show me articles or clips of every team unanimously agreeing that the puck was in. Yeah that's what I thought.
You are a liar or you’re superhuman. 1) Only with x-ray vision could you have seen the puck as you would have to see through Khabi and his pad. 2) Even in slow motion it hardly appears over the line, it is impossible for anyone’s brain to process that in real-time. 3) The angle from the front makes it looks more over than it is, and an angle from the back would make it look like it was on the line more than it was. If youhave X-ray vision, then I apologies for calling you a liar.
@TheXen0 Yeah they had to beat such elite teams as the New York Islanders, the good ol' Montreal Canadiens, and who could forget the Flyers. I have reason to believe the flames had a much harder time reaching the stanley cup finals, whether they were cheated or not, they deserved that win.
it was obviously in @TheXen0 dumbass, your probably from tampa bay and want them to have the only moment of glory that they ever going to have. but we cant change the call (even though it was in), so we will have to live with the goal that wasn't
Actually I live in Calgary and it is the main reason I made the video because I got sick and tired of hearing Flames fan whine about how they were robbed of the cup. I show them that because the puck was in the air it creates the illusion it was in when there is a very good chance it was not. Check the top down view shows the pad covering most of the goal line. But I know you like those flames fans have your mind made up and will not be swayed. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
@TheXen0 but they were robbed. whatch the video Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy. He gives a fantastic angle of the puck being in. An angle the folks in Toronto didn't have when making the call.
If you are referring to the one at 3:05 that is the same one I used in my video that is from CBC/ABC. If not let me know where the angle is I am genuinely curious.
Also re-watch the Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy at 2:52 and let me know where the puck could have gone in as Khabibulins pad is on the goal-line the whole time and moving forward thus not giving the puck any room to go in. Thanks for watching!
@TheXen0 You're right, you do use that angle. But honestly that angle is enough for me to believe without a doubt that that goal was in. but that's just me. Good video.
@m4x0wnzu14 Umm...the poster explains how that angle you talked about is misleading, and gives an extremely clear example in this video. Did you even watch this?
Dude i'm from calgary too it dosen't matter if it crossed the line it was kicked in gelinas never got his stick on it and look at his skates pointed towards the goal so the right call was made, NO GOAL!
@TheXen0 are you stupid it has been reviewed by tsn since it happened and they all said it was a goal, no go use your piece of paper red line trick somewhere else,
@seredajhs I have never seen or heard about TSN doing anything of the sort. If you can provide a link to the article/video of this that would be great. I am curious about how they came to that conclusion considering the best view (the top down view) shows it is next to impossible that the puck crossed the line. Thanks for watching and commenting.
watch it in full speed and it looks like it hit the back of his foot his foot is behind the line gooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllleeeeeeeeeee goal
nice vid, you're right, in game 7, they showed how from that angle it looks like the puck is over, but then from the overhead angle since the puck is in the air, it is still over the line , go tampa
@ejirealty we may never get over it, that disallowed goal probably cost us the standley cup, which may be one of the most prestigious awards in sports. I bet if it was tampa bay that that happened to you guys would have done the same.
I overlaid screenshots from the overhead camera and found that the vector traces of the puck moving towards the net and the puck moving away from the net do not intersect behind the goal line. Since this viewpoint is behind the goal, this means that if the puck were on the ice, it still would not have crossed the goal line. If it were in the air this video shows pretty clearly that it couldn't have crossed the line.
and even IF it was in and IF Gelinas didnt kick it in, there was still 6 fucking minutes left and anything coulda happened. Flames fans saying they 'won' the cup that year is so ignorant and even hilarious!
@MrJoePappi - To be fair, this was in a league where goals were extremely rare to come by (to the point where hockey was at risk of being an extremely boring sport with 1st goal wins type of mentality along the lines of soccer/football). The odds of TB tying the game again would have been pretty low. Impossible? Not by any means. TB was an excellent team and definitely deserved their shot at the cup. But the numbers would be against them at that point.
It doesn't look like the puck went in to me even if it did it wasn't in overtime that wouldn't have been the for sure winning goal Tampa could have very easly tied it sorry Flames fans but that doesn't make the Flames the 2004 cup winners even if it did go in.
@sandman8185 oh look it's you again, what you're saying may slightly be true but because u like the Canuks and hate the flames you go on videos like these and post the comments against the flames. Shouldn't you be watching Canuks videos instead?
at 4:01 you show a puck on a tile. that tile is JUST BARLEY touching the red line. on the then you show an overhead view of what you claim is the exact same position of the puck/tile, but you can see the now covers more than half of the red line. its not my eyes playing tricks on me, its you making up BS to make it seem like your deserved to win. Sabres were robbed in 1999, Flames were robbed in 2004, Wings were robbed in 2009. the NHL has been deciding the winner for years.
k listen this is just a retarded tampa fan just trying to state his opinon the puck was clearly over the line everyone knows it. well at least the Flames fans do and for all you tampa fans out there you just wait until the ghost of the flames past come back to haunt you cuz the flames are the best team and thats no lie so all you stupid tampa fans out there GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU PRICKS!!!
Ummm... this post is terrible. Yes, the puck was for sure in... but, the Flames are NOT the best team right now. They had the playoffs in their hands and blew it this year. On the other hand, as much as I don't want it... the Lightning are playing great right now. They are good enough to win the Cup again this year (and yes, they were top tier in 2004. They just should've been playing catch up in the last 6 minutes of that game 6 in '04).
@Iliad1000 exact. and the 2 figures following are not the same. 1 is definitly bigger than the other. TheXen0 must have been drunk or dopped while making that vid.
WOW!!!! Is there anything else to do in Calgary? I can see it now, grandpa telling grandson in 2053 about how the Flames were cheated out of a SC win, and how Gary Bettman hated them...
Good revenge for Martin St-Louis, the Flames kick him out and today he's better than the whole team. I'm happy for them Calgary just been bad in game 7, their problem
Why are Flames fans still butthurt over this? I don't get it. Yeah, you lost the cup, but it's over now. That was almost 7 years ago. Stop living in the past and go back to the finals and win it. Damn.... And you know there was a Game 7 too. You could have won that.
The scientific crap you presented in the video is just fine and every thing but you're not taking into account that the goal judges aren't looking at this from a scientific standpoint. They operate on the general rule that if you see white it's in, and you could see white. Trust me, when Toronto reviewed this, there's no way they used experiments, video recreations, and optical illusions, so your whole point is useless. You could see white, and that's all that matters. Not even a Flames fan BTW.
I love how in the example with the puck on the little glass box the puck is positioned in the perfect way so such drastic evidence can be seen. But in reality the puck was never in that position when it was crossing the line and hitting the pad. Or did you just think nobody would notice?
And another Tampa Bay fan makes a video to sit back in denial. Don't you DARE sit around making videos lecturing us on if it was in or not, you piece of shit. I will GLADLY show you videos, screenshots and such that shows CLEARLY it was in. You have the audacious nerve to present Math and Logic in this? You want Math and Logic, son? I will gladly provide them for you.
Now go back and masturbate to Andreychuk's poster. People like you should be shoot down in cold blood.
@TheXen0 you cunt this dissallowed obvious goal was the reason that birdseye cameras are used in hockey today, the cup is never going back to tampa and no one could give a shit
Top down angles have been use for a long time. In fact there is a top down angle for this, you can view this angle in canuckleheadcal's video Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy around 2:53. It shows the puck no where near over the line.
What's this...another angry, bitter, and miserable Flameout fan still whining about the goal/no goal? Simple fact is that the puck was not over the line. The other simple fact is the Flameouts still had the opportunity to seal the deal on home ice with two OT's but they couldn't get it done. Another fact is the Flameouts still had game 7 to win it all........ but......you know the rest of the story.
@AeonXero Since you didn't watch the video your comment means nothing. Just like Flames fans' knowledge about the game - nothing. Jus sayin'. Don't get mad, you lost. Deal with it
imo if the puck isn't touching the red, it's a goal. If you can see white between the the puck and the red line, it's a goal. if you turn the puck 90 degrees in the same spot it would be in, just because it's hanging over the red line in a sketchy spot means no goal?
@canuckz thats true the one issue with this is the lack of accountijng for angle, although he was just accounting for a est case scenario because also khabibulin would have had more time to move his pad, just a miniscule amount but possibly enough. p.s. awesome name
You didnt take into account that as soon as the puck hit Khabibulins pad the momentum could have cause the puck to flip so it was parallel with the goal line which would have been over the line. There would have been only one clear way to see if it was in and unfortunately the NHL wasnt prepared with the cameras.
I wonder if 50 years from now Flames fans will still be analyzing and scrutinizing video of Gelinas' attempt to drive the puck in with his skate. Kind of lame actually. Neither Gelinas nor anyone else on the ice reacted at that moment as if they thought it was a goal, nor anyone in the stands. Only after the media started whipping it up did it become the writhing, slimy beast it is today.
Good illustration of what ABC (NOT NBC) showed during Gm 7 by digitally removing the crossbar: No goal
@hyjyljyj Actually if you knew anything about hockey you would see he did not intentionally make a kicking motion towrads the puck, which is how goal judges determine a goal! "Kind of lame actually" Shut up Dude! If you knew what you were talking about I wouldn't have said shit! And I remeber watching the game at a community hall( with probaly about half as many fans as there were in all of tampa bay at the time!) and we all said right after it should be reveiwed,go watch nascar leave hockey!
@hyjyljyj Actually if you knew anything about hockey you would see he did not intentionally make a kicking motion towrads the puck, which is how goal judges determine a goal! "Kind of lame actually" Shut up Dude! If you knew what you were talking about I wouldn't have said shit! And I remeber watching the game at a community hall( with probaly about half as many fans as there were in all of tampa bay at the time!) we all said right after it should be reveiwed,go watch nascar leave hockey alone!
i reamade the play at home and ITS NOT IN! it could not be because,if you look at the overhead view, the puck deosn't fully cross the line. And the right pad of Khabibulin was coming so fast so the puck could have enter a nanometer after the pick was taken. I also saw a photo where they were approaching the right goal post and the puck was still touching the line and the inside poast. ITS NOT A GOAL! ps: im French so sorry for my bad english :)
Overhead view overrules side view, they didn't see any white, and from this side angle, their could've been a lit'l bit of the line still appearing under the puck which you wouldn't notice.
hey, good research, but the puck still had to keep moving until it hit his pad in the screen shot? I'll check out the over head veiw. By the way how many fans do the lightning get per game this year? there doing good and there team is exciting to watch.
I hope the people there haven't fogot about hockey, it's a shame some citys like phoenix have a team and 5000 people show up,i went to a Flames game there, it was sad.I'll admit it it was incoclusive, it's hillarous im talking about this 6yrsltr
Actually as I have pointed out before it does not. Please watch the top down view in canuckleheadcal's video Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy around 2:53 and tell me at what point the whole puck is over the goal line, or for that matter any part of the puck.
What a tard if thats the only evidence they have then its a goal, think they sat in toronto in there review booth with pieces of plastic to depict an accurate judgement??? NO! Your eyes may decieve you, but with only one view of the goal in question, our eyes are all we have to judge. Thanks for all the apologies but the real Calgary fans and people who live in this great city know that our second cup was won that night.
The puck was in...try a different "experiment", look at Knabby's pad..idiot! Oh, and why would they have the lock out the next year...then the year after that, change the rule so they can review it after the whistle blows? huh!?
Its just a shame though, cause now it says "Lightning" "Hurricanes" and the worst "Ducks" on Lord Stanley's beautiful Cup... and to really make it sting, all those victories came at the hands of a Canadian counterpart.... that's depressing.
@bstims37 Fucking Dumbass, Canada's Stanley Cup dominance is over. got it? O-V-E-R. Thanks to Gary Betteman, Calgary was rightfully denied the Cup in '04 and rightfully denied the tying goal against the Ducks last night to ruin their playoff hopes. And BTW, 'Ducks' is by far the BEST team name inscribed on the Stanley Cup. So all you haters can go suck dick. Muahahahaha!
great vid. This is what the goal judges must have gone through. You can't call it a goal if it's not 100 percent clear that it entered the net. Plus as an Oilers fan i love that Calgary lost, and the fans are still crying about this
@clennon20 they aren't doing great this year. no one expects them to have a good year. How will the flames do this year....10th in the west. No future there either. I dislike the Leafs almost as much as i hate the flames, but at least the Leafs are taking steps in the right direction... The oilers will prob be bad this year and next year. Most Oilers fans really don't care though. As long as they are exciting and fun to watch. that's all that matters in the end
TSN showed an overhead of the timeframe/same photo that shows the "white" between the puck and the goal line. The same overhead view from the same exact time frame shows the puck still underneath the crossbar adjacent to the line by half the pucks length. ESPN even had a feature where they brought in a photo analyst that said that all angles being considered, the puck still had over half its own length to go in the net.
I know this is 6 years later, but lets please get over it already
your grammar is also very bad, 'then' is used for time, for you to say 'was in, then out' would mean the puck travelled in, and after that, out. 'Than' would be the correct word for this scenario, due to you comparing 2 different scenarios.
at 5:49, you say the puck could not have travelled more than a millimeter, if the angle shown is deceiving for how far it is into the net, would it not also be deceiving how far it is away from the pad of Khabublin? This can also be supported by the fact TV is nothing more than a 2D representation of what has been captured by cameras, depth perception is based on sizes of things shown on TV, meaning a distance argument IS valid and a logical issue because it cannot be judged accurately on TV
@lewistoprider I was giving CBC & NBC the benefit of the doubt in that I assumed both would have taken the screen capture at the point in time when the puck changed direction from going towards the net to going out of the net. Even in a 2D TV representation you would still be able to tell when the puck changed direction from entering to exiting and make the screen capture at that time. This is why I was saying it could not enter the net any further as the puck would be changing direction.
@TheXen0 If it is already going out of the net at that second how about when it hit is pad, his pad was in the net so when it hit his pad the puck was in the net with the pad, And and I watch the real video in over head and in that angle that you say is playing "tricks on our eyes" and when it was hitting the goalies pads it was on the ice and in the net, now tell me a reason why it wasnt in the net
I understand what you are saying but keep in mind the pad is also skewered by the angle in relation to the goal-line. The best angle to explain what I am talking about is the above angle which I do not have in my video look at canuckleheadcal's video Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy around 2:53 and you will see that there is very little of the pad over the line to begin with let alone any when the puck makes it near the line. The screenshot is just a really bad angle.
@TheXen0 ok.. how about when it was actually making cantact with the pad? the pad would have been in the net with the puck, I paused the live video it when it was actually hiting the pad and the puck was on the ice in the net.
The pad has little to no relation to this at all. Just as the puck appears to be in the net the pad would also appear to be further into the net than it actually is. If you have the live video look at the top down view. The puck comes in at the top of the knee area and then is kicked out around the mid shin area. Please explain how the puck went all the way down to the toe area (the only place it could have gone in) and then back up to his shin and then out.
@TheXen0 But it is not touching the pad at that exact second, it is not even touching the mid shin,am i right? Yes i am right, so if it was touching the mid shin the it would have been in the net, the puck was just barely touching the line and the mid shin was a good 2 inches and so the puck could traveled just a tiny bit more to make it in the net. even thogh im totally against this video it was actually a good video :) but i still dont think it was kept out
Here's an idea, instead of screen shots, why didn't you make a video for the test because if I look at 4:00 mark, the plastic case is not even in the same spot on the line when comparing both pictures. A video would show nothing was completely altered, not saying you did but it would make your theory better and no one could argue this point that it was altered. Though I am sure someone would find a way to argue it anyways...
very good tests and those pics can say a lot. im not a fan of either of these teams. its good how u proved it was hot in but put some humor into it haha nice job
How could I not have seen it before you are absolutely correct. Your all caps reply has made me see the light...do me a favour watch the top down view in canuckleheadcal's video Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy around 2:53 and tell me at what point the whole puck is over the goal line, or for that matter any part of the puck because that is a far better angle then the Screenshot "it was in"ers like to use and the puck is never seen near the goal-line. Why is that?
you got to remember that the puck was oval and tilted towards the goal line but if you were to take another screeshot a half second later, you would find out that the puck would be straight as an oval but also: it would be further into the net.
Look at the picture at 5:00 (regarding the issue of "could the puck have travelled any farther?") We don't know whether the puck is moving towards the net or away from it here, but if it is still on the way towards the net, then clearly there is enough room for the puck to cross the line before hitting the pad (and compressing the pad somewhat as well). You did a good job up until then, when you dismissed that issue prematurely.
@jowabro I disagree. I assume the puck is moving towards the net at this point. While I agree it does appear that there could be room for it to go in you also have to keep in mind that the angle is still off. While not as bad as the TV screenshots it is still enough. I have blown this pic up and cropped out the puck and put it back as far as I can to the front of the pad. It is still not quite in. If you watch the top view of the play Khabublin is moving forward thus reducing the amount more.
Great video. It's near impossible to explain this concept to people without a diagram, and even then, most people are blinded by their wanting to believe a puck was in, rather than take the logical standpoint and objectively look at the situation. Even years later, knowing that no one is going to take the cup or a win away from them, you would think they might admit it's possible a goal wasn't in.
Nope, stubborn, or just stupid. It's really not worth arguing over, but I commend you for this. :)
honestly i believe this was in from watching some different videos and angles, not just considering the red line and white part but more of that his pad was across the line and the puck bounced off the pad and having some white on a side of it but it is still somewhat indesputable
haha man i never get sick of reading these comments that these idiots have written i mean omfg....u actually do a completely proving and decisive experiment using just common optics 2 show that it was nowhere near a goal and these alberta fuckers who obviously are still living in 2004 still argue with u....haha thats just wonderful and those fuckers need 2 either 1. get a life or 2. buy a pair of glasses
My opinion is that we absolutely can't prove goal or no goal with home equipment and average knowledge. Ofcourse, we can write to mythbusters to judge in this case haha. People who know EXACTLY how high goalie pads are can calculate at which height the puck was using these recordings or photos, and then with all that weird mathematical formulas and things we have no idea about, finally say the puck was in or not. This video is good try but like other ones, proves nothing.
also, this is the reason why the nhl now has a war room in toronto, that watches every second of every game, with about 8 pairs of eyes on each game, plus the 2 or 3 pairs of eyes watching in each rink.
Qmocean 3 weeks ago
the difference between the picture of the puck in the net, and the pictures you use to refute it, are that one happened in real time, and the others are purposely drawn to confuse the mind. also your pic of the puck sitting on the clear tile over a red line, is beeing looked at from a much lower angle, than the camera that looks from over head, or the angle of the picture you used to start this. above all of this, is the fact that the ref never bothered to get a review for the goal.
Qmocean 3 weeks ago
That was probably the best forensic take of that goal, however upon review, a ref has to answer 1 simple question, was it definately in the goal, nobody on earth can look at that video and say yes it was. so the goal is denied, not enough visual evidence to call it
boltfan25 1 month ago
there was white between the puck and the red line clearly the puck was in
macdown11 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I broke down the overhead frame by frame with the most zoom (on imovie) and the puck disappears under Khabibulin's pad between being hit by Gelinas and heading out of the crease. However for 2 frames there is a very small segment which is dark, appears not to be part of the pad (because it doesn't follow the edge of the pad), and appears to be across the line.
My verdict: I think it was in, however I am only 50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% sure therefore inconclusive evidence
893160007 1 month ago
I broke down the overhead frame by frame with the most zoom (on imovie) and the puck disappears under Khabibulin's pad between being hit by Gelinas and heading out of the crease. However for 2 frames there is a very small segment which is dark, appears not to be part of the pad (because it doesn't follow the edge of the pad), and appears to be across the line.
My verdict: I think it was in, however I am only 50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% sure therefore inconclusive evidence
893160007 1 month ago
Good points made on the angle theory.
What if we were to not look at the puck, but the goalie pad itself? Is the toe part of the pad (the point of impact with the puck) far enough into the net to support the notion of a goal?
Personally, I think so.
4emsteph 2 months ago
And the flames chocked again!
oilers000 2 months ago
This is the most controversial goal, because I know Oilers fan's who say it counted, and I even know some life long lightning fans who say it counted and they got lucky, then you have Flames fans say it counted, and then there are some who say it didn't count.
Sithlord703 2 months ago
what a stupid video your a moron buddy
darrin37 2 months ago
you stupid moron, why don't you prove that bigfoot picture is a hoax?
annanownow 2 months ago
It didn't cross the line! End of story. The birds eye view is the only angle to look at. The puck is slightly in the air making it look like it had crossed the line in the other angle. NO GOAL!
InHumanFormR 4 months ago
there was no kcking motion, he was stopping and it went in off his skate. in the rule book its not a goal if there is a distingt kicking motion. it went in and we got robbed of the cup. everyone else shut your mouth
JugHank 4 months ago
@JugHank ya i agree that's bullshit.
sasprawler 4 months ago
IT WAS KICKED IN. The right call was made. NO GOAL get over it..from CALGARY!
tarimaa1 4 months ago
White surrounding it means nothing if you actually understand that it can easily happen and not be in, thanks to the magic of THREE DIMENSIONS AND ANGLES. Derp. Wake the fuck up.
roflmewaffles 5 months ago
And maybe he just upset another flames fan, dumbass, he wasn't trying to offend anybody, at all!
GreenApplezzzz 6 months ago
This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. First of all, the coverage was not on NBC it was on ABC moron. And secondly, just cause you put together a montage of stupid shit that is somehow supposed to prove your point? That just because sometimes things aren't as they appear to be this isn't as well? Sometimes things are as they appear to be... like you being a fucking moron!
flamesfan3412 6 months ago
I couldn't finish watching this video because it pissed me off so fucking much. I can't believe how someone can be so blind by ignorance and arrogance. People in TB know that puck was in, they just won't admit it.
Corncrops 6 months ago
@Corncrops Ignorant & arrogant, that sums up flamer fans. Look at the overhead angle! Guess it's easier to cry about it than to accept the reality that your team LOST and never would've been there in the first place if the refs hadn't favored them out of fear of offending Canadian fans.
tbl35 4 months ago in playlist tbl35's Favorited Videos
and remember the whole puck has to cross, even if 1 millimetre is bitting the line it does not count and thats what i see.
okpapereat 6 months ago
HD or not back in 2004, the puck did not cross the goal line, im sure the referee and the guys in toronto made the right call, they do 99.99 percent of the time. All they do is look at replays after replays, they might have a angle that we don't get the see. I have been reviewing close calls since i was 3 yr old. I love doing this, this is my life and i would say its no goal aswell.
okpapereat 6 months ago
@okpapereat - The play was not reviewed. That's part of the reason Flames fans are so upset by the call. Granted, there is absolutely no way to overturn the ruling given the angles used, but still...
kirant 5 months ago
@kirant I see, i saw that whole play again, thought there was a review but i could say thats not in, i reviewed it for hours and find no conclusive evidence it cross the line. I know Calgary is upset, i live here. but was cheering for tampa all the way.
okpapereat 5 months ago
@kirant It was reviewed.
tbl35 4 months ago in playlist tbl35's Favorited Videos
@tbl35 - It was never reviewed in the game and would have no point to review it post game. I was watching the game and had friends at the game (and, should you trust Wikipedia, it agrees with me). We both never saw the ref turn to the staff in Toronto for help. It's one of the major issues with the playoffs.
As I mentioned before, I don't think there would have been an overturning of the on-ice call given the angles used in 2004, but I do know the call was never reviewed by the NHL.
kirant 4 months ago
@TheXen0 The puck is IN. I beleve that this video is a waste of time. Even the angle thatwas more clear showed it was in fully. So just live with it. IT WAS IN!
thematteodihockey 6 months ago
Tampa Bay Lightning: 2004 Stanley Cup Champions. Read it and WEEP Calgary.
rideyellow 6 months ago
@rideyellow by robbery, you idiot
thematteodihockey 6 months ago
@rideyellow i have the feeling calgary will win their next stanley cup vs tampa bay. Oh and who was a game and a goal short from going to the stanley cup finals?? Montreal? no they got eleminated first round. Philly? no they got eliminated second round? Tampa? YES because they lost to the stanley cup champions in round 3.
thematteodihockey 6 months ago
@thematteodihockey Wait, Calgary is irrelevant? Is that what your post said? Good luck meeting TB in the finals, cause we'll have 4 more cups by then; all legitimate, just like the one in 04.
rideyellow 6 months ago
Whining Canadians make me laugh.
terryheller027 7 months ago
If you Flames fans can't understand the coin test and accept the fact that the puck wasn't in, you will soon take the title for Most Stubborn Fan-Base away from Boston. And all this BS about it being a conspiracy doesn't make any sense. CALGARY HAD ANOTHER CHANCE TO WIN THE CUP, BUT COULDN'T GET IT DONE. People might believe there was a conspiracy if it was game 7, but it was game 6 and Calgary's quest for the cup went on. After that, they got outplayed by the Lightning, so just let it go.
Viper900100 7 months ago
I think its funny that people think your Tampa fan. I noticed you used centimeters instead inches. Enough video evidence for me to notice your not a Tampa fan. Glad there is one Flames fan not beating a dead horse though.
seizedkibbles 7 months ago
43 people don't like critical thinking
TMLCentral 7 months ago
go leafs go
yourmomshutup 7 months ago
It's not like when it wasn't a goal that was the end of the game, because it wasn't the end, there was still time left and calgary could have scored again but they didn't
dg79511876 7 months ago
You've got me quite convinced. I believed 100% it was a goal until now. I still do believe the puck traveled the extra centimeter and crossed the line. Although, with the force which the rebound was kicked out, it could be argued that Khabiboulin "kicked into the puck", possibly meeting it halfway. Just watch footage to validate my point there. I have to say I agree, but that is based on the evidence we have. The technology that wasn't around then or even now will be here in the future to solid
MrMoldyPickles 7 months ago
Hey Tampa Fan, you can play around with your lids, tape, pucks, and camera but the one fact that does remain is that never in the history of the NHL has a team ever been awarded a Cup that people believe was robbed from another club. That must be a cheap feeling. EVERY OTHER TEAM EARNED THEIRS!! Watch out for KARMA!
UProwler73 7 months ago
@UProwler73
"never in the history of the NHL has a team ever been awarded a Cup that people believe was robbed from another club."
I assume you seem to be new to hockey because the 1999 Buffalo Sabers disagree. And why would the feeling be cheep the Lightning were the better team and deserved to win. They earned it just like every other team before and after them.
TheXen0 7 months ago
@TheXen0 thats why every team in the NHL even said calgary should have had that cuz clearly the puck was in the net i was in front row behind the net of tampa and i saw it BEHIND the line and clearly in im not trying to start shit im just saying
meany1023 7 months ago
@meany1023 When you say "every team in the NHL" do you mean everyone you know at work and school? That's not every team in the NHL. Of course you can make me shut up if you show me articles or clips of every team unanimously agreeing that the puck was in. Yeah that's what I thought.
BoobWoong 7 months ago
@meany1023
You are a liar or you’re superhuman. 1) Only with x-ray vision could you have seen the puck as you would have to see through Khabi and his pad. 2) Even in slow motion it hardly appears over the line, it is impossible for anyone’s brain to process that in real-time. 3) The angle from the front makes it looks more over than it is, and an angle from the back would make it look like it was on the line more than it was. If youhave X-ray vision, then I apologies for calling you a liar.
TheXen0 6 months ago
@TheXen0 Yeah they had to beat such elite teams as the New York Islanders, the good ol' Montreal Canadiens, and who could forget the Flyers. I have reason to believe the flames had a much harder time reaching the stanley cup finals, whether they were cheated or not, they deserved that win.
m4x0wnzu14 6 months ago
it was obviously in @TheXen0 dumbass, your probably from tampa bay and want them to have the only moment of glory that they ever going to have. but we cant change the call (even though it was in), so we will have to live with the goal that wasn't
bwtheking99 8 months ago
@bwtheking99
Actually I live in Calgary and it is the main reason I made the video because I got sick and tired of hearing Flames fan whine about how they were robbed of the cup. I show them that because the puck was in the air it creates the illusion it was in when there is a very good chance it was not. Check the top down view shows the pad covering most of the goal line. But I know you like those flames fans have your mind made up and will not be swayed. Thanks for viewing and commenting.
TheXen0 7 months ago 2
@TheXen0 but they were robbed. whatch the video Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy. He gives a fantastic angle of the puck being in. An angle the folks in Toronto didn't have when making the call.
m4x0wnzu14 7 months ago
@m4x0wnzu14
If you are referring to the one at 3:05 that is the same one I used in my video that is from CBC/ABC. If not let me know where the angle is I am genuinely curious.
Also re-watch the Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy at 2:52 and let me know where the puck could have gone in as Khabibulins pad is on the goal-line the whole time and moving forward thus not giving the puck any room to go in. Thanks for watching!
TheXen0 7 months ago
@TheXen0 You're right, you do use that angle. But honestly that angle is enough for me to believe without a doubt that that goal was in. but that's just me. Good video.
m4x0wnzu14 7 months ago
@m4x0wnzu14 Umm...the poster explains how that angle you talked about is misleading, and gives an extremely clear example in this video. Did you even watch this?
BoobWoong 7 months ago
@TheXen0 ,
Dude i'm from calgary too it dosen't matter if it crossed the line it was kicked in gelinas never got his stick on it and look at his skates pointed towards the goal so the right call was made, NO GOAL!
tarimaa1 4 months ago
@TheXen0 are you stupid it has been reviewed by tsn since it happened and they all said it was a goal, no go use your piece of paper red line trick somewhere else,
seredajhs 3 months ago
@seredajhs I have never seen or heard about TSN doing anything of the sort. If you can provide a link to the article/video of this that would be great. I am curious about how they came to that conclusion considering the best view (the top down view) shows it is next to impossible that the puck crossed the line. Thanks for watching and commenting.
TheXen0 3 months ago
From a Bruins fan, it was in. They blew the call, not the first or last time that will happen.
tulagi1 8 months ago
watch it in full speed and it looks like it hit the back of his foot his foot is behind the line gooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllleeeeeeeeeee goal
TheUyotube 8 months ago
4:59 look how far away the pad is from the puck
progeriaishorrible 8 months ago
nice vid, you're right, in game 7, they showed how from that angle it looks like the puck is over, but then from the overhead angle since the puck is in the air, it is still over the line , go tampa
DanLaMorte 8 months ago
your a dumbass
gregthebunny33 8 months ago
It was in...
huego69 8 months ago
the puck is clearly, completely over the red line
nanocrap1 8 months ago
7 minutes of that shitty music and those ridiculous photos.....who's the one obsessing over it? And by the way, IT WAS IN.
NINJASE7EN 8 months ago
Geeeezzzzz!!! Get over it already Flames fans. Lord Stanley may reside in Tampa again this year. Sucks doesn't it?
ejirealty 8 months ago
@ejirealty we may never get over it, that disallowed goal probably cost us the standley cup, which may be one of the most prestigious awards in sports. I bet if it was tampa bay that that happened to you guys would have done the same.
sasprawler 8 months ago
I overlaid screenshots from the overhead camera and found that the vector traces of the puck moving towards the net and the puck moving away from the net do not intersect behind the goal line. Since this viewpoint is behind the goal, this means that if the puck were on the ice, it still would not have crossed the goal line. If it were in the air this video shows pretty clearly that it couldn't have crossed the line.
dac1267 8 months ago
What is this song?
ctvu1 8 months ago
What is this song?
ctvu1 8 months ago
and even IF it was in and IF Gelinas didnt kick it in, there was still 6 fucking minutes left and anything coulda happened. Flames fans saying they 'won' the cup that year is so ignorant and even hilarious!
MrJoePappi 8 months ago 7
@MrJoePappi ummm.....even with 6 minutes left it wouldn't have mattered because it was in overtime
kipper134 7 months ago
@kipper134 Idiot. This happened in the 3rd.
Flames fans that think this was in have no proof, they just grasp onto this idea to excuse the fact that Tampa was the better team.
ownwar8 7 months ago
@MrJoePappi Agree. Even if the puck goes in Tampa's got six minutes to tie it up again. Plenty of time.
I was going for Calgary in this series (Avalanche fan) but Flames fans assuming that they'd have won the Cup if the puck went in is ridiculous.
That said, I agree that the score should have been 3-2 Calgary with seven minutes left and let the game play out.
VancouverChokers 6 months ago
@MrJoePappi Exactly. People seem to think this was in OT for some reason, just as mind boggling as them thinking it went in, I guess.
tbl35 4 months ago in playlist tbl35's Favorited Videos
@MrJoePappi - To be fair, this was in a league where goals were extremely rare to come by (to the point where hockey was at risk of being an extremely boring sport with 1st goal wins type of mentality along the lines of soccer/football). The odds of TB tying the game again would have been pretty low. Impossible? Not by any means. TB was an excellent team and definitely deserved their shot at the cup. But the numbers would be against them at that point.
kirant 4 months ago
@sandman8185
I agree completely! Also, the call on the ice was no goal and you need conclusive evidence to overturn that call. I have not seen any!
MrJoePappi 8 months ago
It doesn't look like the puck went in to me even if it did it wasn't in overtime that wouldn't have been the for sure winning goal Tampa could have very easly tied it sorry Flames fans but that doesn't make the Flames the 2004 cup winners even if it did go in.
sandman8185 8 months ago 2
@sandman8185 oh look it's you again, what you're saying may slightly be true but because u like the Canuks and hate the flames you go on videos like these and post the comments against the flames. Shouldn't you be watching Canuks videos instead?
sasprawler 8 months ago
at 4:01 you show a puck on a tile. that tile is JUST BARLEY touching the red line. on the then you show an overhead view of what you claim is the exact same position of the puck/tile, but you can see the now covers more than half of the red line. its not my eyes playing tricks on me, its you making up BS to make it seem like your deserved to win. Sabres were robbed in 1999, Flames were robbed in 2004, Wings were robbed in 2009. the NHL has been deciding the winner for years.
Sabresfan640 8 months ago
k listen this is just a retarded tampa fan just trying to state his opinon the puck was clearly over the line everyone knows it. well at least the Flames fans do and for all you tampa fans out there you just wait until the ghost of the flames past come back to haunt you cuz the flames are the best team and thats no lie so all you stupid tampa fans out there GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU PRICKS!!!
Roxanne898989 9 months ago
@Roxanne898989
Ummm... this post is terrible. Yes, the puck was for sure in... but, the Flames are NOT the best team right now. They had the playoffs in their hands and blew it this year. On the other hand, as much as I don't want it... the Lightning are playing great right now. They are good enough to win the Cup again this year (and yes, they were top tier in 2004. They just should've been playing catch up in the last 6 minutes of that game 6 in '04).
-A Flames fan
Firebomber7 8 months ago
Tile A and B are not the same color
Iliad1000 9 months ago
@Iliad1000 exact. and the 2 figures following are not the same. 1 is definitly bigger than the other. TheXen0 must have been drunk or dopped while making that vid.
gargouenzene 2 weeks ago
WOOOOOOOO!!!!!
slapshotms70 9 months ago
GO BOLTS!!!!
slapshotms70 9 months ago
LET'S GO LIGHTNING!!!
slapshotms70 9 months ago
WOW!!!! Is there anything else to do in Calgary? I can see it now, grandpa telling grandson in 2053 about how the Flames were cheated out of a SC win, and how Gary Bettman hated them...
slapshotms70 9 months ago
Comment removed
Raptor1214 9 months ago
there was still kicking motion so even if it was in it wouldn't have counted. stop bitching flames fans
connorrulz 9 months ago
Good revenge for Martin St-Louis, the Flames kick him out and today he's better than the whole team. I'm happy for them Calgary just been bad in game 7, their problem
Guih0me 10 months ago
Err...it was ABC, not NBC in 2004. >_>
KaesoCorvinus 10 months ago
whateva it takes to help u sleep better at night tampa fans
Kennethstef 10 months ago
Good goal. Flames won the SC that year.
This coming from someone who hates the Flames, but it's pretty fucking obvious that was in.
JAWNO 10 months ago
Flames won
thacky12 10 months ago
Why are Flames fans still butthurt over this? I don't get it. Yeah, you lost the cup, but it's over now. That was almost 7 years ago. Stop living in the past and go back to the finals and win it. Damn.... And you know there was a Game 7 too. You could have won that.
Shellshocker1013 11 months ago
The scientific crap you presented in the video is just fine and every thing but you're not taking into account that the goal judges aren't looking at this from a scientific standpoint. They operate on the general rule that if you see white it's in, and you could see white. Trust me, when Toronto reviewed this, there's no way they used experiments, video recreations, and optical illusions, so your whole point is useless. You could see white, and that's all that matters. Not even a Flames fan BTW.
duolcoiram 11 months ago
I love how in the example with the puck on the little glass box the puck is positioned in the perfect way so such drastic evidence can be seen. But in reality the puck was never in that position when it was crossing the line and hitting the pad. Or did you just think nobody would notice?
squir 11 months ago
And another Tampa Bay fan makes a video to sit back in denial. Don't you DARE sit around making videos lecturing us on if it was in or not, you piece of shit. I will GLADLY show you videos, screenshots and such that shows CLEARLY it was in. You have the audacious nerve to present Math and Logic in this? You want Math and Logic, son? I will gladly provide them for you.
Now go back and masturbate to Andreychuk's poster. People like you should be shoot down in cold blood.
AeonXero 11 months ago 2
@AeonXero
Please show me in the top down angle above the net where the puck went in.
Thanks for watching! =)
TheXen0 11 months ago
@TheXen0 you cunt this dissallowed obvious goal was the reason that birdseye cameras are used in hockey today, the cup is never going back to tampa and no one could give a shit
monkeysrawesome234 9 months ago
@monkeysrawesome234
Top down angles have been use for a long time. In fact there is a top down angle for this, you can view this angle in canuckleheadcal's video Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy around 2:53. It shows the puck no where near over the line.
TheXen0 8 months ago
@AeonXero yep they should be shoot down.dumb ass dont insult someones intelligence when you can spell
ubercanucksfan 11 months ago
@AeonXero get over it tampa bay won sorry
verde08 11 months ago
@AeonXero im on your side you used big workds to prove your point lmao
dct19971 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AeonXero im on your side you used big words to prove your point lmao
dct19971 9 months ago
@AeonXero could you send me the evidence too? maybe this will change my opinion of flames fans... thanks
ubercanucksfan 8 months ago
@AeonXero
What's this...another angry, bitter, and miserable Flameout fan still whining about the goal/no goal? Simple fact is that the puck was not over the line. The other simple fact is the Flameouts still had the opportunity to seal the deal on home ice with two OT's but they couldn't get it done. Another fact is the Flameouts still had game 7 to win it all........ but......you know the rest of the story.
pewterngold 8 months ago
@AeonXero I guess you just love the flames :)
AGthrak 8 months ago
@AeonXero Since you didn't watch the video your comment means nothing. Just like Flames fans' knowledge about the game - nothing. Jus sayin'. Don't get mad, you lost. Deal with it
BoobWoong 7 months ago
@AeonXero Obviously you don't believe in math and logic, cause you're a Flames fan. Der.
BoobWoong 7 months ago
@AeonXero Umad Calgary?
donttazemebro3434 6 months ago
@AeonXero You're in denial kiddo.
roflmewaffles 5 months ago
imo if the puck isn't touching the red, it's a goal. If you can see white between the the puck and the red line, it's a goal. if you turn the puck 90 degrees in the same spot it would be in, just because it's hanging over the red line in a sketchy spot means no goal?
canuckz 1 year ago
@canuckz thats true the one issue with this is the lack of accountijng for angle, although he was just accounting for a est case scenario because also khabibulin would have had more time to move his pad, just a miniscule amount but possibly enough. p.s. awesome name
ubercanucksfan 11 months ago
You didnt take into account that as soon as the puck hit Khabibulins pad the momentum could have cause the puck to flip so it was parallel with the goal line which would have been over the line. There would have been only one clear way to see if it was in and unfortunately the NHL wasnt prepared with the cameras.
ChevyTruckJay 1 year ago
What kind of goof puts his arm around the cup? You don't fucking touch it unless you win it.
Thumper17 1 year ago
I wonder if 50 years from now Flames fans will still be analyzing and scrutinizing video of Gelinas' attempt to drive the puck in with his skate. Kind of lame actually. Neither Gelinas nor anyone else on the ice reacted at that moment as if they thought it was a goal, nor anyone in the stands. Only after the media started whipping it up did it become the writhing, slimy beast it is today.
Good illustration of what ABC (NOT NBC) showed during Gm 7 by digitally removing the crossbar: No goal
hyjyljyj 1 year ago
@hyjyljyj Actually if you knew anything about hockey you would see he did not intentionally make a kicking motion towrads the puck, which is how goal judges determine a goal! "Kind of lame actually" Shut up Dude! If you knew what you were talking about I wouldn't have said shit! And I remeber watching the game at a community hall( with probaly about half as many fans as there were in all of tampa bay at the time!) and we all said right after it should be reveiwed,go watch nascar leave hockey!
Darren9707 1 year ago
@hyjyljyj Actually if you knew anything about hockey you would see he did not intentionally make a kicking motion towrads the puck, which is how goal judges determine a goal! "Kind of lame actually" Shut up Dude! If you knew what you were talking about I wouldn't have said shit! And I remeber watching the game at a community hall( with probaly about half as many fans as there were in all of tampa bay at the time!) we all said right after it should be reveiwed,go watch nascar leave hockey alone!
Darren9707 1 year ago
i reamade the play at home and ITS NOT IN! it could not be because,if you look at the overhead view, the puck deosn't fully cross the line. And the right pad of Khabibulin was coming so fast so the puck could have enter a nanometer after the pick was taken. I also saw a photo where they were approaching the right goal post and the puck was still touching the line and the inside poast. ITS NOT A GOAL! ps: im French so sorry for my bad english :)
quikchitters 1 year ago
wow....that was good work. I can see it took you time. Thank you for your time to prove this point.
NOW tell us who shot Kennedy!!!!
chessunderground 1 year ago
Overhead view overrules side view, they didn't see any white, and from this side angle, their could've been a lit'l bit of the line still appearing under the puck which you wouldn't notice.
Jem93rocks 1 year ago
hey, good research, but the puck still had to keep moving until it hit his pad in the screen shot? I'll check out the over head veiw. By the way how many fans do the lightning get per game this year? there doing good and there team is exciting to watch.
I hope the people there haven't fogot about hockey, it's a shame some citys like phoenix have a team and 5000 people show up,i went to a Flames game there, it was sad.I'll admit it it was incoclusive, it's hillarous im talking about this 6yrsltr
Darren9707 1 year ago
@Darren9707 What does Tampa's attendance have to do with anything? The Flames still lost.
tbl35 1 year ago
hey the puck is round so it couldn't be over
ultablue999 1 year ago
that checker board thing there differnt colours and if they were the same how would u know that we wold think otherwise
ultablue999 1 year ago
It's funny how people are still upset. Get over it, your year will come eventually.
CTD452 1 year ago
say all you want about experiments and shit, but it doesnt change the fact that the fuckin puck was in the net.
flamesfan1417 1 year ago
That was 7 or so minutes I'll never get back. Your floors are filthy btw. Maybe you should clean your house instead of making substandard videos.
jcruzfoto 1 year ago
Fuckin tb fan!
Thomasbguitar 1 year ago
ok byd, now how about you go to the overhead screenshot, boom. all the way over. suck my dick
Norcokid21 1 year ago
@Norcokid21
Actually as I have pointed out before it does not. Please watch the top down view in canuckleheadcal's video Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy around 2:53 and tell me at what point the whole puck is over the goal line, or for that matter any part of the puck.
TheXen0 1 year ago
@Norcokid21 Actually, they had an overhead on ABC that showed it wasn't even close. Nice try though!
tbl35 1 year ago
well flames will win the stanley cup this year no matter what. Ignila will get his name on that cup. Calgary Flames 2001 stanley cup champions!
somebodythatscool 1 year ago
Not definitive. Right call.
gregory06 1 year ago
I am impartial and i carefully studied all the replays, the right call was made.period.
MrDaemonB 1 year ago
it was in the net totely
sagerocks87 1 year ago
gole
sagerocks87 1 year ago
What a tard if thats the only evidence they have then its a goal, think they sat in toronto in there review booth with pieces of plastic to depict an accurate judgement??? NO! Your eyes may decieve you, but with only one view of the goal in question, our eyes are all we have to judge. Thanks for all the apologies but the real Calgary fans and people who live in this great city know that our second cup was won that night.
goaltender28 1 year ago
The puck was in...try a different "experiment", look at Knabby's pad..idiot! Oh, and why would they have the lock out the next year...then the year after that, change the rule so they can review it after the whistle blows? huh!?
GEOZ420 1 year ago
1) the puck was in.
2) youtube is not for writing novels.
AvanderX 1 year ago
Um... tampa fan? gay. You're just making shit up to convince people, along with yourself.
clennon20 1 year ago
We'll never truely know for sure.
Its just a shame though, cause now it says "Lightning" "Hurricanes" and the worst "Ducks" on Lord Stanley's beautiful Cup... and to really make it sting, all those victories came at the hands of a Canadian counterpart.... that's depressing.
The cup belongs in Canada!!!
bstims37 1 year ago
@bstims37 Fucking Dumbass, Canada's Stanley Cup dominance is over. got it? O-V-E-R. Thanks to Gary Betteman, Calgary was rightfully denied the Cup in '04 and rightfully denied the tying goal against the Ducks last night to ruin their playoff hopes. And BTW, 'Ducks' is by far the BEST team name inscribed on the Stanley Cup. So all you haters can go suck dick. Muahahahaha!
sjdrifter72 10 months ago
great vid. This is what the goal judges must have gone through. You can't call it a goal if it's not 100 percent clear that it entered the net. Plus as an Oilers fan i love that Calgary lost, and the fans are still crying about this
donovanjd3 1 year ago
@donovanjd3 ...and oilers lost two years after that. and hey, how are u guys doing this year? aw, too soon?
clennon20 1 year ago
@clennon20 they aren't doing great this year. no one expects them to have a good year. How will the flames do this year....10th in the west. No future there either. I dislike the Leafs almost as much as i hate the flames, but at least the Leafs are taking steps in the right direction... The oilers will prob be bad this year and next year. Most Oilers fans really don't care though. As long as they are exciting and fun to watch. that's all that matters in the end
donovanjd3 1 year ago
TSN showed an overhead of the timeframe/same photo that shows the "white" between the puck and the goal line. The same overhead view from the same exact time frame shows the puck still underneath the crossbar adjacent to the line by half the pucks length. ESPN even had a feature where they brought in a photo analyst that said that all angles being considered, the puck still had over half its own length to go in the net.
I know this is 6 years later, but lets please get over it already
MyTeamVideos 1 year ago
Comment removed
MyTeamVideos 1 year ago
Yeesh, thats a lot of effort. Feel guilty much?
chicobabesco 1 year ago
I firmly believe that the puck wasn't in and would just rather not revisit this in conversations with fellow Flames fans and friends.
landrykkb 1 year ago
ALL YOU TAMPA FANS - YOU WON THE FREAKIN CUP, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP IF IT WENT IN OR NOT! thank you...
MultiCocoNutz 1 year ago
your grammar is also very bad, 'then' is used for time, for you to say 'was in, then out' would mean the puck travelled in, and after that, out. 'Than' would be the correct word for this scenario, due to you comparing 2 different scenarios.
lewistoprider 1 year ago
at 5:49, you say the puck could not have travelled more than a millimeter, if the angle shown is deceiving for how far it is into the net, would it not also be deceiving how far it is away from the pad of Khabublin? This can also be supported by the fact TV is nothing more than a 2D representation of what has been captured by cameras, depth perception is based on sizes of things shown on TV, meaning a distance argument IS valid and a logical issue because it cannot be judged accurately on TV
lewistoprider 1 year ago 4
@lewistoprider I was giving CBC & NBC the benefit of the doubt in that I assumed both would have taken the screen capture at the point in time when the puck changed direction from going towards the net to going out of the net. Even in a 2D TV representation you would still be able to tell when the puck changed direction from entering to exiting and make the screen capture at that time. This is why I was saying it could not enter the net any further as the puck would be changing direction.
TheXen0 1 year ago
@TheXen0 If it is already going out of the net at that second how about when it hit is pad, his pad was in the net so when it hit his pad the puck was in the net with the pad, And and I watch the real video in over head and in that angle that you say is playing "tricks on our eyes" and when it was hitting the goalies pads it was on the ice and in the net, now tell me a reason why it wasnt in the net
progeriaishorrible 1 year ago
@progeriaishorrible
I understand what you are saying but keep in mind the pad is also skewered by the angle in relation to the goal-line. The best angle to explain what I am talking about is the above angle which I do not have in my video look at canuckleheadcal's video Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy around 2:53 and you will see that there is very little of the pad over the line to begin with let alone any when the puck makes it near the line. The screenshot is just a really bad angle.
TheXen0 1 year ago
@TheXen0 ok.. how about when it was actually making cantact with the pad? the pad would have been in the net with the puck, I paused the live video it when it was actually hiting the pad and the puck was on the ice in the net.
progeriaishorrible 1 year ago
@progeriaishorrible
The pad has little to no relation to this at all. Just as the puck appears to be in the net the pad would also appear to be further into the net than it actually is. If you have the live video look at the top down view. The puck comes in at the top of the knee area and then is kicked out around the mid shin area. Please explain how the puck went all the way down to the toe area (the only place it could have gone in) and then back up to his shin and then out.
TheXen0 1 year ago
@TheXen0 But it is not touching the pad at that exact second, it is not even touching the mid shin,am i right? Yes i am right, so if it was touching the mid shin the it would have been in the net, the puck was just barely touching the line and the mid shin was a good 2 inches and so the puck could traveled just a tiny bit more to make it in the net. even thogh im totally against this video it was actually a good video :) but i still dont think it was kept out
progeriaishorrible 1 year ago
Here's an idea, instead of screen shots, why didn't you make a video for the test because if I look at 4:00 mark, the plastic case is not even in the same spot on the line when comparing both pictures. A video would show nothing was completely altered, not saying you did but it would make your theory better and no one could argue this point that it was altered. Though I am sure someone would find a way to argue it anyways...
XSVDarkArmy 1 year ago
if it makes you flames fans feel any better, the devils owned the lightning in 2003
BryantFinlay 1 year ago
very good tests and those pics can say a lot. im not a fan of either of these teams. its good how u proved it was hot in but put some humor into it haha nice job
krisversteegfan 1 year ago
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT THE PUCK DID NOT GO IN IT WAS TOTALY ACROSS THE LINE STUPID REFS.
TheCalgaryflamesfan 1 year ago
@TheCalgaryflamesfan
How could I not have seen it before you are absolutely correct. Your all caps reply has made me see the light...do me a favour watch the top down view in canuckleheadcal's video Calgary Flames 2004 Playoff Conspiracy around 2:53 and tell me at what point the whole puck is over the goal line, or for that matter any part of the puck because that is a far better angle then the Screenshot "it was in"ers like to use and the puck is never seen near the goal-line. Why is that?
TheXen0 1 year ago
it was in i'm a calgary fan so shut up
metallicarox431 1 year ago
I know Martin Gelinas very well.
aerounknown 1 year ago
they made the right call the puck lookes like its tapping the red line its too hard to overturn a call
inwardheel200 1 year ago
you got to remember that the puck was oval and tilted towards the goal line but if you were to take another screeshot a half second later, you would find out that the puck would be straight as an oval but also: it would be further into the net.
MrDoubledevil 1 year ago
Is the guy who posted this a Canucks fan?If so, he's already lost any and all credibility.
BangkokBoy101 1 year ago
Look at the picture at 5:00 (regarding the issue of "could the puck have travelled any farther?") We don't know whether the puck is moving towards the net or away from it here, but if it is still on the way towards the net, then clearly there is enough room for the puck to cross the line before hitting the pad (and compressing the pad somewhat as well). You did a good job up until then, when you dismissed that issue prematurely.
jowabro 1 year ago
@jowabro I disagree. I assume the puck is moving towards the net at this point. While I agree it does appear that there could be room for it to go in you also have to keep in mind that the angle is still off. While not as bad as the TV screenshots it is still enough. I have blown this pic up and cropped out the puck and put it back as far as I can to the front of the pad. It is still not quite in. If you watch the top view of the play Khabublin is moving forward thus reducing the amount more.
TheXen0 1 year ago
Great video. It's near impossible to explain this concept to people without a diagram, and even then, most people are blinded by their wanting to believe a puck was in, rather than take the logical standpoint and objectively look at the situation. Even years later, knowing that no one is going to take the cup or a win away from them, you would think they might admit it's possible a goal wasn't in.
Nope, stubborn, or just stupid. It's really not worth arguing over, but I commend you for this. :)
mi0sis 1 year ago
honestly i believe this was in from watching some different videos and angles, not just considering the red line and white part but more of that his pad was across the line and the puck bounced off the pad and having some white on a side of it but it is still somewhat indesputable
Demondog851 1 year ago
haha man i never get sick of reading these comments that these idiots have written i mean omfg....u actually do a completely proving and decisive experiment using just common optics 2 show that it was nowhere near a goal and these alberta fuckers who obviously are still living in 2004 still argue with u....haha thats just wonderful and those fuckers need 2 either 1. get a life or 2. buy a pair of glasses
NHLfreak87 1 year ago
My opinion is that we absolutely can't prove goal or no goal with home equipment and average knowledge. Ofcourse, we can write to mythbusters to judge in this case haha. People who know EXACTLY how high goalie pads are can calculate at which height the puck was using these recordings or photos, and then with all that weird mathematical formulas and things we have no idea about, finally say the puck was in or not. This video is good try but like other ones, proves nothing.
kilagorila 1 year ago
@kilagorila mythbusters..lol....did u try it?..lmao
markrebus11 1 year ago