Martin Gelinas Phantom Goal, Did The Puck Go In?

The main argument "it was in!'ers use, is that since you can see white surrounding the puck in a blurry screenshot, that must mean it was in. I set out to prove this theory wrong by attempting to recreate the angle of the screenshot. Then to see if it was possible to see white surrounding a puck but in reality the puck is still on the line. The only way it makes sense that "because you can see white surround the puck = decisively in" is if we lived in a 2D world. Was it in? That is up to you but this shows it is not so clear cut.

Category:

Sports

Tags:

• NHL
• SCF
• 2004
• Flames
• Lightning
• Gelinas
• Khabibulin
• Stanley
• Cup
• Game
• Phantom
• Goal
• Was
• It
• In
• Vincent
• Lecavalier
• Martin
• St.
• Louis
• Brad
• Richards
• Steven
• Stamkos
• Finals
• Seven
• Tampa
• Bay
• Calgary
• Jarome
• Iginla
• Music
• Video

[gargouenzene]

@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.

[Qmocean]

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]

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.

[boltfan25]

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

[macdown11]

there was white between the puck and the red line clearly the puck was in

[893160007]

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

[4emsteph]

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.

[oilers000]

And the flames chocked again!

[Sithlord703]

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.

[darrin37]

what a stupid video your a moron buddy