BFed
7.2K posts
@acoyne Oh please. Be quiet. Better this government than a government with Mr.Pro-America PP.
English
My latest, on the economic update: Canada’s New Government is looking a lot like Canada's Old Government
theglobeandmail.com/opinion/articl…
English
@vitochrome @heyimbrio @smargach @cspotweet Derrrr that’s the game management that doesn’t exist in the NHL
English
English
I mean, if you believe in the rules of the NHL, it shouldn't be a goal, but when have the rules ever been applied in the interests of the Edmonton Oilers
English
My last word on this...
The puck was likely over the line.
But the on-ice officials most certainly were.
English
One of the first things they teach you at officials school is, “Never guess.”
The Situation Room made the final call, but it’s fair to assume, the on-ice zebras simply guessed.
Gino Hard@GinoHard_
The crazy part about it being ruled a goal on the ice is no official was behind the net to see the puck cross 😶
English
@KevinNguyen41 @smargach @cspotweet Yup and that would be the correct way to call it. Refs shouldn’t lie, calling a good goal they never saw the cross the goal line
Also automatic review due to playoff OT goal. Refs called it a goal in case review inconclusive = game management but that doesn’t exist in the NHL
English
@brttfdrw @smargach @cspotweet Ok let's just say they called no goal on the ice the ducks would of challenged and the result would still be the same
English
@AlliAlliG Are fans of hockey for real when they believe the refs saw the puck cross the goal line and should’ve called a good goal on the ice?
English
Are oilers fans for real when they say this isn't a goal...lol what. How large do you think the puck is?
BarDown@BarDown
GOOD GOAL? 🤔 Ryan Poehling's OT winner came down to a lengthy video review after this was called a goal on the ice, and later confirmed. (via ESPN)
English
@JeffMarek Or maybe don’t have refs that lie and only call goals they witness cross the goal line?
English
Szymon is on it, as usual.
As we discussed yesterday.
Szymon Szemberg@Sz1909_Szemberg
The confusion around Ducks' goal the other day could easily have been avoided with Swiss goal-line "technology". As soon as the puck touches the secondary line, puck is in. Brilliant 🇨🇭
English
@winsford99 The goal the refs didn’t see cross the goal line was made on the ice. If the review was inconclusive it couldn’t be overturned. This is game management
English
It doesn’t matter what they call. The decision will be made in Toronto. Do Edmontonians stage this kind of performance every time an NFL call is reviewed?
David Staples@dstaples
@winsford99 Once ref has decided, one way or another, the onus of proof is on proving them wrong. You get that, right?
English
@royalthunder91 @DievianoQ @mmillar87 @PowerPopJeff Still game management which the league says doesn’t exist
English
@brttfdrw @DievianoQ @mmillar87 @PowerPopJeff Maybe but the replay wasn’t inconclusive so we will never know
English
@heyimbrio @smargach @cspotweet It’s game management.. refs made a call they never saw happen so if review is inconclusive the call can’t be overturned.. this time they got lucky
English
@brttfdrw @smargach @cspotweet Yes when it’s overtime and they get reviewed, 90% of the time when players think the puck went in it went in, you didn’t even answer the question he asked. You really don’t want pucks that cross the line not to count just because you’re upset about how it happened?
English
@KevinNguyen41 @smargach @cspotweet Sure that’s why they called a goal on the ice they never saw cross the goal line, in case review was inconclusive the call couldn’t be overturned.. this is game management
English
English
@BIudika @todd_cory @oilersdailyy The refs called a goal on the ice they never saw cross the goal line so if review was inconclusive the call could not be over turned.. this is game management
English
@brttfdrw @todd_cory @oilersdailyy who cares? video replay exists for a reason. Refs have been wrong many times, but the video replay vindicated teams, including Oilers. So what's the problem? i don't care wtf the initial call on the ice was, they review every single goal, as they should, and it was a good goal
English
I feel like most Oilers fans look at this and agree that it’s a goal.
What annoys me and everyone else is how the ref waived it off, got in a huddle, and then called it a goal on the ice, even though none of them were remotely close enough to see if it crossed the line.
Drew Livingstone@ProducerDrew_
For once it’s nice that logic prevailed. We all know this puck is fully across.
English
@royalthunder91 @DievianoQ @mmillar87 @PowerPopJeff This is game management by the refs.. called the goal before review so the call on the ice would stand if the replay was inconclusive
English
@brttfdrw @DievianoQ @mmillar87 @PowerPopJeff Everyone agrees with that but again it wouldn’t have changed the outcome
English
This one is weird in the sense that the refs basically calling the crowd reaction without having a real view is crazy, but also them doing so allowed common sense to prevail.
Because this is definitely across the line, despite being just inconclusive enough to be unflippable
Sportsnet@Sportsnet
😳
English
@DievianoQ @mmillar87 @PowerPopJeff So why did a ref that didn’t see the puck cross the goal line call it a goal
Just call it no goal - then do automatic OT review
English
@mmillar87 @PowerPopJeff It was gonna get reviewed and called a goal either way tho
English
@Alvin_cdn @SportsnetSpec Yes that’s how it works. If you don’t see the puck cross the line you call it no goal. You don’t go huddle with other officials then call a phantom goal.
All goals in playoff OT are reviewed. If regular season the coach will challenge. This is simple stuff if you watch hockey
English
I agree - the call on the ice likely should have been "not conclusive."
But, once the Situation Room deems it a good goal, the call on the ice is irrelevant.
If the SR said, "We're not sure, so the call on the ice stands," that would be entirely different.
J I@jirvine1961
@SportsnetSpec Mark, I think the problem everyone has is the process. No one on the ice could have called that a goal. So the process should have been no goal and then review. That's the issue and no accountability by the officials on the ice to know how they came about that goal on the ice.
English
@BouchieTorres @sarobertsonca Don’t be daft.. if you own a stock, you own a portion of that company. Unless you divest there’s no proof you aren’t influenced
English
@brttfdrw @sarobertsonca He has an investment in Brookfield, just like Pierre Poilievre does, and thousands of others. He does not own the company. Unlike Poilievre, his investments are in a blind trust, and he has not made questionable voting decisions that appear to be influenced by those investments.
English
Pierre Poilievre: "I find it interesting. Mark Carney's company, which he still owns, Brookfield, has been called the biggest tax dodger in Canada. I think Mark Carney can afford to pay his taxes."
English
@NHL_Watcher Pucks aren’t spheres
What if the post camera is obstructed or the puck is covered
Maybe.. as a ref.. don’t call goals that you obviously never saw cross the goal line and your league wouldn’t look stupid
English
NHL needs to invest in better goal line technology, pucks can be covered with a skate (like Jarry), backs of players, arms, hands, legs, etc... Tennis and soccer both have good technology.
English