GHETTO PAT

@JFrankensteiner Every man in Silence of the Lambs looks directly into the camera when they're either consciously or subconsciously hitting on Starling. But the guy that gets the date in the end? Pilcher. He's the one guy who can't look directly into the camera.

@Youngerngunner @JasonGregor Conversely, if they say it’s “no goal” and it goes to review, then we’re having the conversation that everyone thinks we’ve been having this whole time. But that’s not the case. The review is about if the call should be reversed. It should not have been. They guessed right.

@Youngerngunner @JasonGregor The refs have to make a call in the ice before I can go to review. They have to have a huddle and agree on whether or not it’s a good goal or not. It’s basically acquaintance. They’re relying on video review to overturn their call if they call it a goal and they’re wrong.

I'd be curious how the refs on the ice called it a goal originally as there was no one behind the net. If not called a goal on the ice, I suspect it wouldn't be a goal. But on the replay it did look like it was over the line, even though it wasn't 100% confirmed.

@sillyrabbitfafo @MorganLaidler It’s true. You’re right. The problem is the way The review is designed ias a pair of opposites. If the refs call that no goal then they do the type of review everyone thinks should occur. But that’s not the rule. If you call it a goal, the review consists of evidence to overturn.

@ffrwpause @MorganLaidler If it was simple there wouldn't be so much controversy around it

If the standard with NHL replays was “if it’s safe to assume…” then no one says a damn thing right now. It’s that with NHL replays, it’s in fact the opposite of that. People just want an actual standard and to stick to it, that’s not unreasonable.

@MICHAELMYERS1 @wakeupbarstool @stoolpresidente @ryanwhitney6 I had this explained to me by a ref (he refs in AZ). He said it’s a flawed system because the call on the ice has to be made (it’s mandatory). So if they call it a goal or not, that completely changes the nature of the review. Why don’t they just go upstairs if they don’t know?

You are making my case accidentally. On the ice, no official saw it. No official ruled it a goal. One official waived it off. So. The call on the ice HAD to be no goal. That’s his point. Then… finish your argument. Based on YOUR logic it remains a no goal. I agree with you

Whit is in studio talking about his crash out over the Ducks goal "It's 100% the puck was all the way in the net, 100%..." - @stoolpresidente "Ehhhhhhh, I'm at like 99%." - @ryanwhitney6

@LibranJustice @FAN590 @FriedgeHNIC @Mattymar89 @FutaMichael The call on the ice does matter, but it’s precedent based. The video evidence is not to check if the puck went in. The video evidence is to check if there’s enough evidence to overturn the call on the ice. It’s English common law- King Charles just lectured everyone about it.

@FAN590 @FriedgeHNIC @Mattymar89 @FutaMichael If the call doesn’t matter then eliminate it. Everything video review for goals.

“I find it crazy that people are trying to claim the initial call on the ice doesn’t matter.” @FriedgeHNIC joins @Mattymar89 and @FutaMichael to discuss the Ducks’ controversial OT game-winner. LIVE ⤵️ 📺 watch.sportsnet.ca & SN360 📻 sportsnet.ca/590

@FAN590 @FriedgeHNIC @Mattymar89 @FutaMichael It’s amazing how many people don’t understand how the call on the ice works (or doesn’t work) - me included. But it doesn’t work the way people are arguing that it does or does not or should. For example: youtu.be/Yy4UZbtxxkY?si…

@KevinMcCurdy That’s incorrect. The refs just have to make a collective decision. They miss things all the time. I’m trying to think of a good example - an example of refs not seeing the puck go in the net when they call it a good goal on the ice right away: youtu.be/Yy4UZbtxxkY?si…

I haven't commented on this until now. "Logic" all of a sudden enters the equation as a valid means for calling goals "good", despite overwhelming history to the contrary. Some simple facts from this goal: - No official was in position to make this call on the ice, it should have been ruled no goal on the ice. That's just the facts. No ref was below the hash marks or anywhere close enough to conclusively call it in. No signal was made to this effect. Positioning failure should not result in one team being effectively penalized for that. - When such cases are ruled no goal on the ice, you need overwhelming conclusive evidence the puck completely crossed the line. Last I checked AI removals of objects and drawing circles around the puck aren't part of the situation rooms process. - If the league has a additional view that was used in this decision, that should be publicized. - It is my opinion that this puck completely crossed the line, but based on how these calls have historically gone, the process that has been used until now was tossed in the trashcan. So while the calls result is ultimately what we want from the on-ice product, the process that has been used up until now was completely thrown out the window. The league has a bit of soul-searching to do here and I believe this is a reasonable point to be perturbed with from the Oilers perspective. You can get the call right, and the process wrong, which means they need to change the process. Changing it on game 86 of the season is not the time.

@sillyrabbitfafo @MorganLaidler They had to make a call. So they called it to go. They know that’s going to get reviewed and that the evidence will either show that their call was wrong or that it was correct. The evidence was not strong enough to overturn the call on the ice. It’s as simple as that.

@ffrwpause @MorganLaidler Again, you are missing the point.

@MICHAELMYERS1 @wakeupbarstool @stoolpresidente @ryanwhitney6 Even if it’s heads or tails, the refs have to make a call on that play. So they said it’s a goal. The part that matters is that under review, the evidence has to determine that the call on the ice was incorrect. The evidence could not illustrate that. So it was the correct call.

I have no dog in this fight other than rules being applied evenly to everyone. In that vein, he is CORRECT. Dave is wrong here (overall). If it was called no goal on the ice (which it should have been), it would have not been overturned. That is the rule. It’s the issue. And he’s right.

@yourfingout @wakeupbarstool @stoolpresidente @ryanwhitney6 I don’t agree with the assumption that a ref can’t make that call from the half wall. And even if the call on the ice was incorrect, which it wasn’t, they still reviewed the evidence to see if it should be overturned, which it should not have been.

Whit is correct. The way the rules are it matters what is called on the ice. Yes it’s over the line but the ref couldn’t see that to make the call. The video evidence doesn’t show the puck. That’s the fucking rules idiots. It’s doesn’t matter if we all know it’s over the line. There has to be conclusive video. That’s the rule.

@wakeupbarstool @stoolpresidente @ryanwhitney6 doesn’t matter if a ref is standing right there or not. The call on the ice is open to review. Not to see if it’s a good goal or not but to see if there’s evidence to overturn the call on the ice. The call on the ice, subject to change, was correct. youtu.be/Yy4UZbtxxkY?si…

🎥 Head Coach John Tortorella: I just want to send our condolences to John Garrett’s family. He’s one of the good guys in the business. He’s going to be missed. Hear the rest of what Tortorella, Jeremy Lauzon, and Rasmus Andersson have to say on our YouTube Channel: vgk.io/SWypT

@worldhockeyrpt He’s clutch

Meanwhile Josh Doan….

@97OrangeCrush29 If it’s a goal review, that’s true. But it’s not a goal review. It’s to see if there’s enough evidence to overturn the call in the ice. It’s a stupid rule.

@ffrwpause ITS THE RULE!! You have to see the whole puck.

#NHL needs to investigate this officiating Yes or No... can you see white ice between red line and puck "Completely" ? YES OR NO... in a fucking stanley cup playoffs... embarrassing favoring

@Gmack_ 😂. I know I know. What a giant bag of shit I am.

@ffrwpause Ok that’s enough of u lol.

@kranman85 @wyshynski But it’s still a ref call. It’s on the ice. It’s not a reviewable goal outright, and the review is only to check if the call on the ice was correct. It’s not a strict goal review. It’s such a weird rule. But they called it correctly.

@ffrwpause @wyshynski I understand, but the NHL seems to be saying it was conclusively a goal, so I was just wondering how they decided that

In other words, all the kvetching about how the ref couldn't possibly see the puck to call it a goal, and how that changed the standards for reviewing it, can quiet down. The NHL ruled it completely crossed the line. Even if the call was "no goal," they'd have overturned it.

@StonyOil youtu.be/Yy4UZbtxxkY?si…

HOW DO YOU CALL THAT A GOAL ON THE ICE WITHOUT GIVING A GOAL CALL