GHETTO PAT

28.1K posts

GHETTO PAT banner
GHETTO PAT

GHETTO PAT

@ffrwpause

CHAOS IS THE PITTS

Katılım Kasım 2016
4K Takip Edilen551 Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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.
GHETTO PAT tweet media
English
3
3
64
0
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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.
English
0
0
0
7
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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.
English
1
0
0
10
Jason Gregor
Jason Gregor@JasonGregor·
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.
English
85
11
283
17K
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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.
English
0
0
0
8
Morgan Laidler 🇨🇦
Morgan Laidler 🇨🇦@MorganLaidler·
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.
English
7
7
61
1.6K
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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?
English
1
0
1
16
Michael Myers
Michael Myers@MICHAELMYERS1·
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
English
1
0
1
12
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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.
English
0
0
0
23
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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…
YouTube video
YouTube
English
0
0
0
12
Kevin McCurdy
Kevin McCurdy@KevinMcCurdy·
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.
Drew Livingstone@ProducerDrew_

For once it’s nice that logic prevailed. We all know this puck is fully across.

English
296
86
751
156.2K
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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.
English
1
0
0
20
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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.
English
1
0
0
21
Michael Myers
Michael Myers@MICHAELMYERS1·
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.
English
2
0
3
383
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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.
English
0
0
0
4
imo
imo@yourfingout·
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.
English
4
0
3
564
GHETTO PAT retweetledi
Vegas Golden Knights
Vegas Golden Knights@GoldenKnights·
🎥 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
English
16
78
1.1K
59.4K
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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.
English
0
0
0
5
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@Gmack_ 😂. I know I know. What a giant bag of shit I am.
English
1
0
0
7
Wang
Wang@Gmack_·
@ffrwpause Ok that’s enough of u lol.
English
1
0
0
12
GHETTO PAT
GHETTO PAT@ffrwpause·
@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.
English
0
0
0
9
Jă§øñ
Jă§øñ@kranman85·
@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
English
1
0
0
14
Greg Wyshynski
Greg Wyshynski@wyshynski·
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.
Greg Wyshynski@wyshynski

NHL Situation Room on ANA OT winner vs. EDM: "The Referee’s initial call on the ice was that the puck completely crossed the goal line. Following video review, the Situation Room determined ***that the puck completely crossed the goal line.***" Not inconclusive. Conclusive.

English
79
58
537
88.9K
Huge Lightning Fan
Huge Lightning Fan@StonyOil·
HOW DO YOU CALL THAT A GOAL ON THE ICE WITHOUT GIVING A GOAL CALL
English
3
8
43
1.1K