Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: kcarrera and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Sports and Redskins  |  RSS

Briere Scores! Oh, Wait a Minute

So did Sabres co-captain Daniel Briere score the game tying goal with 17 seconds left or not? The league says replays were inconclusive, so the no-goal ruling on the ice stood at MSG. Rangers 2, Sabres 1.

I'm not so sure. Take a look for yourself. Warning: this video was clearly created by a Buffalo fan.

I'm in favor video replay. But the league needs to come up with a camera angle that provides a better look. Maybe a tennis-style laser placed along the goal line? I mean seriously. How many times do we have to see a situation like this, where it's impossible to tell whether the puck completely crossed the red line because the overhead angle is obscured by the net and the crossbar and limited by physics?

And please, please, don't let a former Rangers coach make the final decision.

By Tarik El-Bashir  |  May 2, 2007; 9:41 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: NHL Announces Trophy Finalists
Next: NASCAR Duty

Comments

You know what? Fifteen years ago it wouldn't have even been given a thought, no goal and play moves on. Replay is what it is. It works most of the time, sometimes it is just not conclusive. Develop whatever technology is warranted, lasers cameras in the ice, whatever. But doesn't it reach a point where it gets a bit silly? No one likes to lose because of a questionable, or flat out wrong, call. If it had happened to the Caps we'd all be up in arms in Capland. But stuff happens and the good teams find a way to get by despite it. Oh, and is this justice for the Rangers no-goal puck "kicked in" on Sunday in regulation?

Posted by: Jay | May 2, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Missed calls are part of any sport, especially hockey and soccer. Accept it and move on. Of course, up in Buffalo, it will be a grand conspiracy. The Sabres have no one but themselves to blame if they lose to the Ranger.

Posted by: the cheat | May 2, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I think it was a goal, but Buffalo shouldn't have been in that position to start with. They're a much better team than NY and played terrible for two periods.

Posted by: Sam | May 2, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I have to say, I thought he scored the first time I saw the replay; but after the zoomed in look; there was a bit of doubt. Since there was doubt and they couldn't overturn the call on the ice (no goal); I thought they made the right call by sticking with it. If they said it was a goal, I think it would have been ruled a 'goal' from upstairs.

Good call by the refs. If I were a b'lo fan I'd be spitting fire right now.

Posted by: Go Skins Go | May 2, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I cracked up watching that game last -- Joe B. was calling it on Versus and Briere got a hooking penalty for hooking between a players legs.

Joe B. clearly relished saying "Briere, got his stick between that players legs, just hooked it him right there etc etc." for a few moments

Posted by: LB | May 2, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

it was a goal, they made the right call based on the video they had, but i wonder if they had called it a goal initially if they would have overturned the call based on that video. while you can't see the puck it has to be over the line in that first frame with lundquist's pad over the puck

Posted by: mike p | May 2, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Was it a goal? Yes, I would say it was. Did they have enough evidence to overturn the call? No, I don't think so. Put some cameras inside the goal posts, maybe? Sensors in the ice and the puck? (It'd beat the hell out of that stupid glowing Puck from a few years ago). And it has to hurt a little more in Buffalo v. the in-state, bigger-city rivals and I'm sure they still remember Hull's toe in the crease.

Posted by: Bass | May 2, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Im really not a buffalo fan.. (But im not a rangers fan either) But that was definitely a goal.

Posted by: Comebackkono3 | May 2, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Was the puck completely over the line, probably. But there was no video evidence of it.

As for the you tube video, doesn't change anything. In fact it confirms the notion that you can't see if the puck is over the line. Unless there is conclusive proof that the puck was over the line, no goal.

Posted by: freakinandpeakin | May 2, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

they really should just make the sabres and rangers forfeit and make the ottawa/nj series the eastern conference finals.....

i hate both nyr and buffalo...too hard to determine which team i want to lose b/c they both are worthless........

Posted by: mike | May 2, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Basically the replay was inconclusive b/c the frames were too choppy. In one frame the puck was 90% over the line heading in, in the next frame the goalie's pad obscures the puck, and in the next frame the puck is heading back out of the net.

I was shocked by how bad the camera quality was.

What is mind-boggling to me is that the NHL has such low-quality cameras on the overhead goal line cam. CBS (or NBC?) has that super-camera 1 million frames-per-minute thing they use during sports broadcasts to show us super-slow-mo replays, but the NHL can't install these cameras above every net in the playoffs?

Posted by: Clinton Hill | May 2, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

They phrased it correctly on Versus last night when they said that you could summise that it was a goal, but you can not prove it. The game is not a math equation. Right call, bad break for the Sabres.

Posted by: CT Caps Fan | May 2, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

i think a laser would be difficult becuase the goalie might get into the way. But what about installing small cameras into the goal post near the ice and drill hole faceing the goaline and in the crease. put it a few inches above the ice to give it proper leverage so it can see the whole line.since it will be in the post it will not obtruct play or even brake when a puck hits it. i dunno, it could work and i think it would provide an excellent angle of the goal line. problem solved.

Posted by: timbers | May 2, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

what 'bass' said...

Posted by: timbers | May 2, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Whether it was a goal or not is not the way this works. The issue is whether it can be proved to be a goal after not being called a goal in real-time, or to disprove it was a goal if it was declared a goal in real-time. It's a little like the justice system, innocent until proven guilty. And I can't help but think that no matter what techology is applied, at some point, it will not cover all possibilities in all situations.

As for the fans in Buffalo, consider it even after Rachunek's goal was waived off. I'm not a Rangers fan but when Buffalo is involved, it's always a conspiracy if it doesn't favor Buffalo.

Posted by: Blueline | May 2, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Video judging is useless. Wastes time, makes controversies even worse and leads to conspiracy theories.
Just move on and play the game, mistakes are part of it and you're not gonna replace them no matter what kind of technical device you try to use to eliminate the "human factor" off of a game played by humans.

Posted by: Scai | May 2, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Tarik: We have thrown around a few different names for blueliners but I wanted to know what you think of Tom Preissing?

LB

Posted by: LB | May 2, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Preissing could be a good PP quarterback for the Caps. Not bad defensively, either. Unfortunately, he's no longer a secret. He's driven up his asking price a lot with his play the past few months. He's also not very big (or strong).

All things considered, he's be a pretty good upgrade. But the Caps would still need a No. 1.

Posted by: Tarik | May 2, 2007 9:07 PM | Report abuse

So this whole replay arguement brings up something i've been wondering about. what is the use of the goal judges? they take up prime real estate behind the net and their "decision" means nothing. all they really do is push a button and make a red light go on. if they push the button incorrectly it gets waived off. if they don't push the button and the ref says goal, its a goal (subject to replay). can someone tell me why they are still there other than they have always been there?

Posted by: Cap Fan 1 | May 2, 2007 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Cap FAn 1: I'm guessing the goal judges are in a union. frankly, if it was my job, I wouldnt give it up, ever. Great seat.

As many have noted, it was a goal but couldn't be proven to be so. It was also, i think, a way of making amends for disallowing that goal in game 3, which was clearly NOT a kicking motion. That was total crap and who ever made that decision should have been canned because they were clearly biased; I'm guessing a Toronto fan that wanted Buffalo to knock off Ottowa (because who else is going to?).

Posted by: MM | May 2, 2007 10:01 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather NOT get Preissing. Save the time and money to get Hannan and Rivet.

Back to the goal, video results were inconclusive. Buffalo can either comeback and win the series or they can let it destroy them and then whine about it all summer long. Sometimes I get the impression that their fans would rather have something to whine about than a championship (kinda like Red Sox fans before '04). Although, there is precedent in the NHL (from this year even) for refs calling a goal even though they couldn't see the puck, but knew that it had to be in the net becasue it wasn't anywhere else. Google Wes Walz's goal for Minnesota this year. The puck gets thrown in front while Walz crashes the net. Walz falls all the way into the net, and when he stands up the puck falls out of his pants. Goal counts. I believe ti was in OT as well lol.

I'm pretty sure thats how it went

Posted by: Graham | May 3, 2007 9:17 AM | Report abuse

hey buffalo fans, stop your god damn whining
p.s. i hate you!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 3, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I thought it was a goal, but with the rules stating "conclusive evidence" I can understand why it was ruled the way it was.

With the disallowed goal by the Rangers (don't remember his name) for a distinct kicking motion (that I still have not seen), I'd say this series is TIED in fatom calls @ 1-1 and games @ 2-2!

Posted by: caphcky | May 3, 2007 1:41 PM | Report abuse

"So this whole replay arguement brings up something i've been wondering about. what is the use of the goal judges? they take up prime real estate behind the net and their "decision" means nothing. all they really do is push a button and make a red light go on. if they push the button incorrectly it gets waived off. if they don't push the button and the ref says goal, its a goal (subject to replay). can someone tell me why they are still there other than they have always been there?

I'd rather have a goal judge sitting there than an idiot fan pounding on the glass like a monkey (for no reason).

The change I'd make in hockey is take one of the ON ICE officials off. The game is better with a referee and two linesman. The goal judge is fine.

Posted by: caphcky | May 3, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

i made the video you just watched....

now watch this one....

solid evidence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI_pjw1AxjI

Posted by: mike | May 3, 2007 8:06 PM | Report abuse

mike, a video tape of your tv screen is supposed to convince us that the puck was over the line? get over it. game over...move on. plus, no guaranty that the sabres would have won in OT anyway.

Posted by: Brett Hull's Skate | May 3, 2007 9:54 PM | Report abuse

I hear that both St. Louis and L.A. Kings want to upgrade defense this offseason. Rumors are also that San Jose wants Rivet for some attitude on the blue-line...possibly letting Hannan go. What does this mean for Caps fans???
I say we lure Cote or Frantisek Kucera out of retirement. Joe Sacco anyone?

Posted by: Badboy25 | May 9, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company