Buffalo Sabres win in OT on one of the strangest goals ...

"The puck lands right in Mike Smith's waistband and he carries it into his own net to give the Sabres the win in OT."
siftbotsays...

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, December 24th, 2013 10:48pm PST - promote requested by kulpims.

MilkmanDansays...

In case anyone is wondering why they are making a semi-big deal about whether or not you can see the puck once it is across the line, I remember several years ago there was a play where a goalie covered up the puck with his glove (which should result in a whistle, but in this case didn't immediately) and in the split second afterwards had 90% of his glove, including the portion where the puck had been visible a split second before, pushed across the goal line.

The play went under review, and I believe Darren Pang (a former goalie) was confident that it would be ruled no goal because even though it was next to 100% obvious that the puck had crossed the goal line, you couldn't physically see it. The review came back and he had been correct, and he ventured further that even in a hypothetical situation where the puck slipped under a goalie's leg or something (out of sight of any camera) and then the goalie's entire body slid into the net across the line, it would be ruled no goal if the puck was obscured from vision until the play was whistled dead.

I thought it was interesting that the laws of physics can assert that the puck MUST be in there, but according to the rules it won't count unless you can directly SEE it across the line.

At least, that is how I remember the discussion going. Anyone care to confirm or set me straight on any details I may have screwed up?

Paybacksays...

TL/DR- Schrodinger's Puck: It was and wasn't a goal, all at the same time.

MilkmanDansaid:

In case anyone is wondering why they are making a semi-big deal about whether or not you can see the puck once it is across the line, I remember several years ago there was a play where a goalie covered up the puck with his glove (which should result in a whistle, but in this case didn't immediately) and in the split second afterwards had 90% of his glove, including the portion where the puck had been visible a split second before, pushed across the goal line.

The play went under review, and I believe Darren Pang (a former goalie) was confident that it would be ruled no goal because even though it was next to 100% obvious that the puck had crossed the goal line, you couldn't physically see it. The review came back and he had been correct, and he ventured further that even in a hypothetical situation where the puck slipped under a goalie's leg or something (out of sight of any camera) and then the goalie's entire body slid into the net across the line, it would be ruled no goal if the puck was obscured from vision until the play was whistled dead.

I thought it was interesting that the laws of physics can assert that the puck MUST be in there, but according to the rules it won't count unless you can directly SEE it across the line.

At least, that is how I remember the discussion going. Anyone care to confirm or set me straight on any details I may have screwed up?

Fairbssays...

You're right. I've seen other goalies (Dominic Hasek comes to mind) fall on a puck in the goal and scootch themselves back out of the net so when they get up it magically appears on the non-goal side of the line.

MilkmanDansaid:

In case anyone is wondering why they are making a semi-big deal about whether or not you can see the puck once it is across the line,

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More