Dany Sabourin's shootout save against Islanders
by FrankD
on Nov 9, 2008 1:43 PM EST
in News
4 comments
I was looking around blogs and sites for a chance to see a closer shot or freeze frame capture of that final shootout goal. Since I couldn't find one I figured I'd do it myself.
Some are arguing that the puck went across the line with Sabourin's pads, which would ultimately make it a goal. Others might say it was still low enough on his left pad that it never crossed the line.
This is frame just before Sabu pushes his leg out. This is the furthest his pad was to crossing the line.
Sabu is sliding backwards towards the net, are his pads both behind the line? If so, that would make it a goal. But the fact is it's inconclusive based on the notion that no one knows where the puck really is.
Sigh. If only the glow puck were still alive today. THAT would have solved this issue.
Check out the highlights after the jump and see for yourself:
0 recs |
4 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Ah, the glow puck, I remember that. Us Canadians had a good laugh at you Americans who needed a glow puck to be able to follow game better. At least that is what we all thought it was introduced for. Do you think there would have been longer reveiws if this were a more important game? I was shocked when they called it a goal because you could see right away that his whole body was behind the line. Do they blow a whistle during a shootout?
by AngelaMc on
Nov 9, 2008 2:01 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
They’re supposed to blow a whistle when the puck comes to a complete stop. But since they didn’t know where the puck was that was an issue.
If this were an important game I can’t imagine what the implication would’ve been for this. The only scenario I could think of is if the game hinged on a team’s entrance to the playoffs. I suppose this is why they rule out the shootout during the playoffs.
Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com
by FrankD on
Nov 9, 2008 2:06 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That was one of those truly bizarre “never seen it before, never would’ve imagined it” scenarios. From the aerial above-the-net angle, there was a (brief) moment where everything but Sabourin’s skate and the ankle section of his pad was over the line. So by that logic, I’d bet my estate that that puck was “behind the line” at some point.
But like you said — still couldn’t “see” the puck, so it’s inconclusive, and the call stands. I’m fine with that. Them’s the breaks. In my book, the beauty of the replay system is that the on-ice call still rules: the burden of proof is always on conclusively overturning the on-ice call, so even in this situation, the right ruling is pretty straightforward. Definitely don’t want to ever allow replay officials to project or interpret where an unseen puck is — that’d be a hornet’s nest.
SBN now has a NY Islanders blog at LighthouseHockey.com.
by Dominik on
Nov 10, 2008 12:49 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I’m with ya. If the ref would’ve announced, “We assume the puck is in the pads and across the line – therefore it’s a goal” I’m pretty sure that would’ve caused a ruckus in the league. I’m sure the Nassau fans would’ve been happy, but as for making that kind of decision and reflecting it on the league is probably a real blemish.
Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com
by FrankD on
Nov 10, 2008 10:55 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on PensBurgh
Related FanShots on PensBurgh
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
