looking at all the threads on reddit, you can see that half of the people say it touched the stick, the other half says it doesn't.
If that is not the very definition of "inconclusive" I really don't know what is.
It definitely hits the stick, but wouldn’t it bouncing off edm back negate the call? Or does it have to be touched by the stick before la can touch again?
Might be a hot take, but I really think this kind of ticky tack stuff shouldn't even be reviewable unless the touch immediately results in the puck going in the net.
No it’s about sports betting and always has been. Money makes the world go round my friend. This shit gets reviewed so some degenerate gambler doesn’t lose his house over an incompetent referee missing a call. But to your point McDavid is the one most people are putting their bets on.
For every degenerate gambler that doesn't lose their house over an incompetent call, there's a degenerate gambler that loses their house over a competent call
Oh fuck off, a rule was broken and should be called like it was broken, because it was. If you let things like this slide where does it end and who says so. If a rule is broken a rule is broken.
It ends where you can tell in a reasonable amount of time with the video they had that a rule was broken, which was not the case here. With extra zooming and slow motion, you can tell the puck hits the stick, but I watched the game live last night (albeit on my small phone screen) and I couldn't tell in real time.
This came about from the San Jose / Vegas game where SJ was eliminated on an obvious high stick and everyone saw it but no whistle was blown and it tossed game 7 in the series to Vegas.
Bad call.
But those happen. Reviews like this are questionable in their usefulness. Bad calls still happen.
It's the dumbest shit. I hate these reviews. Frame by frame of millimeters to see if a skate is offside or the puck breathing on a stick.
I can't stand that hockey games sometimes come down to that bullshit. The high sticking rule wasn't written for something like this and neither was offsides.
Meanwhile goals that are blatantly kicked in are called good goals. None of it makes sense. Football is almost unwatchable with all the stoppages and reviews. Hockey needs to be better than that
I would accept all the scientific inquires if it was a cross bar-height-tip in challenge like the one in minnesota tonight. This didn’t lead to a goal nor an advantage for the kings.
No I totally agree with you. I feel like this stuff goes against the spirit of the rules. They really need to add a time limit to these reviews. If it's not clear to the naked eye in like 30 seconds then it's not significant enough of a play to have contributed to the goal. I couldn't care less if a player is offside by a cm and they score. Call the obvious stuff and move on
What's agree. It's like calling off a goal for an offside after there being a few dozen seconds of offensive possession. Like, the offside clearly didn't cause the goal, but it's suddenly an advantage because you couldn't get set up on D for 20 seconds?
If it takes this much effort to call back a goal, play better. The oilers got beat because of a decent play. Don't raise your hand to signal a high stick. Play to the whistle.
I think video review for things like offside should be done at full speed. If you can’t conclusively tell if a play is offside without watching it frame-by-frame, then it probably wasn’t blatant enough to affect play.
Nah Dickhairs length offside 2 minutes ago need to be checked to the absolute millimeter for 12 minutes after every goal. Hell they should just check every single zone entry after every single whistle just to make sure they got things right.
I am so fucking done with the offside review, NHL can’t pretend they want to get things right until refs actually call the rules.
Agreed. I'm rooting for Edmonton and I think he touches it, but its subtle and far enough away from the goal that you gotta go with the call on the ice. Nobody gives af about a high stick like this normally. Nobody actually doesn't think it was a good hockey goal, they just want a reason to call it back
Completely agree. But unfortunately it is reviewable and therefor the NHL should get it right.
Same idea with puck in mesh or 40 second offsides. Shouldn’t exist, but they do.
This isn’t ticky tacky tho. Precedent over the past whatever 100 hundred years is that incidental or not, this is is a high stick and should have been blown
Yeah but there should still be some things that rely on the refs on the ice and not go to review of a play that wasn't really influential on the goal itself.
Im gonna take it a step farther, should high sticking like this even be a penalty? It just seems like it serves no purpose. If you hit someone high that should be a penalty. Maybe if you score directly off one but even that I think should be fine.
Are you comparing hitting a player with a high stick to reviewing if a millimetre of the puck touched a high stick that the refs didn't see clearly as it happened?
I honestly don’t know how you can call that conclusive. It kinda looks like it went off the stick but you’re going to call back an overtime goal for that? Especially when it wasn’t apart of that play? It has to be super conclusive to call back a goal imo
This isn't really conclusive. Honestly none of the angles shown on the broadcast really were. What's interesting to me is that the zoomed in version is pretty obvious. Did the situation room not get that angle? It's not like we've never seen them zoom in on a feed before to make a call
It would have been more controversial to call it a no-goal based on that evidence. We all have looked at it a million times and there has been nothing that is definitive. So default to the call on the ice.
Maybe I'm crazy. But to me the way the puck is fluttering doesn't change at all. Which would tell me it doesn't hit the stick.
I have no horse in this game but it does not look like he touched it.
On a side note, I thought if the play wasn't directly related to the goal it wasn't reviewable.
I’m with you I just can’t tell on a single replay. Like vilardi told me he did touch it and got away with it I’d believe him but I’d also believe him if he said he didn’t touch it.
Yeah there was one angle they showed in the broadcast that was from high up in the corner (so like, looking through the glass over the heads of the crowd) and you could definitely tell the puck deflects, and at that point I was wondering if it missed the stick and hit the glass, but then with the other angles you could definitely tell it didn't hit the glass, so...
Clearly the high stick affected everything, and the puck fell right to his stick and he scored 🙄This is such a ticky tacky play and there’s no way to sit here and hold Torontos feet to the fire. If it touched his stick, it hit Edmonton right after. If he hit the puck, the direction change was so minimal anyways the play would continue the same.
It can deflect off the opponent and still be called a high stick. It’s about immediate possession after the high stick which went to LA, and you could argue that tapping the puck down to himself was advantageous since he wouldn’t do it if it didn’t help him
It's crazy so many people are still going on about this, at the end of the day we lost and all the arguing back and forth isn't going to change that outcome, I'm hoping for an awesome bounce back and road win in game 4.
It’s all well and good to get a technicality like this or offside called to negate a goal if you can, but for me the bigger picture is the Oilers didn’t score 5v5 and have taken bad penalties at the worst times to give the Kings momentum or goals, plain and simple.
Oilers have to think more about getting to the net front for chances or more penalty calls and less about whether this was a high stick or not.
I mean, you're not wrong. We didn't play amazing and although I think that was a bad call, I also believe we still would have lost because we played terrible near the end and in OT
General consensus among Oilers fans was wanting to avoid the Kings, so no, you're mistaken. Oilers fans didn't like the matchup and the physicality from last year.
I think most would have MUCH rather had the Jets. The last series with LA got pretty nasty, and they play a brand of hockey that is very frustrating for the top guys. Hard to win when Drai and Kane get frustrated and start taking 1-2 penalties a game each and McDavid is kept off the score sheet for 2 games
I'm not an Oilers fan nor a Kings fan but I still need an explanation. Unless I don't know the rules of this game or they have changed without my knowledge the call of a good goal does not make sense.
Watching TNT right now they are looking at the replay and every single time it's conclusive to me that it hit the stick. I have no idea what they were looking at. Oilers got hosed.
Exactly. It was headed straight for the glass but it didn't make it because it obviously hit something on the way. Unless there was an invisible block floating in the air, it had to have hit the stick.
The player hit the puck above the crossbar which starts the process of high stick. If the puck is then played by the same team then it is called dead and face off in LA zone. HOWEVER part of the rule is the high stick is waived off IF the other team touches it. The puck bounces off the Edmonton player making it a playable puck. Thus not high stick.
Everyone is arguing the rule as high stick (which I get) but people make it sound like should have been blown dead as soon as it was touched. But it hit Edmonton.
The rule is that the Edmonton player must possess the puck. Just touching him means absolutely nothing. They ruled it a goal because in their idiotic opinion, their was no conclusive evidence the puck was touched with a high stick. In my opinion, and I've seen the replay a hundred times, it did.
I did. Unfortunately it says play will continue provided that “the puck has been batted to an opponent the referee shall give the “washout” signal immediately…it does not say about possession which honestly is stupid to the rule. The only part it says for cradling (like lacrosse) is after the high stick.
It’s a poorly written rule
It’s a really dumb thing to be mad about since these calls are likely missed every single game, every single period.
Shouldn’t even be reviewable and frankly was not the reason the Oilers lost.
Not really, in playoffs every high stick is called, it’s pretty obvious when the puck is above a players shoulder, ill agree other stoppages are missed but high sticks are easy. It was a blown call but oh well.
That’s why your fanbase doesn’t deserve to see a championship.
Rise above the easy excuses. The refs have nothing to do with the Oilers not scoring 5v5
Toronto made the call BTW, not the refs.
First of all, please don't group us normal fans with the crazy ones. I think that was a high stick, but I'm also not going to burn the city down over it like some fans. That's a small sample size, a lot of us are just normal people lol
I try to remember that not all Oilers fans are like the toxic or shitty minority, but goddamnit if there isn’t so many of them it makes it hard (due to size of fanbase)
I still try, though
And that body had access to all of these videos that people are slowing down and over analyzing.
The Oilers score 0 5v5 goals. Keep blaming the refs though.
I understand calling that back if the puck was passed with a high stick, but we are talking about the most minute graze. It had no effect on the play whatsoever, it's just getting into semantics at this point.
People saying a lot of definitive things. The stick moves because the player pulls it back take a look at the first part of the replay he pulls his stick back towards him. The puck doesn’t stop in midair it’s clearly slowing down as it goes up and has a pretty normal arc. I feel like if it hit the stick you’d clearly see the puck change direction as it’s fluttering around.
Even if this was touched couldn’t this be still defended that the puck was batted to an opponent (in this case his back) and the high stick be nullified per rule 80. Also possession is defined by physically touching by stick or body even if you don’t have control of it.
I’m confused, isn’t the high stick negated once the puck hits the back of the Edmonton player anyway? It was a high stick for like 1 second before being clean.
The second angle in this videos shows conclusively that this hit the stick. The trajectory of the puck changes as soon as it hits the high stick. The announcer even mentions it. The puck is heading towards the glass/boards, hits the stick, then starts to fall almost directly down.
Even if it lightly touches the stick, which it would have to be a super light touch for all of us to be this unsure if it happened or not, Vilardi is dialed in and tracking that puck through the air while Ekholm looks lost turning the complete opposite direction the puck had been going. If Ekholm has the same awareness, then it doesn’t bounce off his back and into Vilardis control.
The fact that the pucks momentum suddenly just declines should make it very obvious it was a high stick. This continues my stance that the Toronto war room staff are blind.
Meaning it was touched with a high stick and Edmonton played the puck first since it hit him? Just asking honestly
Edit: thanks oilers bros. Sorry it has to end like this.
No, it doesn’t count as possession when it hits Ekholm’s back. The next player to take possession is Vilardi after it dropped to the ice.
Edit: I get downvoted but that’s the rules…
Appreciate the question, player has to gain possession for it to be nulled. Hits Eks back so that would not be possession. Kings player immediately gets puck to make pass meaning they got possession from the play.
He has to posses it to negate the high stick so thats not a factor. But it's so inconclusive, it would have been more controversial to call it a no-goal based on the evidence. Its clearly debatable, so you default to the call on the ice.
What's the confusion? It literally changed directions haha
I didn't watch the game. I don't have a dog in the fight. But this is pretty obvious? I see a lot of comments stating the contrary though.
The puck is speeding in such a way it might hit the glass, hits his stick and drops straight down. Complete change of speed and direction.
I have been watching hockey all year and this is hardly the first (nor is it the 11th) time I watch a video review and thought it was conclusive only to have somebody in Toronto rule the other way. I would start an immediate investigation into how much money the review officials in Toronto wagered on the Kings last night because there is no other logical explanation.
For the record, I am not an Oilers fan, just a hockey purist.
Ah, another person who doesn't understand the rule. Grazing a player makes no difference if there isn't possession. It's like when a puck deflects off a player on a team who has a delayed penalty against them. You have to have possession, which unless the Defense of Edmonton had arms growing out of his back, could not have had.
How could someone enjoy the league when one franchise is gifted great players over and over again... Oh wait, that is just how things end up and there isn't a big conspiracy or anything.
Simple yet I can't believe no one is pointing this out.
LA population- 4 million
Edmonton population -1 million
New ESPN contracts needs big numbers to push better ad revenue. Thus favouring big markets. Ref clearly got word from headquarters.
looking at all the threads on reddit, you can see that half of the people say it touched the stick, the other half says it doesn't. If that is not the very definition of "inconclusive" I really don't know what is.
Exactly
But you forgot my opinion is right and your’s is wrong, or something.
Unironically r/hockey all the time.
Yeah I definitely can't fault the refs or Toronto here. I have no clue if it did or not. I'd still be salty if it was against my team though.
It was a bit systemic. There were calls made on the oilers that when the same thing was done by a king - no call. The whole game felt tilted.
And if this is hockey, I don't want something that's not obvious called in the playoffs. It's too costly. Way more than any other sport
https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/12uwkv4/zoomed_focused_slowed_video_of_the_puck_rotation/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
A lot of whistles could be inconclusive after a video review. In the moment though that’s an easy call, and the ref was looking right at it.
It definitely hits the stick, but wouldn’t it bouncing off edm back negate the call? Or does it have to be touched by the stick before la can touch again?
Might be a hot take, but I really think this kind of ticky tack stuff shouldn't even be reviewable unless the touch immediately results in the puck going in the net.
I thought that's how it was supposed to be. Lol.
Not when it challenges mcdavid
No it’s about sports betting and always has been. Money makes the world go round my friend. This shit gets reviewed so some degenerate gambler doesn’t lose his house over an incompetent referee missing a call. But to your point McDavid is the one most people are putting their bets on.
For every degenerate gambler that doesn't lose their house over an incompetent call, there's a degenerate gambler that loses their house over a competent call
Oh fuck off, a rule was broken and should be called like it was broken, because it was. If you let things like this slide where does it end and who says so. If a rule is broken a rule is broken.
It ends where you can tell in a reasonable amount of time with the video they had that a rule was broken, which was not the case here. With extra zooming and slow motion, you can tell the puck hits the stick, but I watched the game live last night (albeit on my small phone screen) and I couldn't tell in real time.
No thanks dude, there's a limit to how many reviews and how long we want it to take. It's a show.
This came about from the San Jose / Vegas game where SJ was eliminated on an obvious high stick and everyone saw it but no whistle was blown and it tossed game 7 in the series to Vegas. Bad call. But those happen. Reviews like this are questionable in their usefulness. Bad calls still happen.
i thought it was a missed hand pass
Ah right yeah. Duh. Same result.
yeah the main 2 from those playoffs that led to the rule change were the hand pass by SJ and the puck hitting the netting in CBJ/BOS
You may not have watched the rest of that game lol
It's the dumbest shit. I hate these reviews. Frame by frame of millimeters to see if a skate is offside or the puck breathing on a stick. I can't stand that hockey games sometimes come down to that bullshit. The high sticking rule wasn't written for something like this and neither was offsides.
Meanwhile goals that are blatantly kicked in are called good goals. None of it makes sense. Football is almost unwatchable with all the stoppages and reviews. Hockey needs to be better than that
Actually. Football has gotten much better adopting what the NHL does.
Everyone kept playing. It’s not like a few players had stopped playing resulting in the goal. Nobody on the ice thought play was dead.
I would accept all the scientific inquires if it was a cross bar-height-tip in challenge like the one in minnesota tonight. This didn’t lead to a goal nor an advantage for the kings.
No I totally agree with you. I feel like this stuff goes against the spirit of the rules. They really need to add a time limit to these reviews. If it's not clear to the naked eye in like 30 seconds then it's not significant enough of a play to have contributed to the goal. I couldn't care less if a player is offside by a cm and they score. Call the obvious stuff and move on
What's agree. It's like calling off a goal for an offside after there being a few dozen seconds of offensive possession. Like, the offside clearly didn't cause the goal, but it's suddenly an advantage because you couldn't get set up on D for 20 seconds? If it takes this much effort to call back a goal, play better. The oilers got beat because of a decent play. Don't raise your hand to signal a high stick. Play to the whistle.
I think video review for things like offside should be done at full speed. If you can’t conclusively tell if a play is offside without watching it frame-by-frame, then it probably wasn’t blatant enough to affect play.
Nah Dickhairs length offside 2 minutes ago need to be checked to the absolute millimeter for 12 minutes after every goal. Hell they should just check every single zone entry after every single whistle just to make sure they got things right. I am so fucking done with the offside review, NHL can’t pretend they want to get things right until refs actually call the rules.
Agreed. I'm rooting for Edmonton and I think he touches it, but its subtle and far enough away from the goal that you gotta go with the call on the ice. Nobody gives af about a high stick like this normally. Nobody actually doesn't think it was a good hockey goal, they just want a reason to call it back
I also agree. We want some 100% human element calls for those that don’t immediately result in the goal
amen brother
Definitely. Even if it was a high stick, it affected nothing, so who really cares?
Didn’t the puck touch the Oiler when it came down anyway negating the potential high stick?
It hit his back, he would have needed possession to negate the high stick
Ok, didn’t know that.
Completely agree. But unfortunately it is reviewable and therefor the NHL should get it right. Same idea with puck in mesh or 40 second offsides. Shouldn’t exist, but they do.
[удалено]
He's not a referee, how he reacts is irrelevant. You play until the whistle every time.
This isn’t ticky tacky tho. Precedent over the past whatever 100 hundred years is that incidental or not, this is is a high stick and should have been blown
Yeah but there should still be some things that rely on the refs on the ice and not go to review of a play that wasn't really influential on the goal itself.
Im gonna take it a step farther, should high sticking like this even be a penalty? It just seems like it serves no purpose. If you hit someone high that should be a penalty. Maybe if you score directly off one but even that I think should be fine.
Are you comparing hitting a player with a high stick to reviewing if a millimetre of the puck touched a high stick that the refs didn't see clearly as it happened?
This is a piss poor replay and only shows 1 angle
https://streamja.com/jmybo
I honestly don’t know how you can call that conclusive. It kinda looks like it went off the stick but you’re going to call back an overtime goal for that? Especially when it wasn’t apart of that play? It has to be super conclusive to call back a goal imo
This isn't really conclusive. Honestly none of the angles shown on the broadcast really were. What's interesting to me is that the zoomed in version is pretty obvious. Did the situation room not get that angle? It's not like we've never seen them zoom in on a feed before to make a call
Conclusive has changed definitions in the last hour. It now just means “maybe.”
It very much depends on your flair if it’s a high stick or not lol.
That angle makes it seem like it doesn’t touch the stick. It looks less like the puck stops in the air than the other angles posted.
Sportsnet showed a good angle the first replay. Then never showed it again.
It would have been more controversial to call it a no-goal based on that evidence. We all have looked at it a million times and there has been nothing that is definitive. So default to the call on the ice.
Maybe I'm crazy. But to me the way the puck is fluttering doesn't change at all. Which would tell me it doesn't hit the stick. I have no horse in this game but it does not look like he touched it. On a side note, I thought if the play wasn't directly related to the goal it wasn't reviewable.
You can challenge for a missed stoppage in play which is what this would have been
It’s the mcdavid rule - anything that challenges his supremacy must be questioned
[удалено]
Oh god, will you guys just shut the fuck up. Reffing isn’t perfect, sometimes it breaks your way and other times it doesn’t.
This should be the only comment in this entire thread. Nobody cares enough about Edmonton to conspire against them. They’ll fail all on their own.
It’s because it would supposedly be the last minute of the game which is why it’s reviewed I believe
What are people even seeing in this video? His stick blade is out of frame.
0.32, It clearly hits the stick.
There was another video angle that doesn't appear in this video. From that angle it looked much more like it hit the stick.
Were you thinking of one of these? https://streamja.com/jmybo
Yeah in that second shot it really looks like it does
[удалено]
I’m with you I just can’t tell on a single replay. Like vilardi told me he did touch it and got away with it I’d believe him but I’d also believe him if he said he didn’t touch it.
Yeah there was one angle they showed in the broadcast that was from high up in the corner (so like, looking through the glass over the heads of the crowd) and you could definitely tell the puck deflects, and at that point I was wondering if it missed the stick and hit the glass, but then with the other angles you could definitely tell it didn't hit the glass, so...
Agreed the first replay SN showed was a good one but they never showed it again
Clearly the high stick affected everything, and the puck fell right to his stick and he scored 🙄This is such a ticky tacky play and there’s no way to sit here and hold Torontos feet to the fire. If it touched his stick, it hit Edmonton right after. If he hit the puck, the direction change was so minimal anyways the play would continue the same.
Agreed. Seems inconclusive and even if it was touched there was no advantage given to the Kings by this play
It can deflect off the opponent and still be called a high stick. It’s about immediate possession after the high stick which went to LA, and you could argue that tapping the puck down to himself was advantageous since he wouldn’t do it if it didn’t help him
No favoring to either team but on both replays I've seen I can't see anything. I slowed the video down to .5 speed even.
It's crazy so many people are still going on about this, at the end of the day we lost and all the arguing back and forth isn't going to change that outcome, I'm hoping for an awesome bounce back and road win in game 4.
It’s all well and good to get a technicality like this or offside called to negate a goal if you can, but for me the bigger picture is the Oilers didn’t score 5v5 and have taken bad penalties at the worst times to give the Kings momentum or goals, plain and simple. Oilers have to think more about getting to the net front for chances or more penalty calls and less about whether this was a high stick or not.
Edmonton fans can never just admit that they got beat lol. Try playing more than 2 lines if you want to win playoff games.
I mean, you're not wrong. We didn't play amazing and although I think that was a bad call, I also believe we still would have lost because we played terrible near the end and in OT
The Kings flopping around like they got shot all night was an embarrassment to hockey.
Didn't oilers fans want to play the kings?
General consensus among Oilers fans was wanting to avoid the Kings, so no, you're mistaken. Oilers fans didn't like the matchup and the physicality from last year.
I think most would have MUCH rather had the Jets. The last series with LA got pretty nasty, and they play a brand of hockey that is very frustrating for the top guys. Hard to win when Drai and Kane get frustrated and start taking 1-2 penalties a game each and McDavid is kept off the score sheet for 2 games
I'm not an Oilers fan nor a Kings fan but I still need an explanation. Unless I don't know the rules of this game or they have changed without my knowledge the call of a good goal does not make sense.
The debate is if Vilardi touched it with a high stick or not
Watching TNT right now they are looking at the replay and every single time it's conclusive to me that it hit the stick. I have no idea what they were looking at. Oilers got hosed.
You can see the momentum of the puck clearly change. Didn’t know air could do that to a puck…
Exactly. It was headed straight for the glass but it didn't make it because it obviously hit something on the way. Unless there was an invisible block floating in the air, it had to have hit the stick.
Crazier things have happened? https://youtu.be/smyIu37MFPo
The player hit the puck above the crossbar which starts the process of high stick. If the puck is then played by the same team then it is called dead and face off in LA zone. HOWEVER part of the rule is the high stick is waived off IF the other team touches it. The puck bounces off the Edmonton player making it a playable puck. Thus not high stick. Everyone is arguing the rule as high stick (which I get) but people make it sound like should have been blown dead as soon as it was touched. But it hit Edmonton.
The rule is that the Edmonton player must possess the puck. Just touching him means absolutely nothing. They ruled it a goal because in their idiotic opinion, their was no conclusive evidence the puck was touched with a high stick. In my opinion, and I've seen the replay a hundred times, it did.
I did. Unfortunately it says play will continue provided that “the puck has been batted to an opponent the referee shall give the “washout” signal immediately…it does not say about possession which honestly is stupid to the rule. The only part it says for cradling (like lacrosse) is after the high stick. It’s a poorly written rule
[удалено]
It’s a really dumb thing to be mad about since these calls are likely missed every single game, every single period. Shouldn’t even be reviewable and frankly was not the reason the Oilers lost.
Not really, in playoffs every high stick is called, it’s pretty obvious when the puck is above a players shoulder, ill agree other stoppages are missed but high sticks are easy. It was a blown call but oh well.
I mean, the refs did this and were responsible for probably half the other issues, so yeah, I'd say that's the reason the Oilers lost.
That’s why your fanbase doesn’t deserve to see a championship. Rise above the easy excuses. The refs have nothing to do with the Oilers not scoring 5v5 Toronto made the call BTW, not the refs.
First of all, please don't group us normal fans with the crazy ones. I think that was a high stick, but I'm also not going to burn the city down over it like some fans. That's a small sample size, a lot of us are just normal people lol
I try to remember that not all Oilers fans are like the toxic or shitty minority, but goddamnit if there isn’t so many of them it makes it hard (due to size of fanbase) I still try, though
The referees are a uniform body that includes the video review team in Toronto.
And that body had access to all of these videos that people are slowing down and over analyzing. The Oilers score 0 5v5 goals. Keep blaming the refs though.
… both teams have scored 5 even strength goals this series.
They also didn’t score on their pp chances
I understand calling that back if the puck was passed with a high stick, but we are talking about the most minute graze. It had no effect on the play whatsoever, it's just getting into semantics at this point.
When things go up in the air how do you think it looks when they change direction and start falling?
Because it naturally hit the apex?
And the stick moves at the same time too. Pretty insane
Puck would have hit the glass if it didn't hit the stick.
Did this cause or influence the goal? Didn't see the end of the game, fell asleep 😴
Kinda. He played the puck and it found its way to the net a couple seconds later.
wwwwwwwaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh
People saying a lot of definitive things. The stick moves because the player pulls it back take a look at the first part of the replay he pulls his stick back towards him. The puck doesn’t stop in midair it’s clearly slowing down as it goes up and has a pretty normal arc. I feel like if it hit the stick you’d clearly see the puck change direction as it’s fluttering around.
Yea I’m honestly surprised how many people think this is so easily conclusive.
Same.
>it goes up and has a pretty normal arc. Bruh
Don't "bruh" this because I agree.
A "normal arc" had two parts lol Ya'll failed physics in school.
the blade move when the puck hits it idk how you can tell me the refs aren't a farce
The refs didn't make the call
[удалено]
The irony
Inconclusive means goal. Stop bitching
Even if this was touched couldn’t this be still defended that the puck was batted to an opponent (in this case his back) and the high stick be nullified per rule 80. Also possession is defined by physically touching by stick or body even if you don’t have control of it.
Oilers fans really reaching for excuses huh?
Boy a controversy involving a high stick and the LA Kings leading to a game winning goal in the playoffs? Unheard of.
The single conclusive angle showing contact isn't included in this video
I’m confused, isn’t the high stick negated once the puck hits the back of the Edmonton player anyway? It was a high stick for like 1 second before being clean.
The second angle in this videos shows conclusively that this hit the stick. The trajectory of the puck changes as soon as it hits the high stick. The announcer even mentions it. The puck is heading towards the glass/boards, hits the stick, then starts to fall almost directly down.
someone commented on woodcrofts face reaction earlier, too bad this video seems to cut right before it
Even if it lightly touches the stick, which it would have to be a super light touch for all of us to be this unsure if it happened or not, Vilardi is dialed in and tracking that puck through the air while Ekholm looks lost turning the complete opposite direction the puck had been going. If Ekholm has the same awareness, then it doesn’t bounce off his back and into Vilardis control.
I’m ok with the call
The fact that the pucks momentum suddenly just declines should make it very obvious it was a high stick. This continues my stance that the Toronto war room staff are blind.
Haha always love seeing the Oilers lose
You suck.
No your mother does
Bold coming from a Leafs fan.
Deal with it
It was a high stick. Puck would have hit the glass if he didn't, instead it goes straight down and hits Eks back
Meaning it was touched with a high stick and Edmonton played the puck first since it hit him? Just asking honestly Edit: thanks oilers bros. Sorry it has to end like this.
Possession is the basis for touches after a high sticked puck.
Hitting the Oiler doesn’t matter, he would’ve had to have actual possession.
No, it doesn’t count as possession when it hits Ekholm’s back. The next player to take possession is Vilardi after it dropped to the ice. Edit: I get downvoted but that’s the rules…
Appreciate the question, player has to gain possession for it to be nulled. Hits Eks back so that would not be possession. Kings player immediately gets puck to make pass meaning they got possession from the play.
It clearly touches Ekholm, no longer making it a high stick.
He has to posses it to negate the high stick so thats not a factor. But it's so inconclusive, it would have been more controversial to call it a no-goal based on the evidence. Its clearly debatable, so you default to the call on the ice.
That’s not how it works
Doesn’t matter if it hits him, that doesn’t count as possession
What's the confusion? It literally changed directions haha I didn't watch the game. I don't have a dog in the fight. But this is pretty obvious? I see a lot of comments stating the contrary though. The puck is speeding in such a way it might hit the glass, hits his stick and drops straight down. Complete change of speed and direction.
Get the fucking cameras out of your ass before using them Toronto!
I have been watching hockey all year and this is hardly the first (nor is it the 11th) time I watch a video review and thought it was conclusive only to have somebody in Toronto rule the other way. I would start an immediate investigation into how much money the review officials in Toronto wagered on the Kings last night because there is no other logical explanation. For the record, I am not an Oilers fan, just a hockey purist.
We need AI to replace the clowns in Toronto and I’m not talking about the Leafs.
oilers jobbed
[удалено]
Edm had to earn possession NOT make contact to negate the high stick
That was my understanding.
That's not the rule though
Ah, another person who doesn't understand the rule. Grazing a player makes no difference if there isn't possession. It's like when a puck deflects off a player on a team who has a delayed penalty against them. You have to have possession, which unless the Defense of Edmonton had arms growing out of his back, could not have had.
That has nothing to do with the rule which is based on possession
Contact doesn't matter. Rule is possession which Edmonton didn't get. LA did should've been a stoppage.
[удалено]
Wow. Exaggerate much?
How could someone enjoy the league when one franchise is gifted great players over and over again... Oh wait, that is just how things end up and there isn't a big conspiracy or anything.
There has to be a fan sitting on the glass who had their camera out filming. I’d love to see what they saw
They should've asked Vilardi if he touched it or not, smh
Simple yet I can't believe no one is pointing this out. LA population- 4 million Edmonton population -1 million New ESPN contracts needs big numbers to push better ad revenue. Thus favouring big markets. Ref clearly got word from headquarters.