History makes mistakes


History makes mistakes
    History makes mistakes.
    
    A day that will live in infamy... the calgary flames were robbed of a goal in game 6 of the 2004 stanley cup playoffs. The goal would have given them a 3-2 lead in a series that they lead 3-2. After the goal was not counted, Tampa Bay won in OT and then won game 7.

    Like it? Share with your friends!

    0

    What's Your Reaction?

    confused confused
    0
    confused
    fail fail
    0
    fail
    geeky geeky
    0
    geeky
    hate hate
    0
    hate
    lol lol
    0
    lol
    fun fun
    0
    fun
    love love
    0
    love
    omg omg
    0
    omg
    win win
    0
    win

    32 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    1. For all the people saying there was an animation made to prove it wasnt in i could just as easily make an animation to prove it was if the animators / designers wanted it to be no goal you could use only the info you wanted to make it look how you want.

    2. Almost 11 years later, this is still debated. I'm a Tampa fan, but I admit it is more probable that the puck at one point did indeed cross the line entirely than the chances it did not. But the NHL has very clear rules when counting or not counting goals. It has to be conclusive. 99% probably don't and never will cut it. Also, HAD the puck conclusively cross the line, it would have changed gameplay for both teams. This controversy was in the 3rd period, not overtime. Who's to say Tampa wouldn't have tied minutes later?

    3. A puck is 3-Dimensional, therefore half of the bottom side was over the line, but the top was on the line. The program of the TV did not give you the angle Toronto was given. A puck is not 2 dimensional, so without a doubt the view overhead states no goal. For example, Calgary and Phoenix, this has happened before, look it up. This was the right call and was not a mistake in history. Case dismissed.

    4. The lone Colorado Goal in 2002's WCF game 7 against the red wings was disallowed, because the officials determined that Chris Drury deflected it in with his foot "Going more than just a standard braking slide before the crease". That could have been called here.

    5. bud evidently you don't know the first thing about hockey. It only doesn't count if there is a distinct kicking motion. In this case there is no kicking motion, and it just bounces off his skate. Now i'm not saying it did or did not go in, I'm just saying its a very intriguing call and thought I could evoke some discussion by posting this.

    6. the rule is clear, goal must be to pass the line completely. Tampa Bay won fairly and was even more in 2004 had all the technology we have today. This was the same as the 99' Hull Goal

    7. oh ok totaly makes sense, if you guys are so sure it was a goal. then why don't you guys use the overhead instead of that crappy angle? NO FUCKING GOAL. bolts won the cup fair and square. even if it did cross (which it didn't) it isn't conclusive. by the way ABC made an animation that pretty much proves it didn't go in.

    8. It was a fine goal. Calgary should've won. Gary (and we all know which one) hates Canadian NHL clubs and it's no coincidence since his arrival that Canadian clubs haven't been able to win the Stanley Cup. Gary is known for being crooked (NBA match fixing scandal); he's been fixing every NHL season in favor of American clubs ever since. Nobody tell me about how the Canadiens won during his arrival. It was halfway through the season and he was still learning how to maintain control of the league.

    9. Right, because a computer is as accurate as human eyes. Well done on making yourself sound like a complete moron. Don't bother replying, you won't be acknowledged any further. =)

    10. First let me say im not a lightning nor a flames fan. Ive seen every angle of this play and it is so close. The puck IS in the air by like 2 cm. Personally, taking account of every angle ive seen, every replay and picture, i think its probably in.

    11. @PhillyTheSillyWilly 1.it was a distinct stopping motion… there was no kick at all
      2. the puck was in the crease before he was which is allowed
      3. im not even a flames fan i just thought this was an interesting call