it's not arguable at all. the camera angle isn't directly above the crossbar/goal line. that's why you see white.
- Ftown19125

yeah, I sort of mentioned that in my post. You know, when I said "could have been angle", and "might have been a goal".

I never said it was. Sure looks damn close though.

Will go down as one of the best of the season?

It's game 4 isn't it? Nice save but to predict its one of the best in the season at game 4 or whatever, is reaching a bit. If Hart makes another good save, in maybe game 5, EK will be championing that Hart is a Vezina candidate.

yeah, I sort of mentioned that in my post. You know, when I said "could have been angle", and "might have been a goal".

I never said it was. Sure looks damn close though.
- prock

yeah, but you sort of also said "...that's pretty arguable." which it really isn't.

yeah, I sort of mentioned that in my post. You know, when I said "could have been angle", and "might have been a goal".

I never said it was. Sure looks damn close though.
- prock

While there appears to be a hair of daylight between the puck and the bottom line, the puck is somewhere around 6 to 8 inches in front of the top post (in the very same frame). I mean, in the same frame, Carter's glove is well in front of the top post; the entire glove. Also, the puck was closer to the top than the bottom, so...

I think people just aren't very good at translating 2D images into 3D space in their brains. If any part of that puck even touched the red line from the overhead view, I'd be extremely surprised.

- Streit3ThePoint

yeah, but you sort of also said "...that's pretty arguable." which it really isn't.
- Ftown19125

Well, yeah, it sort of is. It's obviously incredibly close. I haven't seen the same angle the NHL uses to do video replay, but often even that is not always clear (and i understand one was not done). Sometimes they can't say for certain it didn't go in, they just don't know for sure, so if it's called no goal on the ice, that stands.

Do you have some better video, that shows for certain it did not go in the net? Until you can provide that, it certainly is arguable.

While there appears to be a hair of daylight between the puck and the bottom line, the puck is somewhere around 6 to 8 inches in front of the top post (in the very same frame). I mean, in the same frame, Carter's glove is well in front of the top post; the entire glove. Also, the puck was closer to the top than the bottom, so...

I think people just aren't very good at translating 2D images into 3D space in their brains. If any part of that puck even touched the red line from the overhead view, I'd be extremely surprised.
- meckelangelo

Yeah, I don't think so. His glove is very clearly behind his skate, in all angles, and his skate is only about 6 inches out from the goal line.

Well, yeah, it sort of is. It's obviously incredibly close. I haven't seen the same angle the NHL uses to do video replay, but often even that is not always clear (and i understand one was not done). Sometimes they can't say for certain it didn't go in, they just don't know for sure, so if it's called no goal on the ice, that stands.

Do you have some better video, that shows for certain it did not go in the net? Until you can provide that, it certainly is arguable.
- prock

It's only arguable if you lack the ability to interpret 3D space in a 2D image.

It really wasn't close, and it's not arguable. If it was "incredibly close" they would have looked at it. If you still disagree...well, I don't know what else to tell you.

Will go down as one of the best of the season?

It's game 4 isn't it? Nice save but to predict its one of the best in the season at game 4 or whatever, is reaching a bit. If Hart makes another good save, in maybe game 5, EK will be championing that Hart is a Vezina candidate.
- CharlieDog

If this exact same save was made in game 82 or game 2 it doesnt change the fact that it will be one of the better saves of the season.

Take into account you had a superstar in Hall, taking the shot on a 5-3 and the shot itself wasn't something that was fanned on.

All those things add up to it being a great save regardless of time of season.

I am looking like a FOOL for putting Carter Hart on my Fantasy bench.

I figured that the travel this week and only two games would limit his opportunity.

With that said, I benched John Gibson last week because he had a small injury.

----
One thing EK doesn't mention was that the TWO guys in the box were Hayes and Couts AKA BY FAR the two best PK guys on the team.

It's only arguable if you lack the ability to interpret 3D space in a 2D image.

It really wasn't close, and it's not arguable. If it was "incredibly close" they would have looked at it. If you still disagree...well, I don't know what else to tell you.
- jmatchett383

It's only certain if you lack the ability use benchmarks in a 2D image, and have inherent bias in the matter.

It's quite arguable.

I am looking like a FOOL for putting Carter Hart on my Fantasy bench.

I figured that the travel this week and only two games would limit his opportunity.

With that said, I benched John Gibson last week because he had a small injury.

----
One thing EK doesn't mention was that the TWO guys in the box were Hayes and Couts AKA BY FAR the two best PK guys on the team.
- flyersfaninLA

He's been starting for my fantasy team since day 1!!!! Hell of a goalie. Lots of promise.

It's only certain if you lack the ability use benchmarks in a 2D image, and have inherent bias in the matter.

It's quite arguable.
- prock

You’re arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.

You’re arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
- Hesh_

That’s arguable.

That’s arguable.
- Ftown19125

Turning into a Monty Python bit

Yeah, I don't think so. His glove is very clearly behind his skate, in all angles, and his skate is only about 6 inches out from the goal line.
- prock

I think the back of his foot is probably closer to 12 to 14 inches from the goal line. Unless you think that his foot is only 6 inches in length? You can assume his foot is somewhere around 12 inches in length. Since his heel is a similar distance (possibly even more) from the goal line, it's plainly clear that his foot is at least 12 inches from the goal line. Also, the relativity of his glove to his pad from the top-down camera angle will have a similar skew as the crossbar to the goal line, so it will be difficult to know exactly how far his glove is behind his pad.

You’re arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
- Hesh_

I mean, I stated my opinion, and get some moron telling me I have no ability to convert 2D images to 3D, over and over and over.

It's arguable to me. It's really damn close. That seems to really put a burr in some little pissant's saddle. It is what it is.

I think the back of his foot is probably closer to 12 to 14 inches from the goal line. Unless you think that his foot is only 6 inches in length? You can assume his foot is somewhere around 12 inches in length. Since his heel is a similar distance (possibly even more) from the goal line, it's plainly clear that his foot is at least 12 inches from the goal line. Also, the relativity of his glove to his pad from the top-down camera angle will have a similar skew as the crossbar to the goal line, so it will be difficult to know exactly how far his glove is behind his pad.
- meckelangelo

Looks like it comes closer than that to me, and also, goalie pads protrude further out. Much further. The glove behind the pads is visible from several angles.

It's very close to me. I'm not sure why this bothers some. Who really cares, it wasn't counted in, it's rather irrelevant.

He's been starting for my fantasy team since day 1!!!! Hell of a goalie. Lots of promise.
- prock

Foolishly, I was being cute as I have FOUR starting goalies and GWs count for a lot in our league.

With that said, I am in LAST PLACE in GWs thanks to my Mike Middlebury-level (sp) skills at Fantasy GM. The Good News is I have the horses to make this right and it is a long season. Also, I am in first place overall which is nice even this early.

Foolishly, I was being cute as I have FOUR starting goalies and GWs count for a lot in our league.

With that said, I am in LAST PLACE in GWs thanks to my Mike Middlebury-level (sp) skills at Fantasy GM. The Good News is I have the horses to make this right and it is a long season. Also, I am in first place overall which is nice even this early.
- flyersfaninLA

I'm currently in first, but not really due to goalie stats, I've got tonnes of goals. I wish it werent a long season, if it ended last night I'd be a cool $1000 richer!!!

Well, yeah, it sort of is. It's obviously incredibly close. I haven't seen the same angle the NHL uses to do video replay, but often even that is not always clear (and i understand one was not done). Sometimes they can't say for certain it didn't go in, they just don't know for sure, so if it's called no goal on the ice, that stands.

Do you have some better video, that shows for certain it did not go in the net? Until you can provide that, it certainly is arguable.
- prock

We dont need video it is common sense

1) The glove isnt in the net

2) The ref was right there

3) Neither commentator looked it up on any feed

4) Not one player went to the ref about it

Its safe to say it didnt go in

Looks like it comes closer than that to me, and also, goalie pads protrude further out. Much further. The glove behind the pads is visible from several angles.

It's very close to me. I'm not sure why this bothers some. Who really cares, it wasn't counted in, it's rather irrelevant.
- prock

The distance of the puck to the back of his skate is exactly the same as the length of his skate. I don't know what size skate he wears, but most size 10.5 to 12.5 skates have a blade length around 12 inches. The distance from the back edge of the top post to the leading edge of the puck is marginally less than that, so probably 8 to 10 inches. When you adjust for rotation of the camera angle, the puck will actually move TOWARD the net (since it is not on the same plane as the top post), so it is definitely less than 8 to 10 inches away, but it's pretty clearly further away than you seem to think it is. I would estimate the puck was around 2 to 3 inches from crossing the goal line.

Sure, it doesn't matter, game is in the books. You said "it could be angle, but it sure looks to me like it might have been a goal" - so I kinda assumed that meant you weren't sure, but I am, and the above is why. These camera angles are far more deceiving than people seem to realize.

Isn't Allen Iverson "The Answer"?

I'm currently in first, but not really due to goalie stats, I've got tonnes of goals. I wish it werent a long season, if it ended last night I'd be a cool $1000 richer!!!
- prock

Our bounty is even more than $1,000 but I could care less as winning this league means MUCH MORE than that to me.

We've got pro hockey writers, multiple CEOs and one CFO, TWO Goldman Sachs execs, people from Rotowire and CBS Sportsline (they are one team but...) all in the league.

I have played (and been the commissioner in the past) in this league for 20 years now. The format is great (up to 13 keepers with a salary cap of $330, a minor league roster of 4 guys etc...) as it forces you to really build a franchise for the long haul. I drafted McJesus at 16 years old. I tanked for both Hughes brothers last year. I got my grimy hands on Matthews. None of that has been enough for me to win either. Perhaps this year?

Flyers fans all triggered over nothing.