Tuesday, December 23, 2008
It was called a goal on the ice, and just like football, there needs to be conclusive evidence. I don't know what the hell they look at in Toronto, if it's live video, still pictures, or what, but from the pictures I have seen, Crosby's blade is above the crossbar, but not the shaft, which is where the puck deflected off of and went into the net. That being said, I do not know the correct way to interpret the rule, I'm not a ref. Here's the rule...
So does that mean if I hold 3/4 of my stick above the crossbar and a shot deflects off my buttend that's below the crossbar and goes into the net it's a goal? I have no idea.
If it would have been called no goal on the ice, then it would have stuck as no goal. It was called a goal, and I just don't see conclusive evidence that you could overturn that UNLESS a goal is supposed to be disallowed from a high stick regardless of the portion of the stick the puck deflects off of. Who knows though.
But this conspiracy shit? Seriously? Or Gift calls because it's Crosby? The NHL is trying to work itself back into popularity and people are suggesting a Crosby Conspiracy? He's MARKETABLE. That's why they push him in our faces. Ovechkin maybe not AS much, but he didn't have the hype that Crosby did. Just get over this conspiracy shit though. It doesn't exist. All you haters out there would love him if he was on your team, but he's not, so you hate him. That's fine. I'm the same way with Ovechkin. Crosby whines, that's fine...Ovechkin takes runs at players. I understand that love-hate relationship. The conspiracy I don't because it's horseshit and if you dumbass hockey fans would think about that for a second, you'd realize there's no way the NHL could afford the controversy that would surround such a thing, and would send the NHL spiraling into a black hole from which they'd never emerge.