Flames Have Tying Goal Disallowed In Third Period

The Calgary Flames are headed to overtime at the Saddledome with the score tied at 3-3, but they nearly tied the game considerably earlier in the third period than they actually did.

The situation room in Toronto judged Sam Bennett’s shot on Frederik Andersen at 13:43 of the third period to not conclusively be fully across the goal line.

Per the NHL:

At 13:43 of the third period in the Anaheim Ducks/Calgary Flames game, the Situation Room initiated a video review to further examine Sam Bennett‘s
shot at 13:38. Video review was inconclusive in determining whether the
puck completely crossed the Anaheim goal line, therefore the referee’s
call on the ice stands – no goal Calgary.

I personally thought it was in, but I’m also not privy to the angles and rules that the Situation Room has to adhere to, so I’m not going to completely bury them.

But MAN, it sure did look like it was in. And it sure was eerily similar to another third period no-goal call in the Saddledome…

  • Jordan McNugent-Hallkins

    i was so pissed when i seen the disallowed goal. And still am. FU nhl. Corupted. i dont mind saying that was bullshit. Flames deserved that game. glad they won. And F U nhl for tryng to do it again reminded me of 04. Excuse me iv had a few beers.. gfg

  • Jordan McNugent-Hallkins

    well it looks like rome just fell. the mighty ducks are beatable. I almost threw my beer through my tv when the obviuos goal was disallowed. Actually, im still pissed. Go Flames in game 4. …. God im proud our team dont bend over to get a #1 pick overall. Nice to see our young guys win games that matter. Nice fnnn goal Johny

  • Agent Orange

    It really looked to me like that goal was in even in real time but I knew it would be disallowed. Full props to the team for not letting it rattle them and finding a way in the end

  • RKD

    This is an absolute farce of epic proportions, 11 years later and they still cannot determine if a puck crossed a line? Twice they get the call wrong again. The NHL war room saying it was inconclusive because they don’t use the play by play angles is a joke. The overhead view would show the puck completely crossed the line. The NHL is vastly behind in this area, how many cameras will it take to see that puck is in? They have HD cameras and zoomed technology in the NHL war room and can’t tell if it is in. Instead of camera’s on the goal post, how about a flat hd camera the size and width of the goal line sitting level underneath the ice or a sensor embedded in the puck that changes color or sends a signal the puck is in.

  • Danomitee

    I’m a flames fan working in a bar in edmonton. And believe me, other than the scatterings of flames fans in the bar, everyone was cheering for the ducks. When that goal was disallowed the place erupted in anger not joy. Even our (once) fierce rivals were left disgusted that the goal was somehow disallowed despite one good angle, one great angle, and one where the pad is blocking the play. 5 minutes later the entire bar cheered when Johnny was Johnny, what a *^%** game!!!

  • BigAl32

    Put cameras into the crossbar pointing down, they don’t have to be massive..this is 2015 after all, there are small cameras out there. Just ridiculous.
    That top view with the crossbar in the way is crap

  • BigAl32

    Agree with Avatar #9 ultrathinzigzags .

    You could actually build a small high def. camera into the inside of the hollow crossbars with a rotating lens. The entire camera would be contained inside and wouldn’t even get damaged from shots. NHL shouldn’t cheap out, it could be easily done. I’m sure GoPro would get involved.

  • mk

    After calming down, I can forgive the guys in the room for making this call – you can’t overturn the call on the ice without conclusive evidence.

    However, the league gets all the blame for this one. 11 years later, and we still can’t get conclusive evidence?!? The cameras they use for HD TV these days can pick out individual hairs on a guys eyebrow from 200 feet, but we can’t tell if the puck crossed the line?

    As an engineer, I know that the technology to track objects at high speed (hundreds of mph – much faster than a puck) to within microns exists. Its not even that expensive. Tracking a puck that was going sub-100 mph to within a millmeter or two is child’s play.

  • Poop

    This was 2004 all over again, same exact play. This was clearly a goal anyone with a set of eyeballs could see that.

    If cameras/instant replay are supposed to determine goals, than how come they can’t determine goals? Completely asinine.

    Poop

  • Captain Ron

    The NHL needs to get it crap together ASAP. That puck was over the line and the fact that they didn’t have conclusive evidence to overturn the on ice call was a joke. I don’t blame the on ice officials in this instance as the play happens to quickly for them to call it a goal.

    But what if this exact play happens in game 7 of the cup final in OT? Really it should never happen with any goal at any time. With the technology that is available today the NHL war room should know very quickly what is and what is not a goal on EVERY goal no matter when or where one is scored.

  • Captain Ron

    I know that Bingo machine for lotto teams probably cost you a ton of money, but surely you have enough left to install a few cameras.

    Check them out Daly. They’re actually inexpensive.