Take your 2 quotes and add this one before it
[quote=“90NA300ZX,post:5010,topic:25170"”]
Just because you can not physically see the puck itself in NO WAY means it’s inconclusive…if the puck is under the pad, and the pad is over the line, one can easily conclude that the puck is across the line as well…but since you can’t see the puck itself, no goal…fucking stupid call…
[/quote]
Kinda like how Miller had the puck underneath him in the Islanders series and it was called no goal? Kinda like that? Because any idiot could tell you that it was underneath him when he was across the line. But since you couldn’t physically SEE the puck over the line, it wasn’t a goal.
The ruling on the ice was no goal BECAUSE THE WHISTLE BLEW. However, the play was still reviewed. So if the replay judges could have proved that the puck crossed the line before the whistle, it would have counted. Now here is where you read 90NA300zx’s comment again. Now you can add this:
[quote=“SI01,post:5053,topic:25170"”]
Pass McGrass #2: No goal because you couldn’t see the puck in the net
[/quote]
:bloated: