Yes, Paul Maurice has seen the video. The Canes coach has seen replays of what he calls the Canes' "half-goal" by Chad LaRose in Game 2.
Before coming to the Canes in December, Maurice helped out in the NHL's "War Room" in Toronto where the decisions are made on high — well, from Canada — about goals and no-goals and whether there's conclusive evidence a puck did or did not cross the goal line on a play.
In the final second of the second period Sunday, LaRose had an apparent goal against the Boston Bruins waved off after the puck hit the crossbar, dropped down and bounced around the goal line. After seven-minute review that felt more like 77 minutes, the call was upheld and the Canes' lead stayed at 2-0.
"I'm a huge fan of replay," Maurice said today. "I still believe it was a goal but the fact of the matter is that shot happens so fast. I understand when the referee doesn't see it or thinks he saw it. These pucks are moving 80, 90, sometimes 100 miles per hour, and we're talking about a matter of inches.
"If that had taken 15 minutes, I'm fine with it. Regardless of whether you agree with the call or not, it has to get resolved and then both teams move on. The last thing you want is them do a rush job and then, 'Oh, yeah, there was one more camera angle that showed it in four inches.' Because that's just wrong.
"So they take their time. It's hard on the fans, hard on the players. It doesn't bother me today because it was a two-goal lead that didn't evaporate. That would have changed my tune totally."
Maurice said the people in the "War Room" would have had to be 100 percent sure the puck was over the goal line to overturn the referee's call.
"And 99 is not good enough," he said. "I think everybody would look at that and be pretty sure that puck was over but there would be one person in the crowd that would say 'I'm not sure it is' and that would be the rule. So I'm fine with the outcome."
So, in looking at the video, was it a goal or not?
"I would be part of the 99 who thought it was in," a smiling Maurice said. "Not the one percent who thought it was out.
"I know most of the guys up there who do it. I used to call them friends," he quipped.
A Raleigh native, Chip has worked at the N&O since 1979 and is the Canes beat writer. He can be reached at 
Comments
here's the photoshop photo
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 18:04 — FooF_BBFYou can see the photo with the guidelines here.
http://www.bostonbruinsfan.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5
I'm interested on what the people who definitely think it was goal think after that.
hmmm...
Thu, 05/07/2009 - 14:24 — mijnheerGood work, FooF_BBF, but the case is not quite closed. I assume you eyeballed the goal line when you positioned your right-hand vertical line. The problem is that the actual painted goal line doesn't seem to have a perfectly straight edge. (How could it?) Someone else eyeballing things might position the photoshop vertical line slightly to the left of where you've placed it. I think that the white to the left of the puck probably is the ice surface. But what exactly does the NHL rule specify? Does it count as a goal if any white is showing between the paint and the puck -- or does the puck have to be behind an imaginary line connecting the backsides of the two goalposts?
But you've made me change my vote from "goal" to "inconclusive" -- at least till the rule is clarified.
checked it out in Photoshop
Wed, 05/06/2009 - 14:44 — FooF_BBFAs much as I thought it was a goal (and I'm a Bruins Fan), I just took that picture into photoshop and going by the goal lines it's not a goal. Before anyone jumps on me for this, I straightened out the picture by using the crossbar as my straight line. Then take a guide and run it on the back edge of the goal line and it does go right through the puck.
The white we see between the puck and the line could simply be snow. look at the left post and you see white from skate marks and snow, you don't see the blue crease.
So from me thinking it was a goal, to me now its not conclusive and they made the right call.
-FooF
http://www.bostonbruinsfan.com
I agree, but
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 19:15 — mijnheerKlowman: I agree it was a goal. But I don't think you're right in your reasoning about the crossbar in the photo. What you say would make sense if the puck were in the air, but in fact it's touching the ice surface in that photo. I know that because here in Canada on television the "goal" was replayed over and over in slow motion, and from more than one angle. The referee who made the initial call cannot be blamed, since it would have taken superhuman stop-motion vision to see what happened. When the puck dropped down and hit the ice, it started spinning on its edge along (on top of) the goal line, and it was only for one brief fraction of a second that it lined up parallel to the goal line as shown in the photo above, before crossing back to be on top of the line again.
After seeing the replay, the game announcers said they thought it was a goal. Then, of the four members of the panel during intermission, two thought it was definitely a goal and the other two said it was inconclusive.
Camera Angle
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 10:21 — klowmanHere's another thing to consider, the Overhead camera is not directly over the crossbar/goal line. Look at the crossbar in relation to the red goal line - see how its further forward?
Now, if you were to move to the left a few inches and perfectly align the crossbar over the goal line that would place the puck evern further into the net, by a few inches.
Also, look how at where the puck is in relation to the top netting, at least 2 or 3 "diamonds" back. You can clearly see that the netting starts from the backend of the crossbar which would also be the back edge of the goal line, and we can see the puck is several inches beyond where the netting starts - which would also indicate the puck is at least several inches past the goal line.
It is so obvious, and the big deal is not that "it didn't cost us the game so why bother" but the fact this and the non-calls against the Bruins is a handicap against the Canes chances of winning this series fair and square.
That's the big deal.
Camera Angle
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 15:45 — abramsdougKlowman described very articulately what I found most troubling. Given the availability technology, it truly was not refutable that the puck crossed the goal line -- for the reasons described in the post by klowman. Moreover, I have not yet seen a high resolution jpeg which with some very basic photographic enhancing software, such as Adobe, would have served as further proof. There are only two explanations: (1) the NHL has video reviewers who are inept and cannot work basic digital jpeg software; or (2) the NHL has video reviewers who lacked impartiality. Either way, there is a problem that needs to be resolved because the next time it could be the difference between winning or losing a game in the Stanley Cup.
Skate and win
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:06 — bbruin91Bruins won game 1 because Canes stood and did not skate.
Nice job Maurice rebounding with line changes (and rest?).
Chalk win up to coaching. Bruins better post people on both sides of goal to get Ward out of position. More impressive was the 1-0 loss to Brodeur. But 2 shutouts? Noticed.
That was a goal by Larose , but until technology gets better........HD was never better appreciated!! Fights not needed for enjoyment, but Bruins need to get nastier. Get Staal 1 on 1 and don't let him take cheap shots on 3rd person after being labeled. Mr. Hnidy?
Nice job getting Chara to sin bin. That'll work.
Bruins will take 1 on the road, never fear, never out of it also.
The NHL does not want us to
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 08:31 — coultersThe NHL does not want us to win there is no money in Raleigh , Bigger hockey market in Boston, You could see that was a goal!! and they also took thier time deciding, Why? so the Canes would lose thier momentum, that is why Brind'Amour was questioning the refs on why it was taking so long! Boston has it good they have the refs and NHL on thier side!! Boston out in 7 or less!!
GO CANES!!
Paranoid....
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 08:46 — JumptheSharkNHL wants to expand their market. Not shrink it. They absolutely want the Canes to be successful, like every other team. Hence the current CBA. No worries in the Bs market. It was the first NHL franchise in the US. Was a huge amateur hockey town before the Bruins were awarded.
The problem with your geo/demographic is getting hockey to catch on. You can't even get them in HD 1/2 the time. Do they broadcast all games during the regular season? That would be your local broadcaster bowing to the fact that there aren't the sustained ratings to keep it on TV. Or you're not filling the seats. This is the NHLs opportunity to showcase hockey in the south. Of course they want the Canes in there.
As easy as it is get caught up in the conspiracy theories,
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:21 — hockeyhickI have to agree with you Sharkie. Our season ticket base has grown steadily after a spike after 2006. Another long run in the playoffs this year won't hurt either. I think we had abou 60-65 games televised this season. That number has steadily grown over the last 5 season as well.
Listening to the conspiracy theorists is fun, and sometimes it's easy to buy into. But I think this is not the case and agree that the league wants success in every market.
I still don't like you though.
Thanks Hickey
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:33 — JumptheSharkYou don't like me? I thought we were just agreeing to disagree. Nothing personal Hickey (until the slurs come out). As a fan of the game, I want it to succeed everywhere. In my opinion, NHLers are some of the finest athletes on the planet.
Did you see Ovie & Sidney stepping it up last night? Each with a hat trick? On the biggest stage, under the most intense pressure of the season, they both step up and score hatties. Unbelieveable.
Later Hickster
Consider me like Aaron Ward...
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:48 — hockeyhickwe'll be friends after this series is over! And make it personal-it's more fun that way!
Ovie got
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:44 — esteban1949A Standing ovation...and Cid the kid, got one hat...gee I wonder why ???
Go Canes !!
until next time
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 07:29 — yonse2It doesn't matter. There seems to be a problem though. The problem needs to be fixed before it DOES matter. This is called a proactive response. They have the money and the technology exists. Get it done.
Puhleeze
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 06:54 — JumptheSharkThe Staals are a huge commodity for the NHL. The league will do anything it can to promote them. The Staals are good for business in hockey. And no Staal is bigger than your boy in NC. The rules are clear, as they are in football (like it or not): there must be clear evidence to the contrary in order to overturn the ref's original call. Period. The replay was clear. So ref gets the call.
Coaches all over the NFL have for years asked that the league install goalline cameras. We've all seen those slow-mo replays of questionable touchdowns along the goal line. Did the ball touch the line or not? Hard to tell when you have the perspective of the side line cams. So put a cam right on the line! Ain't gonna happen. They already have a camera in the goal net. It's usually pointed elsewhere at the critical moment. The overhead they do have is usually pretty good. This was just too close to call. Too close in Toronto's view. Not enough evidence to overturn the call. Hey, at least the NHL has an overhead goalline shot. And they looked at it for like 7 minutes. They made the right call. And, no harm no foul. The league would have loved to have given the Cs that goal. More Staal promotion (doesn't matter that it wasn't his goal). No national stars in Boston, except for Z. NHL is better off with Staal in the post season as long as possible. Quit all of your whining and crying.
BS
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 09:15 — Canes73As much as I agree that Staal is a great player, I don't buy your BS that the "NHL is better off with Staal in the post season". The Bruins haven't won the cup in 37 years. I'm sure the NHL feels that a Boston/Detroit match up would generate much higher ratings and exposure than say a Carolina/Anaheim match up. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. The NHL has already gotten their dream individual star match up with Ovechkin vs Crosby. Now I think they would like nothing more than to have two original six teams in the finals.
this picture shows that
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 02:03 — john006corruption is alive and well in the NHL
X
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 02:06 — john006X
Cameras
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 20:33 — procellaeI have always wondered this. Why don't they add some more cameras. I.E. a camera inside the crossbar looking down (will help with did the puck cross calls), a camera looking out (will help with high sticks), or a camera at the bottom of the two posts looking inward.
If a shot in which no goalie obscures the view, you think they could make the right call.
Personally, I think most conspiracy theories are utterly stupid. But I really do believe there is one here. There is no doubt that the puck was across the line. A quote from one of the NHL officials said something like that if you zoom in on the overhead shot (screenshot at the top of the article), then the netting blocks the view between the puck and the cross bar, which accounts for that white that we see. I don't know what those guys are smoking. The netting on the top goes diagonally, not parallel to the goal line, and is a different white than the ice.
Putting the no-goal goal behind us, since it really didn't matter, the officiating was still horrible. Chara cross checks Staal and tackles him behind the play multiple times in the game. Lucic takes down Seidenberg, kicked him, kneed him, hooked him, and stuck his skate blade on his back. Our players were getting hooked, held, and interfered countless times. But no calls. And the calls they made on us were...crazy, to say the least. Seidenberg gets held by Lucic, and gets a holding penalty? From my experience playing hockey, it is very difficult to hold someone with your hand on the stick.
But what do we know, we are all rednecks!
change netting
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 17:43 — neeehknightIf the top-down view thru the net is so critical, why can't someone invent a transparent "moon roof" for the netting at the top (think clear plastic)?
gdfg
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 17:04 — iulia009fdg bHello, i found a very good site with videos funny , sexy girls funny, wrecked cars, live accidents, entertainment , TV shows and other... Try it: www.autostrada80.com
Didn't the Canes win the
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 14:27 — GoHeels1984Didn't the Canes win the game? What's the big deal?
The big deal is that
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 14:57 — hockeyhickreplay was instituted to make sure the right calls are made, and this is cleary NOT what happened last night. How can it be obvious to virtually the entire hockey community, but not to the people charged with making he call? It suggests a bigger issue. It's an issue that, if left unaddressed, could affect small-market hocky teams like the Canes.
It's also very entertaining to discuss. So that's the big deal.
Go Canes!!!! Oh yeah-and GO WOLFPACK!
Hate to agree with a Wufpacker
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 15:35 — NCBuff_CaniacBut hockeyhick is correct. It is a big deal because the whole point of replay is to get the call correct. They didn't. To those who have a conspiratorial bent, sometimes like me, it seems they make calls that favor bigger market and/or traditional hockey market teams at the expense of small/non-traditional markets.
Yes the Canes won last night but it would have been less likely they would have lost with a 3 goal lead.
Go Canes!!! Go Heels!!! Go CU Buffs!!!
angle reiteration
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 14:18 — jsymonSorry to repeat FurbishLousewart but the angle of the overhead camera favors the goalie. It makes the puck appear further toward the front of goal than it really is. This must be standard knowledge in the war room. I'm not a conspiracy buff but that is a seriously blown call that is hard to understand.
The goal judges with their
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 13:19 — robotron2084The goal judges with their red light switches are little more than figureheads these days. They have virtually zero say in whether it's a goal or not and the fact that the league has chosen to move them away from behind the net in order to seat an additional paying customer there only makes them more useless. That red light really doesn't have much if any more meaning these days than the goal horn. It just lets the folks on the opposite side of the building get an idea of what might be going on.
goal judge
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 12:55 — xpukguyNo one has mentioned that the goal judge missed it as well. Not surprised seeing that the NHL moved them to the corners, where they can barely see the puck go in from there. If the judge was behind the net where he belongs, perhaps the red light would've gone on.
It did
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 12:59 — FurbishLousewartThe red light did go on.
xpukguy is
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 13:47 — hockeyhicka little bit slow...We'll respectfully forgive him.
The camera position..
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 12:36 — raleighlion10The goal camera is not directly over the crossbar, it is 4 inches behind. The only way that angle would work is if there was a camera with a fish eye lens placed inside the crossbar pointed straight down. Lets just all be happy that the goal was never needed.
So?
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 12:57 — FurbishLousewart4 inches behind has a better chance of showing a no-goal than a goal. Think about it, the further you move back the more you will see an up-right puck touching the line.
I think they must have had some 70-year-old guy who forgot his glasses make that call. There should be mandatory weekly eye tests for these guys because they obviously haven't had one in a while.
The broadcasters said you have to see white between the puck and the goal line. Now if I know anything about what color is white, it's that color that's between the puck and the goal line in that shot.
Also, I'm not sure how much I can go along with "lets' just forget it and move on." I mean, how far do you go with that? If someone cheats, is it OK as long as they don't win? "Oh well, he took steroids but he didn't break any world records so it doesn't matter."
I also can't figure out how the "aych ee double-hockey-stick" the ref on the ice didn't call a shot that bounced inside the crossbar a goal.
Yo Furbish
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 14:24 — esteban1949like me you have the right to say and think all you want...but it won't change what was ruled by the folks in the war room...
just like a us supreme court judge has the final say...and in this...there is and will be no appeal ...have a nice day..
Go Canes !!
As much as I
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 12:17 — esteban1949would like to have it count..it don't...and that was yesterday...and it's time to move on and get ready for Wed. night...
Go Canes !!!
I've seen a lot of hockey
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 12:16 — figaroI've seen a lot of hockey and 99 times out of 100 when a shot hits the crossbar and doesn't obviously kick back out, it's called a goal by the ice officials. The laws of physics and logic tell you that the puck had to have been within the net, even if by an inch or so. That's what amazed me - that the on-ice official was so sure that the puck didn't cross the line that he called it no-goal. Even though the puck stayed within the confines of the goal opening. I mean, come on... not to mention that the goal judge lit the lamp.
The hockey gods got it wrong
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 11:55 — pedeeI agree. The camera shot directly over the top of the goal post clearly shows the puck perfectly parallel with the red line. There was "white space" in between! Geez, how hard was that to see?
LaRose Goal Called Ruled Non-Goal
Tue, 05/05/2009 - 15:58 — abramsdougThere is zero doubt in my mind that if the question were whether or not Boston scored on that shot, The NHL in Toronto would have called it a goal in about thirty seconds. There really is not a shred of doubt when one merely looks at the photo, much less drawing a straight edge (digital or physical) across the goal line. Surely, they also have a digital program to measure distances. Fortunately, it only makes for a good story; but it would have had the potential to give Boston an unfair advantage. Maybe while Toronto was watching the video, they might have noted the mugging of Seidenberg.
Pucked looked in
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 11:52 — GoShelfSince it didn't change the result of the game in terms of who won vs lost, it really doesn't matter. However, I would love to see the camera angle they had that gave them a shred of evidence that was not a goal. It was pretty evident on the VS feed that is was a goal. Once again, the Canes have to beat both the officiating group and the Boston Bruins, hope this doesn't happen either way where it affects the outcome of a game.
mistake by the "war room"
Mon, 05/04/2009 - 11:43 — hellfishAnybody that saw that overhead view saw that when the puck was parallel to the line that it was a goal. I mean you can't miss the view and before the still pic of it being over ,it looked like it was over on the first spin out of the corner also. It was some "original six team" preference crap IMO.