Goal…if you watch the replay, the ref who made the call is bending down to get at eye level of the cross bar…so why not just trust him?  or everyone else in Toronto..if this wasn’t Crosby who scored, there’d be no discussion.

Posted by greg on 12/23/08 at 07:47 AM ET

if this wasn’t Crosby who scored, there’d be no discussion.

...correct, because it would have been called “no goal”.  If we could simply trust the eyesight of officials, we wouldn’t have the need for replays.  Looks to me like Gary got on the Bat-phone to Toronto to make sure his baby boy got out of his slump.  Poor Buffalo can’t seem to get the breaks on illegal goals scored against them…at least this one wasn’t a Stanley Cup clincher.

Bad call.  Thanks, Gary. Ass.

Posted by Animal Drew from A Nightmare on Helm Street on 12/23/08 at 09:26 AM ET

Highly questionable but nothing definitive to overturn that.

Posted by HockeyJoe from Upstate New York on 12/23/08 at 10:11 AM ET

I think it was probably high, but none of those replays are especially clear. There have been far worse calls. I wouldn’t get to upset about that one.

Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 12/23/08 at 10:21 AM ET

Plus, if the ref says “goal” on the ice before reviewing…it’s now up to the Video guys to determine that it isn’t a goal.  they need to definitively prove that the ref was wrong…again, everyone gets so caught up in anything this poor kid does.

Posted by greg on 12/23/08 at 10:26 AM ET

Theres only one place to put the blame for this, and no its not Gary or Sid or the Pens. Its Buffalo having a total of 2 horrible cameras in the entire arena.  The ref on the ice called it a goal, even though he was so busy trying not to call the foul for strangling Sid and trying to to get killed by a Geno slapshot that never really happened that he probably had no idea what happened.  Now, if Buffalo had any cameras in the entire place, they might have an angle that showed it was or wasn’t a goal, but no definitive answer means you go with the call.

And quite frankly, I’m still not all that sure where the puck hit was above the crossbar. The stick was a good foot above the crossbar, but the puck hit the stick halfway down, so who knows.

And yes, if this was Ovechkin, it would have been the “Goal of the year” but instead it was crosby, so its a Bettman conspiracy.

Anyway, if you want to talk about a conspiracy, which every Wings fan on here does, how about the fact that penalties were 1-6 the game after the last time we played the Buffaslugs, they cried for weeks about the comment the ref made to Miller. So was the entire game just a makeup call so that Buffalo doesn’t cry too much?  I’d say theres more of a chance of that then a Gary Bettman conspiracy.

Posted by Kevin from Pittsburgh on 12/23/08 at 11:33 AM ET

Buffalo is to blame for the cameras?  BUFFALO?

I wasn’t aware the game was carried by Buffalo Sabres Broadcast Company last night.

There’s no broadcaster that provides the kind of cameras needed to be able to judge a high stick goal call. 

What a ridiculous use of the blame game.

Posted by HockeyJoe from Upstate New York on 12/23/08 at 11:37 AM ET

Cameras are different in each arena. Its the ARENA that has the specific areas for cameras.
You telling me you’ve never noticed different camera angles at different arenas? Are you really that blind?

I seem to remember many times that during a high stick call they had angles from glass level. Still not perfect but a heck of a lot better than broadcast level.

Anyway, at least I’m not blaming Crosby like half the idiots i’ve read. Like he somehow had something to do with it. Blaming the popcorn guy in the 3rd row for not having a camera makes more sense than blaming Crosby.

Posted by Kevin from Pittsburgh on 12/23/08 at 11:57 AM ET

WTF is Sid doing over there yapping at the officials?

Crosby, gesturing with his stick: “Hey, guys…I was movin’ my stick down like this when I hit the puck.”

Marouelli: “Sid, we got it. Your split-second impression is a hill of beans compared to the super slo-mo and HDTV they have in Toronto.”

Crosby: “Did you see the new Hockey News? People of power and influence? FYI, I’m on the cover.”

Marouelli: “We’re on the phone here, do you mind?”

Crosby: “Did you get a Christmas card from Gary? I did. Nice picture, his daughter’s wearing a Crosby sweater. Autographed.”

Marouelli: “Get the &$%@ outta here!”

Crosby, skating away: “Just trying to help. It’s all for the good of the game.”

Posted by shep on 12/23/08 at 12:16 PM ET

Probably high, but difficult to tell.

More likely that the officials didn’t get a clear look than that there was an intentional deference to Crosby.  I’ve seen worse calls.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 12/23/08 at 12:56 PM ET

As a Pens’ fan, I have to admit it looked like a high stick. I couldn’t believe they called it a goal.

Posted by Joe from Germany on 12/23/08 at 04:18 PM ET

IF the lines on this picture are correct, which with a bit of measuring you can figure out for yourself, then this goal is DEFINITELY LEGAL. As you can see, the puck hits the stick just below the line. Goal.

Picture here.

Posted by Kevin from Pittsburgh on 12/23/08 at 08:14 PM ET

If that pic proves anything (big if), it’s that the goal is illegal. The camera POV is higher than the far line drawn (presumably) perpendicular to the goal mouth. As Crosby’s stick is to be closer to the camera than that far line, and is also directly in between the camera and the far line, it must be higher than the far line also.

Posted by shep on 12/23/08 at 08:30 PM ET