3 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Yup they didn’t use this lengthy time to review, they took this lengthy time to develop and confirm the rationale behind calling it a good goal and this is what they came up with. Player did not direct the puck with his skate directly at goal and goaltender propelled it into own net. Translation: garlbly guck. 
 

Listen, who knows, even if they made the correct call by waving it off, doesn’t mean we would have won the game but it sure as heck made things alot more difficult for the visiting team.

Let’s see what the Jets have now facing the adversity and pressure of losing the next game in a hostile environment that will result in heading home to play an elimination game.

I actually think if they called it a good goal based on the video being inconclusive, the Jets accept that and move on.  But to come up with the BS rationale the officials did threw them for a loop.  You can make the argument that they need to be mentally stronger and play on, but when the officials start making up rules, it has to be deflating.

Edited May 12, 2025May 12 by Tony Fresco

2 hours ago, Tony Fresco said:

I actually think if they called it a good goal based on the video being inconclusive, the Jets accept that and move on.  But to come up with the BS rationale the officials did threw them for a loop.  You can make the argument that they need to be mentally stronger and play on, but when the officials start making up rules, it has to be deflating.

With you on the bs rationale, with you on the the Jets need be mentally strong, with you on them being deflated by a bizarre ruling, with you on Jets need to accept and move on, not with you on the video being inconclusive. The one angle clearly showed the Stars player kicking the puck toward the net.

Go Jets Go.

40 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

The one angle clearly showed the Stars player kicking the puck toward the net.

Go Jets Go.

Yeah, I'd saying calling it inconclusive was not an option, so they went with bull excrement.

The inconclusive part would have been whether the puck nicked the stick of Petrovic or the defender on its way to the net.  The kick was clear as day.  Call on the ice was a goal.  Need conclusive evidence to overturn.  

In any event, it's a moot point 

2 hours ago, Tony Fresco said:

The inconclusive part would have been whether the puck nicked the stick of Petrovic or the defender on its way to the net.  The kick was clear as day.  Call on the ice was a goal.  Need conclusive evidence to overturn.  

In any event, it's a moot point 

Disagree but yea it’s moot. Move on.

2 hours ago, Tony Fresco said:

The inconclusive part would have been whether the puck nicked the stick of Petrovic or the defender on its way to the net.  The kick was clear as day.  Call on the ice was a goal.  Need conclusive evidence to overturn.  

In any event, it's a moot point 

Except that's not what they said, but yes, let's move on.