Skip to content

Video: Lecavalier’s shot hits crossbar, both posts

Mar 25, 2014, 9:17 AM EDT

The Los Angeles Kings got an early second period goal from Jeff Carter in last night’s game against the Philadelphia Flyers, but Vincent Lecavalier nearly tied it just a couple minutes later when he was presented with a wide-open net thanks to a pass from Brayden Schenn.

Lecavalier took his shot, but it ended up hitting both posts and the crossbar. A review determined that it wasn’t a goal, but it had to have been a tough call, as you can see below:

“Honestly, I wasn’t sure,” Lecavalier told CSN Philly when the subject of whether or not his shot should have counted came up. “I thought it hit the back of the crossbar, like the back of the net under the bar … I couldn’t believe it, I don’t think I’ve ever seen three posts.”

It proved to be costly for the Flyers, who went on to lose 3-2. Meanwhile, Los Angeles has won three straight and has a comfortable hold on the third seed in the Pacific Division.

  1. ibieiniid - Mar 25, 2014 at 9:33 AM

    I feel like the arena horn guy prevented a rebound goal.

    • blomfeld - Mar 25, 2014 at 12:19 PM

      DIVINE INTERVENTION ?

      “but Vincent Lecavalier ‘nearly’ tied it just a couple minutes later” … Dadoun

      Well, the bottom line is that he ‘didn’t’ tie the game and we Kings went on to victory yet again ! :) Nonetheless, you do have to ask yourself … was that some fluke of physics ? … or is it possible that a ‘higher’ power is now guiding our enterprise during this crucial stage of the season ? Friends, I’m not a religious man as such, however I do sincerely believe that in addition to skill and conviction, ours is a team now being driven by ‘divine’ providence. Yes sir ! … just like we were two years ago ! And everyone from here to Katmandu sure knows what happens when the good Lord puts his money down on the LA Kings eh ? :)

      GO KINGS GO !!! … TODAY, TOMORROW AND FOREVER !!!!!!!

      PS Ovechkin: you’re going to help us tonight, whether you like it or not !!!

      • ibieiniid - Mar 25, 2014 at 12:46 PM

        lmao, classic blom.

  2. wtfkwp - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:19 AM

    “A review determined that it wasn’t a goal, but it had to have been a tough call.”

    Oh, please! While it was an “almost” goal, it wasn’t a close replay call. A GLANCE at the replay shows that it never appears to do more than hit iron. I happened to see the Flyers postgame show where they were trying to concoct some way that was a goal. Sorry. It wasn’t. The one with the phantom crosscheck WAS a goal, though. The complaints about the officiating were hilarious, given how much the home team benefitted from the calls most of the night.

    All that said, the Philly guys did play a hell of a good ten-minute game in the third.

    • girouxsalem89 - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:22 AM

      The announcers during the game basically said “It’s pretty clearly not going to be a goal, you can’t call that a goal based on the replay”

      Also, the LA bench seemed pretty quiet on the Carter call, you would think they would be upset with such a “Phantom” call.

      I realize you don’t like the Flyers but lets not exaggerate.

      • ron05342 - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:36 AM

        The L.A. bench was not quiet about the phantom cross-check. Sutter was giving it to the refs, but as a Kings fan there have been a number of bad calls this season by refs. I don’t have a problem with it myself as I have been watching hockey over 45 years and see refs screw up all the time; it’s all part of the game. It was a horrible call but good teams like L.A. must take them in stride and you move on and play your game.

        From the L.A. perspective, Jim Fox, who is the analyst for Kings game, pointed out two critical errors by the younger referee last night, and he usually gives the refs the benefit of the calls. Last night, clearly, Philly was the beneficiary of two horrible calls but couldn’t do anything with them.

    • valoisvipers - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:42 AM

      IDK The puck appears to change direction when it hits the back of the crossbar/netting. The viewing angle is a little bit from the front so the puck looks as if it doesn`t cross entirely past the crossbar. I would like to see a directly overhead view and see if we see any puck.

      • ibieiniid - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:46 AM

        idk man, it’s a pretty cut and dry no-goal. i’m glad they looked at it, but they made the right call.

      • mcphillthy - Mar 25, 2014 at 11:19 AM

        As a flyers fan I agree with the no goal call. It wasn’t enough video review to turn the call. It sucks but it happens. We have had some calls go our way and some not.
        At the end of the day, had the flyers shown up for the first two periods, this almost goal wouldn’t have had to be such a big deal. Stick to the plan and play play hard again the next game.

  3. avfanforlife - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM

    That really isn’t a tough call, or a bad call… If a post to post shot isn’t a goal, or a crossbar – post isn’t a goal, why would a post-crossbar-post be a goal. One CRAZY shot though. I’d give him 1/2 a point.

    • xbrightxredxbloodx - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:32 AM

      CRAZY is almost an understatement. New All-Star game contest? :D

  4. 50milessouthofdetroit - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:32 AM

    Why is the camera that far off of being on the goal line to begin with?

    • ibieiniid - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:37 AM

      i was wondering the same. that’s a bit much. makes it look like a curving puck when it hits that top post.

      it’s funny though, the other angle makes it look like there’s a water bottle or something on the top of the net that the puck bumps into and stays out, but the top view shows that there isn’t. that’s what I thought happened at first. so many illusions. crazy no goal.

    • ron05342 - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:37 AM

      That’s a television camera angle. Toronto had a better overhead camera view that we didn’t get to see.

  5. ibieiniid - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:34 AM

    can somebody find me a high-quality replay of that disallowed kings goal? I have a sneaking suspicion that Carter broke his stick over Timonen’s back on that play, but Center Ice isn’t in HD in my area so I couldn’t really see it too well.

    • ibieiniid - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM

      scratch that. i think it was just flex that I saw.

    • blomfeld - Mar 25, 2014 at 12:27 PM

      Here you go friend ! :)

      • ibieiniid - Mar 25, 2014 at 12:51 PM

        blom, be careful or i’ll break a stick over YOUR back.

  6. vbcaps - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:37 AM

    Weren’t they talking about putting a yellow line behind the red line where if any part of the puck touched the yellow line, it was geometrically impossible to not be fully over the goal line ?

    • valoisvipers - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:45 AM

      That might help sometimes and it certainly can not hurt.So why not?

      • blomfeld - Mar 25, 2014 at 12:29 PM

        “So why not?” …

        because it’s not necessary friend … :)

    • ibieiniid - Mar 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM

      i thought that was just somebody on here’s idea. that wouldn’t have helped one bit in this instance though. puck has to be on the ice for that to work.

  7. govtminion - Mar 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM

    If you find a way to hit iron three times on one shot like that, the NHL should award you two points. That’s amazing. (Not sure he’d agree right now, since it didn’t count at all…)

    That’s crazy, I’ve never seen that before.

  8. entitymn - Mar 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM

    Those announcers do not understand physics if they think it is possible to hit three round bars, come out of the goal, and have ever been fully across the line.

    I know he’d rather have the goal, but that’s the sort of play the people remember for a lot longer than who won the game it happened in.

    • ibieiniid - Mar 25, 2014 at 12:56 PM

      this engineer understands physics, and he says you’re wrong. that’s entirely possible. want me to draft it out in AutoCAD for you?

      short explanation, if the object is moving straight, and it hits 3 points, create an imaginary plane with those points, and that’s the plane the puck was on the whole time. unless one of them is inside the goal (they aren’t, the pipes are outside the goal), no point of that plane is inside the goal.

      GEOMETRIC NO GOAL!

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. J. Harding (1535)
  2. C. Anderson (1503)
  3. B. Bishop (1476)
  4. C. Price (1468)
  5. A. Ekblad (1388)
  1. M. Fleury (1368)
  2. M. Staal (1364)
  3. D. Alfredsson (1343)
  4. J. Giguere (1321)
  5. D. Setoguchi (1188)