Oilers Message As They Face Elimination in Game 5 Against Ducks
"Whenever you let in four plus goals, your odds of winning are not that high, so we need to fix that," said Kasperi Kapanen after Tuesday's morning skate, delivering the kind of plainspoken and rather obvious statements that seem to come so easily to NHL players.
Video Transcript
Well, it's completely outrageous that they called it a goal on the ice.
And, and that's, that's really where the controversy is here, is because how much does the call on the ice affect what they're looking at?
And I don't, I don't really have an answer.
I don't know exactly what And, and listen, I don't believe them anyway.
They're gonna tell you whatever.
Of course they're gonna say that they would have th- regardless- Yeah 'cause this is what the controversy is.
But here's my problem to start.
You've got this play on the ice that we're now in, in zoomed in, slow motion, stop time, still not entirely sure if it's across the line, but apparently they knew it was in on the ice.
Okay?
That's outrageous.
You have one referee that's even slightly in position to see, which he's, which he's not, and he's not out of position, but he's just not in a place that you'd ever be able to know if that puck's in the net.
Now, if he was standing there, pointing right away, saying, "Yeah, I saw that was in, and that was the decision he made," that's, that's w- fine.
I mean, I still disagree that you can think that's a goal for sure.
But if that's what he's doing, that's fine.
But when you have the only guy who's in any position on the ice to see whether it went in or not quite obviously has no idea, he's standing by the net looking around, puts his hands in the air.
He obviously didn't see it, which is, which is fine because it happened fast and it's hard to see.
So he makes no call on the play.
So please explain to me what the conversation was between him and the three guys in the neutral zone that wouldn't have been able to even see the puck at all come together and decide that that's a goal.
W- what's the conversation?
Like, I, I joked with you guys before, is it like, "You see something?"
"Nope."
"You see something?"
"Nope."
"Oh, they just showed it on the jumbotron and the crowd cheered.
It must be in.
Let's make the call."
'Cause that's the only thing that makes sense- Yeah on, on how they could call it a goal on the ice.
So that part of it to me is terrible, because there's no way you can confidently call that a goal on the ice.
So then the controversy comes is when they're reviewing this, yes, looking at it, common sense tells us that puck's in the net.
But when they're reviewing it, if they don't have a goal call on the ice, is that common sense that yes, it, it would It tells us that it's over the line, but is that enough to call it a goal if there's no goal call on the ice?
And that goal I don't exactly know.
Now again, the NHL is gonna say they would overturn it anyway.
That's a waste of my time, 'cause they're gonna say whatever they want.
And if, if the answer is that if the it was called no goal on the ice, and then it would've been no goal because it's not conclusive, it's, it, it your eyes tell you that it was, it probably was.
But if the rule is it's not conclusive, well then that, there's the problem.
So I don't know.
I mean, realistically was the puck in the net?
Probably, yes.
But is, does that make it the right call?
I don't know, 'cause there's a lot of things that factor into that
