Gabe Vilardi High Sticked The Puck

42 Comments

1. 

   Neutral Zone Highlights 3 years ago

   It's clear as day contact was made. Reminds me of back in the day when D. Sedin had a disallowed goal against LA in the playoffs and it was deemed to be kicked in even though every example the NHL has for the rule says it should have been a good goal. League is very suspect in the way certain teams always get the breaks and other teams always get the shaft.

2. 

   How Dare You Exist 3 years ago

   i see

3. 

   Cat TT 3 years ago

   It's OK let them have their highstick goal and win! Oilers will sweep them in the next three games to end it on hometown! 😅

4. 

   Henry S 3 years ago

   Sometimes you see what you want to see

5. 

   Bryan Armstrong 3 years ago

   If he was twisting his wrists, the logo towards the bottom of the stick would rotate too

6. 

   Ed Schramm 3 years ago

   so off this angle, it does look like it was possibly high stick. though vilardi was turning, which could account for the blade rotating as well. however, the bigger problem? the review room only is allowed certain camera angles when reviewing a play, and it must be 100% conclusive. that there is debate between people on every angle i've seen thus far is condemning for anyone trying to conclusively overturn the call. i don't know which camera angles they have to work with, but my guess is the cameras must be specific fixed ones so they have consistent angles to work with, as opposed to cameras that may shift from play to play.
   if there is a shadow of a doubt that the puck was hit with a high stick, the call on the ice cannot be overturned. since the contact, if it occurred was so minor, i wouldn't be shocked if this fell into the "we THINK it's a high stick, but we can't prove it" category for Toronto, which would mean that the goal stands, by their video review rules.

7. 

   Jamie Payne 3 years ago

   Ehh… it’s subjective even to the refs. Same as Makar goal last year

8. 

   Michael Tomalty 3 years ago

   But did the Edmonton player touch it first is the question

9. 

   Mike 3 years ago

   The puck was flipping as it was coming up the whole time. Gotta show more than this to make your case.

10. 

    gazzalanche 3 years ago

    Irrelevant. Nurse should suffer for being a terrible defender and that is enough for the goal to count. 🤣🤣🤣

11. 

    lj291261 3 years ago

    He did not touch the puck – no high stick!!! Toronto is 100% right. Whoever believes his stick touched the puck – get an eye doctor appointment asap! 😂😂😂😂😂😂

12. 

    Daryl Renz 3 years ago

    Bullshit. Look at the other angle it never touched, so oilers fans stop crying.

13. 

    Michael Lucas 3 years ago

    Still not conclusive , good call

14. 

    Jagged Dagger 3 years ago

    Can we put this beside the Makar not offside and the Kessler not goaltender interference?

15. 

    AD80SirStirs 3 years ago

    I think you're probably right, yet still it's inconclusive – Alas, "think" is the operative word in this post, as well as in your video.

16. 

    Rosco 3 years ago

    Bro, you just said you THINK it touches. That's not conclusive. Good goal.

17. 

    Johnny the Walrus 3 years ago

    refs 2 – oilers 1

18. 

    Samuel Tyler 3 years ago

    imo likely contact but not definitive

19. 

    Greta Thanos 3 years ago

    It was too close to call.

20. 

    jvb 3 years ago

    The important thing is that the Oilers lost

21. 

    Ken Cedor 3 years ago

    Definitely not a goal

22. 

    Oleg Evstigneev 3 years ago

    Пора понять уже ,высоко поднятая клюшка Короля и Нефтяника это разные вещи.

23. 

    jumbolarge108 3 years ago

    Ok now do a frame by frame analysis of if you said “should’ve” or “shouldn’t” been a goal at 1:03

24. 

    Thrash 3 years ago

    Im not even mad about this, im more mad about mcdavid being pimned down for like 10 seconds and no csll as wrll as thr obvious slashing on Yamo thst happend less than a minute later and no call. Literally would have been a 3 on 5

25. 

    Nicholas Wopperer 3 years ago

    So you’re saying it’s impossible he could’ve twisted his stick a minuscule amount?! That’s ridiculous. The word inconclusive is used for a reason.

26. 

    Mark Feland 3 years ago

    The whole "inconclusive" excuse is BS

27. 

    Davis Mavis 3 years ago

    The big question is: How many close calls are going to go to each team when all is said and done. Chances are it will be heavily lopsided and random chance doesn't dictate that.

28. 

    Finley Currie 3 years ago

    A better angle is needed to determine if the puck hit Vilardi's stick.

29. 

    Joe Scalia 3 years ago

    The NHL has the most accurate video that is view by the Staff in toronto and it determined they could not see where the puck hit Vilardi"s stick. you all can assume all you want the goal counted. Oilers need to stop they're crying . That is what they do all the time. After every ref call they rush the ref and cry about the call.

30. 

    The Goods 3 years ago

    Agreed, it hit his stick.

31. 

    Will 3 years ago

    it wasnt called on the ice so the video has to be conclusive… it seems like it did touch his stick but also there is the possibility that he did twist his stick. You cant see the puck's trajectory or the way its flipping change so you can't overturn that

32. 

    Alex 3 years ago

    This video is pointless. The call was that it was inconclusive, your video proves that. Stop wasting our time and giving oilers fans a carrot on a stick to keep complaining about it.

33. 

    Bill B. 3 years ago

    You're really reaching aren't you? There's nothing definitive to prove his stick touched the puck. All the little circle graphics and slo-mo replays in the world won't help prove it. Let it go. Time to move on. 🤣

34. 

    Indiana Jones 3 years ago

    Clearly inconclusive

35. 

    Ronald Norwood 3 years ago

    Conclusive

36. 

    Christopher Manabat 3 years ago

    OR…. the puck reached its apogee. Just saying

37. 

    hkmoving 3 years ago

    Given the comment "either that or Vilardi twists his stick at that moment" is reason enough for the play to stand as inconclusive. Everyone is saying the refs need to get out of the game and let the boys play…yet at the same time screaming for the refs to call this…even if touched for a millisecond it didn't affect the run of play. Ekholm still had a chance to clear the puck and didn't.

38. 

    DVo 3 years ago

    I think ur wrong… U presented 2 of ur perspectives of what happened but neither can be determined 100% correct, so the play is inconclusive… inconclusive is the correct call, that's just the bottom line… When u say it looks like "this" but could've possibly been "that", eventho unlikely, that proves neither u or the Toronto refs can 100% say it's clear enough to overturn the call on the ice… U literally put doubt in ur own observation & without certainty came to an opinion conclusion instead of a no doubt about it conclusion, that says everything… Refs in Toronto do not make opinion conclusions, they only can overturn with obvious 100% certainty…

39. 

    Bradley Kunst 3 years ago

    The most obvious way for me to tell when I was watching the game and had limited time to review. I noticed rotation rate of the puck flipping increased dramatically once his stick touches it.

40. 

    Rorschach 3 years ago

    You’re not a good playoff team if you have to whine about non-calls and complain about taking unsportsmanlike conducts. That’s the way NHL playoff hockey has always been. Losers complain about officiating and get irritated. Winners grit it out and find a way. And in this case they do it with no 1OAs.

41. 

    Mario Land 3 years ago

    Vilardi wisks the twig artfully in this play seemingly applying the expecto patronys spell neutralizing the puck with electomagnetic waves( never touched ) devastating the McDavid dementors in one fell swoop eh

42. 

    Ryan Van Hierden 3 years ago

    I like the analysis but pretty sure he's turning bacause he's in the corner… Not sure that touches even by your logic.