PDA

View Full Version : Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here



Pages : [1] 2

JohnsonsJerseys
11-15-2015, 11:46 AM
Dear WCHA,

In a league that usually has a championship awarded and playoff positions set by single points in the standings, I can't wait to see what your officials were viewing during last night's 5 minute plus replay review which allowed them to OVERTURN the call made on the ice. I don't have the greatest TV in the world so just feel free to post the image here that shows the DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE required to overturn a call made on the ice.

The call will be considered equestrian droppings until evidence is presented.

Sincerely,
Ryan J

Red Cows
11-15-2015, 12:31 PM
I am certain Michigan Wolverine fans, somewhere, are giggling about this post and thinking warm thoughts about a certain NCAA game in St. Louis in 2011 in which 10 minutes were consumed overturning a no-goal call on the ice in their favor. Any review that takes the length of time involved in either of these situations is evidence to me that the zebras are LOOKING for a reason to overturn a call. Because the irrefutable video evidence is either there, or, it isn't.

bueller
11-15-2015, 04:22 PM
After a replay overturned a goal call in Ferris' favor, I was told by Pi that getting the call right was more important than the video replay standard. This came after an Ohio State goal was overturned for a high stick at the circle and the only video replays were the overhead crease cameras. Goal was disallowed based on what the officials saw, video replay was just another club in the bag.

Edit: http://www.uscho.com/recaps/2009/11/21/haines-ot-score-lifts-ferris-to-sweep-of-ohio-state/

Laker Dude
11-15-2015, 05:10 PM
Not that it would have made a difference in the outcome of the game, but in the Icebreaker tournament LSSU had a goal overturned even though they could not check replay due to technical difficulties.

BGDrew
11-15-2015, 05:53 PM
I'm sure the league office called in everyone on a Sunday to write up a response to a post on a message board.

I was sitting right next to the replay official in the press box. The blade of the stick which was handling the puck was still on the blue line as the MTU skater on the right wing was clearly two feet offside.

Demanding an apology for this is like BG filing a protest after the official deflected the puck on Tech's first goal.

manurespreader
11-15-2015, 06:28 PM
I'm sure the league office called in everyone on a Sunday to write up a response to a post on a message board.

I was sitting right next to the replay official in the press box. The blade of the stick which was handling the puck was still on the blue line as the MTU skater on the right wing was clearly two feet offside.

Demanding an apology for this is like BG filing a protest after the official deflected the puck on Tech's first goal.
Good you could see that because I can't, Though I do agree it's whining.
However, even if you could see the blade of the stick, and what I see is the heel, there is no reason that the puck has to be on the stick, it certainly could be in front of it and often is as you know. Third, I would debate the two feet. maybe,... maybe, two inches IF the puck is in fact on the stick, which there is no evidence of, but like I said, it's whining and quibbling so it's not worth arguing about.

My other problem with the call is that the linesman is right on the line, he made the ok call then and the play continued for another half minute before the score. That's a long time to go back and review.

John J. MacInnes
11-16-2015, 08:14 AM
The blade of the stick which was handling the puck was still on the blue line as the MTU skater on the right wing was clearly two feet offside.


First of all, the position of the stick has no bearing - it's where the PUCK is. And two feet is a pretty big exaggeration to try and make your point. I'm pretty sure if Heinonen was two feet offside that the linesman would have blown it dead.

The only thing that would prevent the lino from knowing the exact location of the puck was that Eick is a left handed shot and the puck would be obscured by the stick blade. But there isn't any way to tell that from up top because his body is in the way on the replay.

Here are the 2 frames of video in question:

Heinonen's skate still on blue line https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1zFczrqHzLxOUZISm5Bb2hrV00/view?usp=sharing
Heinonen's skate over the blue line https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1zFczrqHzLxdy1FNTAtMUdwUk0/view?usp=sharing

Judge for yourself.

manurespreader
11-16-2015, 10:43 AM
First of all, the position of the stick has no bearing - it's where the PUCK is. And two feet is a pretty big exaggeration to try and make your point. I'm pretty sure if Heinonen was two feet offside that the linesman would have blown it dead.

The only thing that would prevent the lino from knowing the exact location of the puck was that Eick is a left handed shot and the puck would be obscured by the stick blade. But there isn't any way to tell that from up top because his body is in the way on the replay.

Here are the 2 frames of video in question:

Heinonen's skate still on blue line https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1zFczrqHzLxOUZISm5Bb2hrV00/view?usp=sharing
Heinonen's skate over the blue line https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1zFczrqHzLxdy1FNTAtMUdwUk0/view?usp=sharing

Judge for yourself.
Actually I think Heinonen's skate is still touching in the second picture as the very tip is obscured by the fact it's covered in snow. Also note that no time was added back on the clock after all this.
I don't know how the ref could say with a straight face that he saw the puck in the video, because obviously he did not.

JohnsonsJerseys
11-16-2015, 11:26 AM
My point in posting this wasn't to actually get an apology. The league is never going to admit they made a mistake and throw the refs under the bus. My point is why have video review if the refs will just go with their gut feel rather than what they see (or in this case can't see). If the ref's opinion is the deciding factor then there is no reason to have video review because they've already given an opinion on the ice in real time.

A puck going off the ref into the net is a legal play, just like a puck going off the Zamboni door, glass post, defender's rear, etc. It's all part of the surface of play. Going back and reversing a call with no evidence to do so is in a whole different category (which shouldn't exist). Full disclosure, if someone from Tech wouldn't have speared a Falcon in the crotch after the whistle, none of this would be discussed because Tech would have likely won the game outright. One stupid selfish play set the stage to let the refs make another stupid decision which will ultimately cost Tech one or more positions in the end of season league standings.

Ryan J

John J. MacInnes
11-16-2015, 11:44 AM
I do seem to remember it was Bowling Green who got the benefit of a non-call when they hauled a Tech defender down and kept the puck in the zone to score the tying goal in a 4-4 game in Houghton. If we're going to legislate backward on goals, why not start calling penalties that happened in the buildup too - after all, the puck never came out of the zone that time either...:rolleyes:

Shirtless Guy
11-16-2015, 11:48 AM
Actually I think Heinonen's skate is still touching in the second picture as the very tip is obscured by the fact it's covered in snow. Also note that no time was added back on the clock after all this.
I don't know how the ref could say with a straight face that he saw the puck in the video, because obviously he did not.

yes, time was added back, thats how I knew the goal was overturned before the ref showed it. I knew it was bad because I saw the clock operator looking up and changing the clock. The next faceoff started at 5:13. Goal would have been at (I think) 5:02.

purpleinnebraska
11-16-2015, 12:21 PM
I do seem to remember it was Bowling Green who got the benefit of a non-call when they hauled a Tech defender down and kept the puck in the zone to score the tying goal in a 4-4 game in Houghton. If we're going to legislate backward on goals, why not start calling penalties that happened in the buildup too - after all, the puck never came out of the zone that time either...:rolleyes:

There are a lot of grumblings already with the NHL coach's challenge on offsides for the reasons you guys have mentioned - what are we paying 2 linesmen for? If some other possible infraction is spotted, why not call that as well? Where does it all stop? Also factor in the interruption of the flow and momentum of the game, and maybe most importantly, taking away scores in a game where we're already at near-historical lows in scoring. This may be something that gets changed in the near future, but that's no consolation to you guys now.

Of course, as a Maverick fan, I'm still upset over a super-lengthy review in last year's NCAA tournament that overturned an immediate and emphatic call on the ice, so I'm probably not totally objective on this issue.

BGFan
11-16-2015, 01:27 PM
FWIW, if this situation were reversed would you be turning your heads in shame for being the beneficiary of the call? Do you believe that Pearson would NOT have asked for the play to be reviewed? You win some, you lose some. It was a good coaching decision for Bergeron to ask for the review like any good coach would and should do. It is a tool that all coaches have at their disposal and should be used if there is any question as to the legitimacy of a goal. Given the amount of time it took for the refs to make the call it was obvious that they were trying to make sure that they were making the correct one.

Shirtless Guy
11-16-2015, 01:40 PM
FWIW, if this situation were reversed would you be turning your heads in shame for being the beneficiary of the call? Do you believe that Pearson would NOT have asked for the play to be reviewed? You win some, you lose some. It was a good coaching decision for Bergeron to ask for the review like any good coach would and should do. It is a tool that all coaches have at their disposal and should be used if there is any question as to the legitimacy of a goal. Given the amount of time it took for the refs to make the call it was obvious that they were trying to make sure that they were making the correct one.

I don't blame BGSU at all. They had the right to ask for review and got it. The problem lies with the replay I've seen and the fact that I can't see the puck so no idea how there is definitive proof that it was offsides. Would I be turning my head in shame as a beneficiary of a bad call? No, but I certainly would speak of the fact that we got lucky benefiting from a bad decision. I look at the amount of time they spent in the opposite way, if it took that long to figure out, there can't possibly be definitive evidence and the call should have stood.

JohnsonsJerseys
11-16-2015, 05:14 PM
I don't blame BGSU at all.I completely agree with SG. This is not at all about BGSU doing what was in their best interest. This beef falls squarely on the proper officiating of the game, or in this case, lack there-of. No one has yet presented an image which shows Michigan Tech offside on the play. I have no problem with the play being requested for review. I would also have no beef with the call if it was screwed up on the ice and there was no proof to overturn it and it stayed screwed up. However when you call it one way on the ice, can't see anything different off the ice, but then change the call anyway...

When someone shows me what the refs saw that proves the play was offsides, then I'll be the first to admit we got what we deserved. If we haven't seen it by now, I doubt it exists.

Regardless of this play, I think it is dumb to say you can go back and review an offsides as far back as the last whistle. A team could be in the zone for 2 - 3 minutes and eventually score a goal. Then after all that action you want to rewind the clock and say "Oops we missed a call 4 minutes ago, let's do it over from that point..." really? According to the current rules that could happen. Likely? No. Possible? Yes.

Ryan J

SCSU Euro
11-16-2015, 08:26 PM
My point in posting this wasn't to actually get an apology. The league is never going to admit they made a mistake and throw the refs under the bus.

Could not disagree more. The WCHA used to hand out "sorry we blew that call" apology letters all the time; if you want to see what one looks like ask Motzko, he's got a few lying around his office. I'll preface by saying I have no dog in this fight and I didn't see the play, but from what I have read and the still shots what I think is that its a really, really close judgement call, and close enough where they don't need to issue an apology. Its when they blow a call that is irrefutable that they issue apologies. This is one that if they'd made the call either way they'd not have to apologize, cuz it was too close to call either way.

Shirtless Guy
11-16-2015, 09:18 PM
Could not disagree more. The WCHA used to hand out "sorry we blew that call" apology letters all the time; if you want to see what one looks like ask Motzko, he's got a few lying around his office. I'll preface by saying I have no dog in this fight and I didn't see the play, but from what I have read and the still shots what I think is that its a really, really close judgement call, and close enough where they don't need to issue an apology. Its when they blow a call that is irrefutable that they issue apologies. This is one that if they'd made the call either way they'd not have to apologize, cuz it was too close to call either way.

The point is that if it's that's clos, you go with call on ice.

SCSU Euro
11-16-2015, 10:55 PM
The point is that if it's that's clos, you go with call on ice.

And I get that, though I'm not a fan of that logic. Its the same thing in football; if you see something live, in a split-second, from a bad, maybe obstructed view, and you make a call, then that overrules a call when you get multiple angles and you can slow it down and pause and rewind if you're 99% sure you got it wrong? I say if you review it and you're 51% right the call was wrong, overturn it. But that's just one man's opinion.

And again, I didn't see the play, but is there a chance that they took a look, decided to overturn it, and then had to spend more time figuring something else out like how much time to put on the clock? Not saying there is, but I feel like there could be something else going on there.

SJHovey
11-17-2015, 07:32 AM
I was watching a football game in the past couple of weeks where a similar situation came up. The call went one way on the field. Before the replay the color analyst was stressing the importance of the call being made one way, and the need for "irrefutable" evidence to overturn it. Like this Tech play, it was hard to say there was some evidence that you could look at that said yes, this call should be overturned, but the replay sure seemed to suggest it should be overturned and sure enough it was.

The broadcasters raised many of the same questions/arguments Tech fans have in this thread, and they asked their officiating expert to explain. I thought his response was interesting.

He said that even though the on-field officials know about the "irrefutable" evidence standard, or whatever it might be called, there is a growing feeling among officials that once they get in the replay booth it is more important to them that they ultimately get the call right, rather than overturn a predetermined "standard of proof." In other words, I can't actually see the football cross the line (definitive, clear proof), but I know it has to be there because of all else that I can see. I thought that was a really interesting point, and one that I have come to believe in.

If someone had just handed me the photos you guys posted earlier and asked me if I thought Tech was offside, knowing nothing more about the play, I would have told you they were offsides, even though I can't see the puck. I can see the players, and I can see the blade that is pushing the puck just about to enter the blue line as the other Tech player has clearly reached the far side of the blue line. Furthermore the Tech player with the puck is skating slightly diagonal to the blue line as opposed to directly across it, stretching the distance he must cross the blue line by a slight amount.

Seeing that, and applying my years of watching hockey, I would say Tech was offside. I agree there is not "irrefutable" proof of it because I literally can't see the puck, but if I were sitting in the replay booth and wanting to get the call ultimately right, I might very well go the way these officials went.

manurespreader
11-17-2015, 08:05 AM
I was watching a football game in the past couple of weeks where a similar situation came up. The call went one way on the field. Before the replay the color analyst was stressing the importance of the call being made one way, and the need for "irrefutable" evidence to overturn it. Like this Tech play, it was hard to say there was some evidence that you could look at that said yes, this call should be overturned, but the replay sure seemed to suggest it should be overturned and sure enough it was.

The broadcasters raised many of the same questions/arguments Tech fans have in this thread, and they asked their officiating expert to explain. I thought his response was interesting.

He said that even though the on-field officials know about the "irrefutable" evidence standard, or whatever it might be called, there is a growing feeling among officials that once they get in the replay booth it is more important to them that they ultimately get the call right, rather than overturn a predetermined "standard of proof." In other words, I can't actually see the football cross the line (definitive, clear proof), but I know it has to be there because of all else that I can see. I thought that was a really interesting point, and one that I have come to believe in.

If someone had just handed me the photos you guys posted earlier and asked me if I thought Tech was offside, knowing nothing more about the play, I would have told you they were offsides, even though I can't see the puck. I can see the players, and I can see the blade that is pushing the puck just about to enter the blue line as the other Tech player has clearly reached the far side of the blue line. Furthermore the Tech player with the puck is skating slightly diagonal to the blue line as opposed to directly across it, stretching the distance he must cross the blue line by a slight amount.

Seeing that, and applying my years of watching hockey, I would say Tech was offside. I agree there is not "irrefutable" proof of it because I literally can't see the puck, but if I were sitting in the replay booth and wanting to get the call ultimately right, I might very well go the way these officials went.
I, at first, agreed with you, but then after looking at it more, it appears that the puck was not touching the stick. there is another angle available and he didn't put his stick to the puck until it was already over the line.
I do agree though that getting the call right is important and that refs do not always follow the rules if they think that they would not get it right by doing so.