PDA

View Full Version : NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

The Rube
03-25-2011, 07:50 PM
That was horrid. You can't theorize where the puck is. I don't care who won that game, but MI got a huge break that was incorrect, IMO.

rufus
03-25-2011, 07:51 PM
NCAA needs to change that rule either way, it has nothing to do with the call they made, but there is no way refs should be allowed 10 minutes to review something. Time limits need to be established.

Yoiu want it done quick, or do you want the right call to be made?

Especially when the call means one team is going home for the season.

Dirty
03-25-2011, 07:52 PM
Yoiu want it done quick, or do you want the right call to be made?

Well they did neither, so it's rather irrelevant in this case.

leswp1
03-25-2011, 07:55 PM
That was horrid. You can't theorize where the puck is. I don't care who won that game, but MI got a huge break that was incorrect, IMO.

Word. If you have to think that hard no way you can say it is for sure. More irritating were the commentators who were homers for MI. We finally muted the TV. First there was the no way you can tell. After 5 minutes the guy had talked himself into seeing what he said he clearly couldn't right off. :rolleyes: I didn't get to watch long enough to care who was winning but those guys made me want it to be a NG.

Eaglefan06
03-25-2011, 07:55 PM
Yoiu want it done quick, or do you want the right call to be made?

Especially when the call means one team is going home for the season.

I want a decision to be made in a reasonable amount of time so that it doesn't completely destroy the flow of the game.

Also using more time does not mean they are going to get the call right all the time.

Bronzebacks
03-25-2011, 07:56 PM
I all for getting things right and they got this one right. If you look at the view from the other end of the ice you can see the puck kicked out of the net by his back leg.

I agree that is how it appeared from the opposite view of the ice, but you can not tell that the puck was 100 percent in from that angle. Not enough proof to make that call. I think this review warranted the time they put in to it. Regardless, a lot of people would have disagreed with the call either way.

WSUWarriors
03-25-2011, 07:57 PM
The Michigan goal reminds me somewhat, of this situation.

******** title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/N_6ULCf5Y-0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Gurtholfin
03-25-2011, 07:59 PM
I agree that is how it appeared from the opposite view of the ice, but you can not tell that the puck was 100 percent in from that angle. Not enough proof to make that call. I think this review warranted the time they put in to it. Regardless, a lot of people would have disagreed with the call either way.

If you cannot see it all the way over the line, and it was called "no goal" in game, then it's no goal. Nothing to disagree with.

It happens in hockey every so often and you move on.

klbaum1077
03-25-2011, 07:59 PM
I agree that is how it appeared from the opposite view of the ice, but you can not tell that the puck was 100 percent in from that angle. Not enough proof to make that call. I think this review warranted the time they put in to it. Regardless, a lot of people would have disagreed with the call either way.

Im an ohio state fan so i dont have a stake in this but i would have called this a goal from that replay.

slurpees
03-25-2011, 08:01 PM
If you cannot see it all the way over the line, and it was called "no goal" in game, then it's no goal. Nothing to disagree with.

It happens in hockey every so often and you move on.

the thing was, you could see it behind the line. it looked like the cross bar and the pad obscured exactly where the goal line was, but it appeared that the portion of the puck that you could see was far enough behind where the goal line would be that it would not be possible for it to not be behind the goal line. that's what i saw at least. camera angles were not good.

Gurtholfin
03-25-2011, 08:06 PM
the thing was, you could see it behind the line. it looked like the cross bar and the pad obscured exactly where the goal line was, but it appeared that the portion of the puck that you could see was far enough behind where the goal line would be that it would not be possible for it to not be behind the goal line. that's what i saw at least. camera angles were not good.

I did not see a view that showed that. If they have that, it will come out and then we can all be happy that they got it right.

uaafanblog
03-25-2011, 08:06 PM
I think the puck was in. But if I'd been the referee ... I wouldn't have called it a goal. Reviews are supposed to be objective. That means you need clear visual evidence. Clear visual evidence is not multiple angles that "suggest" the puck crossed the line. Even if that's a fairly reasonable conclusion. Objective evidence is lacking. This was a decision made by a preponderance of subjective evidence. Incorrect call even though I think the puck went in.

Bronzebacks
03-25-2011, 08:06 PM
If you cannot see it all the way over the line, and it was called "no goal" in game, then it's no goal. Nothing to disagree with.

It happens in hockey every so often and you move on.

That is what I'm saying. If it was called a goal on the ice, then it should stand as there would not have been enough evidence to overturn that call. Tough break for UNO. Nuts and Bolts, they got .....

Eaglefan06
03-25-2011, 08:06 PM
the thing was, you could see it behind the line. it looked like the cross bar and the pad obscured exactly where the goal line was, but it appeared that the portion of the puck that you could see was far enough behind where the goal line would be that it would not be possible for it to not be behind the goal line. that's what i saw at least. camera angles were not good.

It "appeared" that way, but like you said the cross par and pad obscured the view and you couldn't see it. If you apply the rule as it is directly written, then you can't over turn the "No goal" call on the ice because there was no conclusive evidence to say it was in the net. Common sense and probability are not enough to warrant conclusive evidence.

Dirty
03-25-2011, 08:08 PM
the thing was, you could see it behind the line. it looked like the cross bar and the pad obscured exactly where the goal line was, but it appeared that the portion of the puck that you could see was far enough behind where the goal line would be that it would not be possible for it to not be behind the goal line. that's what i saw at least. camera angles were not good.

In the 2005 NC game, DU goalie Peter Mannino saved a puck in the net with his glove. It was obviously in the net, but since you couldn't see the puck it was called no goal. This was a terrible call.

ActionJoe
03-25-2011, 08:11 PM
the thing was, you could see it behind the line. it looked like the cross bar and the pad obscured exactly where the goal line was, but it appeared that the portion of the puck that you could see was far enough behind where the goal line would be that it would not be possible for it to not be behind the goal line. that's what i saw at least. camera angles were not good.

Not sure what replay you are watching but there is no replay I saw where you can physically see the puck across the goal line. The ref called it a no goal, if you are going to over turn that you need some pretty good evidence. The overhead goal line cam was not it. You can not see a thing. On a call like this, you also can't assume that just because it did this and that, that it had to have been behind the goal line.

Chris_NH
03-25-2011, 08:11 PM
You can't theorize where the puck is.

That's it, right there.

slurpees
03-25-2011, 08:11 PM
I did not see a view that showed that. If they have that, it will come out and then we can all be happy that they got it right.

in the overhead view, you can see the moving puck for a split second on the left foot of the goalie as hes kicking it out. it seemed right then that it was behind the line, and if you took a tape measure and held it across the goal line, there was no way the puck could be anything but behind it. but again, i only caught one view for a second becuase i left the room for a minute, so im not the best authority on it. both announcers commented though that you could see hte puck on the foot behind the obscured goal line.

uaafanblog
03-25-2011, 08:11 PM
In the 2005 NC game, DU goalie Peter Mannino saved a puck in the net with his glove. It was obviously in the net, but since you couldn't see the puck it was called no goal. This was a terrible call.

In the first year of "beta testing" video review, Nathan Lawson batted out a DU puck with the inside of his glove that appeared to be across the line. Video replay only showed the puck going into his glove and part of the glove across the line, you could definitively not see the puck. Don Adam called it a goal.

unomavfan
03-25-2011, 08:12 PM
I sure hope to see a view that shows the puck completely across the line because I haven't seen one yet. I'm watching ESPNU right now and they looked at all the replays and said it wasn't a goal. I don't know how you make that call.