NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

[Gurtholfin]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

You can't theorize where the puck is.

That's it, right there.

[slurpees]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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.

[slurpees]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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.

difference between the two is that the puck is visible in this instance and apparently not in that instance. so if the puck is obviously over the line, and visible even for a split second, but the goalie's pad obscures the goal line, it's automatically no goal?

[The Rube]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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.

AND it is what angles the ref are ALLOWED to see.

"Probably" and "common sense says" have no business in making a call on replay. It's conclusive visual evidence.

[Zim]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

What a shame for the game to end on such an inconclusive call. Sorry UNO fans.

[slurpees]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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.

the in game announcers seemed to believe after seeing everything that they could see the puck.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC

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.

I'm not even sure of that based on the fact that the puck must be all the way over the line. If even a 16th of an inch is breaking the plane of the goal line, it's not in.

With no clear view of this, I don't know how this could be an overrule.

I agree that there's circumstantial evidence, but that shouldn't be enough in a tourney game.