The Michigan OT Goal

[BigRedTerrier]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I didn't hear much bias out of either announcer. It refutes your point "everyone else who's not a UNO or MI fan thinks it's inconclusive!" I'm a fan of neither and I'm convinced from what I saw the puck was in.

The color guy played for Michigan, but in his defense he waffeled back and forth, leaning towards thinking it would be a no goal.

Did the puck go in? Yes. Is there a view where you can clearly see the puck crossing the line? Not really.

I actually give props to the refs for making the right call, as opposed to sticking to the letter of the rule book. The spirit of the rule is to get the call right and they did.

[gomavs#1]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

BigRed- I do agree with the commentary. For the most part, it was fairly unbiased through the game. However, if I were a former player for the team in question...I would probably waffle my way back to whatever opinion suited my team as well. In other words, I'm not surprised that he would state it was a goal in the end....

[HockeyMan2000]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and after looking at the far distant replay from the other end of the ice, it does APPEAR as though the puck had crossed the line. Problem with that is the angle can't be determined because the shot was from 100 feet away.

Here is the only issue I have with the whole situation. The call on the ice is no goal. Two things: 1) if it takes 10 minutes to find the puck, aren't we trying to find a way to CALL it a goal, instead of confirming the call on the ice?, 2) if you have to call three other people in to see the replays, isn't that THE VERY definition of "inconclusive?" If one guy can't determine that it is a goal, it automatically is inconclusive.

I will be at peace when someone can refute the above....with a justifiable explanation of how those two things are NOT true....

Best post on the subject. I could care less who won, I wanted to see it end fairly. Taking 10 minutes when there was no conclusive evidence it went in (as likely as it might have been that it did) and THEN calling it a goal was garbage. In the NHL, that wouldn't have been a goal. If you're going to go to the replay in the first place, either there's evidence to support that it went in or there isn't. The game should not have ended on that call.

[Runsub5]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

The announcers and analyzers pretty much said that it was "probably" in, "common sense says it's in," but also said there was NO conclusive evidence that it was in, and the refs were wrong to overturn the on-ice call.

I agree with you. Not that my opinion means anything. If the officials saw what I saw when they reviewed the play, that is NOT conclusive evidence. On ice call should not have been overturned.

[bronconick]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Pretty clearly a goal based on logic/common sense.

It's just that we've all seen dozens, if not hundreds of goals waived off despite common sense because of no "proof", so having a OT goal decided mainly on common sense and a camera angle from the other end of the ice is surprising.

[mngopherguy]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

And the other funny thing is, it appears as though folks that are neither Wolverine or Maverick fans tend to side with the "inconclusive" argument. Hmm.....

I could careless about UNO or Michigan. I don't see how they could overturn anything simply because it probably went in.

[mngopherguy]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Really was a great series of plays. Reminded me of Paul Martin's "save" in '03.

I was thinking the same thing. Then I started pouting remembering when we had defensemen who could play like Martin.

[Wol4ine]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

And the other funny thing is, it appears as though folks that are neither Wolverine or Maverick fans tend to side with the "inconclusive" argument. Hmm.....

And the not so funny thing is, it appears as though folks that are neither Wolverine or Maverick fans but wear black and white striped shirts tend to side with the "good goal" argument. Hmm...

[slurpees]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Slurpees - I hope you are not a reporter or have any hopes of going into journalism. Misquoting is a major sin in that profession. Since this is a message board, I suppose I'll let it slide. What I stated, and go ahead and go to the second page of this thread, was that those folks that aren't Mav or Wolverine fans "tend" to fall on the side of inconclusive. You quote me as saying "everyone" agrees with my assessment. Not true. Us in the media business call that misquoting.

I'm going to let it slide that you're upset from a brutal loss, but for christ's sake, this is a message board, get off your "us in the media business" throne. Listen to your own argument, there are no elements of journalism here! I paraphrased using quotation marks for the purposes of underscoring what you said, not for journalistic integrity. This isn't the place for splitting hairs and mincing words. This is a message board!

*****http://i200.***********.com/albums/aa37/fitch256/unomichigan2.jpg******

The announcers and analyzers pretty much said that it was "probably" in, "common sense says it's in," but also said there was NO conclusive evidence that it was in, and the refs were wrong to overturn the on-ice call.

Nope. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRQLZ...layer_embedded

0:11:
Color: And that's in the net.
PxP: Yeah, it is.
Color: That puck is in the net.

Hey look, I quoted correctly!

[gomavs#1]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

It stings a bit less knowing that many unbiased opinions support the idea that it shouldn't have ended like that.

[The Rube]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Nope. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRQLZ...layer_embedded

0:11:
Color: And that's in the net.
PxP: Yeah, it is.
Color: That puck is in the net.

Hey look, I quoted correctly!

I should have clarified that I was referring to the announcers/analyzers during the intermissions of the later games/etc. That was an error on my part.

[gomavs#1]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Paraphrased? How does changing the entire meaning of a sentence constitute paraphrasing? Do you agree that it is totally different to say: "people TEND to side with the idea that the goal is inconclusive" vs. "EVERYONE that isn't a Mav/Wolverine fan agrees with my argument?"

You see the difference right?

[Neil Diamond]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Dude, that is the puck lying flat on the ice and clearly there is white between the line and the puck. Case closed. It is basic Euclid geometry. Some people here need to retake high school geometry.

Michigan fans now resorting to Euclid gemoetry to justify a brutal call.

Typical.

[gomavs#1]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

And I say "us in the media business" because I actually am in the media business, thus the word "us." Not message board business. Actual media business, the "us" referred to my colleagues and I. Sorry for the confusion.

[Neil Diamond]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

someone needs to photoshop a puck into that "photo evidence". not seeing it.

UM fans will have an easier time finding photgraphic evidence of Bigfoot than evidence that call was correct.