PDA

View Full Version : The Michigan OT Goal



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Neil Diamond
03-26-2011, 09:58 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnkle8bTlHM&feature=player_embedded

May be the worst call, EVER.

I, for one, am happy to see the Wolverines leave the CCHA. Officials cater to those whiny-*** bi***** so bad it's now become a joke.

fr joe
03-26-2011, 10:03 AM
Where was the 'conclusive evidence' that supports overturning the on-ice call?:(

gomavs#1
03-26-2011, 10:40 AM
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....

Jeff_Jackson_for_Pres.
03-26-2011, 10:50 AM
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.

You are so right on the mark.

Hockeybuckeye
03-26-2011, 10:51 AM
The officials are only permitted to use the overhead view for review rulings. If there was irrefutable evidence to overturn the ref's initial "no goal" call then I'm a Wolverine! When they interviewed Piotrowski on the ruling it was all bulls**t from him, that guy has thrown more games in his career than I can remember plus he and Red are best golfing buddies in the off season.

Driftryder
03-26-2011, 10:53 AM
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....

Agreed

gomavs#1
03-26-2011, 11:01 AM
Glad to see my suspicions on the definition of "inconclusive" are being confirmed. Either way, third place in the WCHA in our first year is not a bad start. We didn't get our business done with Bemidji and we were lucky that things fell into place to get into the Big Skate. Mavs have a bright future....

northeastern
03-26-2011, 11:06 AM
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....

..it took them that long.. should have just let the kids continue play.
Not very nice.

On the bright side.. you have Blaise.. UNO will be back. :)

steve66
03-26-2011, 11:08 AM
Where was the 'conclusive evidence' that supports overturning the on-ice call?:(


I couldn't believe they called it a goal.

Greyeagle
03-26-2011, 11:08 AM
The officials are only permitted to use the overhead view for review rulings.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH12.pdf

From the rulebook:

Logistics and Equipment. The instant-replay official must be located in a
secluded area of the building with an unobstructed view of the ice surface.
The location must be large enough to seat three people and have space
necessary for monitors, replay and recording equipment.
The instant-replay official must be provided with a 20-inch monitor for
replay, with other equipment to be designated by the tournament committee.
All potential replay angles will be made available for review. All relevant
personnel shall be made aware of what angles will be available.
The instant-replay official must be supplied a telephone with direct
contact to the timer’s bench.
HR-104 Appendix C
For NCAA tournament competition, the NCAA will be responsible for the
expenses involved with wiring the replay equipment.
The television producer shall “burn in” the game clock showing the time
remaining in the period during the last minute of each period.

wolverine318
03-26-2011, 11:12 AM
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7052/goalo.jpg

It was pretty conclusive from this angle.

wolverine318
03-26-2011, 11:14 AM
I couldn't believe they called it a goal.

right here

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7052/goalo.jpg

Malts18
03-26-2011, 11:15 AM
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH12.pdf

From the rulebook:

Ok, that helps a bit, but still... this was far from "conclusive evidence" to overturn the original "no goal" call. Feel bad for the UNO kids. They did not deserve to leave the tournament on a call like that.

Malts18
03-26-2011, 11:17 AM
right here

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7052/goalo.jpg

That is what you are using as "conclusive evidence"???? Whoah. No wonder it took 10 minutes and three guys to make that call. Granted, it might well be over the line, but how do you know that for 100% certainty if you cannot see the puck (likely under his pad)?

Driftryder
03-26-2011, 11:20 AM
While it very well may be fully over the line that shot is hardly conclusive.

Pants
03-26-2011, 11:26 AM
My problem is the on-ice call was no-goal. I find it hard to believe anything you looked at for 10 minutes could say otherwise. Had the initial call been "goal", that would be different. But they should have upheld the on-ice call

Greyeagle
03-26-2011, 11:27 AM
Ok, that helps a bit, but still... this was far from "conclusive evidence" to overturn the original "no goal" call. Feel bad for the UNO kids. They did not deserve to leave the tournament on a call like that.

Agreed. Really tough to find out you've lost 10 minutes after the play was over....
I think the WCHA (and possibly other leagues) use only the overhead camera during the regular season reviews and somehow this was extrapolated to include the NCAA tourney as well.

Greyeagle
03-26-2011, 11:29 AM
While it very well may be fully over the line that shot is hardly conclusive.

And I doubt the officials had the benefit of ESPN's enhancements.

wolverine318
03-26-2011, 11:39 AM
That is what you are using as "conclusive evidence"???? Whoah. No wonder it took 10 minutes and three guys to make that call. Granted, it might well be over the line, but how do you know that for 100% certainty if you cannot see the puck (likely under his pad)?

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.

Wol4ine
03-26-2011, 11:41 AM
First, the reason it was called a 'no goal' was because the ref was just getting back from a potty break. What the heck was he doing in the corner? There was no reason to be that far out of position.

Second, if you look at just one picture, no it's not conclusive. Just looking at the picture in the red circle you say, "WTH is that?" But if you look at the picture once the puck is kicked out and you can clearly identify the puck, then go back in sequence one frame at a time, you can conclusively identify the puck in the red circle. You can see the black puck, the blue crease, the darker goal line, AND white ice between the puck and goal line.

Third, just because it took 10 minutes doesn't prove it was inconclusive. He was being thorough. Perhaps after a few minutes the first ref conluded it was a goal. Then he asked the second ref to verify, he came to the same conclusion, then the third ref took a look and said as much.

Good goal, good overturn.