Originally posted by BGFan
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
Collapse
X
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
Originally posted by John J. MacInnes View PostI 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...
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
Originally posted by manurespreader View PostActually 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
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...
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
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
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
Originally posted by John J. MacInnes View PostFirst 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/0B1z...ew?usp=sharing
Heinonen's skate over the blue line https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1z...ew?usp=sharing
Judge for yourself.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
Originally posted by BGDrew View PostThe 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.
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/0B1z...ew?usp=sharing
Heinonen's skate over the blue line https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1z...ew?usp=sharing
Judge for yourself.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
Originally posted by BGDrew View PostI'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.
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.Last edited by manurespreader; 11-15-2015, 06:50 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
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/Last edited by bueller; 11-15-2015, 04:28 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here
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 JTags: None
Leave a comment: