USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
- Thread starter Eaglefan06
- Start date
rufus
rock and roller
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
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.
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
#BanBiddy
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
Well they did neither, so it's rather irrelevant in this case.
Well they did neither, so it's rather irrelevant in this case.
leswp1
New member
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
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.
I didn't get to watch long enough to care who was winning but those guys made me want it to be a NG.
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.
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
Quest to be the Best
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
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.
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
New member
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
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.
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
Do You Like Phil Collins?
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
The Michigan goal reminds me somewhat, of this situation.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/N_6ULCf5Y-0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The Michigan goal reminds me somewhat, of this situation.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/N_6ULCf5Y-0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
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.
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
Registered User
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
Im an ohio state fan so i dont have a stake in this but i would have called this a goal from that replay.
Im an ohio state fan so i dont have a stake in this but i would have called this a goal from that replay.
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.
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.
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
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.
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
AKA - "Drop The Puck"
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.
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
New member
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
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 .....
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
Quest to be the Best
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.
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
#BanBiddy
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 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.
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
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.
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.
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
That's it, right there.
That's it, right there.
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
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.
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
AKA - "Drop The Puck"
Re: NCAA West Regional - 3/25, 3/26 - BC, Michigan, UNO, CC
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.
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.
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.
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.