Neil Diamond
New member
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.
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.
The Michigan OT Goal
- Thread starter Neil Diamond
- Start date
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.
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....
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.
I miss Christian and Mark.
Hockeybuckeye
Well-known member
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
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.
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
Gopher Hockey
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
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....
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
Registered User
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
..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.
..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.
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
I couldn't believe they called it a goal.
Where was the 'conclusive evidence' that supports overturning the on-ice call?
I couldn't believe they called it a goal.
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH12.pdf
From the rulebook:
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH12.pdf
From the rulebook:
Last edited:
wolverine318
Dark Lord of the Sith-Yost Regiment
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
It was pretty conclusive from this angle.
It was pretty conclusive from this angle.
wolverine318
Dark Lord of the Sith-Yost Regiment
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
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.
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.
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
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)?
right here
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
Gopher Hockey
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
While it very well may be fully over the line that shot is hardly conclusive.
While it very well may be fully over the line that shot is hardly conclusive.
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
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.
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.
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
And I doubt the officials had the benefit of ESPN's enhancements.
And I doubt the officials had the benefit of ESPN's enhancements.
wolverine318
Dark Lord of the Sith-Yost Regiment
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.
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.
Re: The Michigan OT Goal
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.
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.