The Michigan OT Goal

[frogtown_pond]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

You sound like the cranky old traditionalists that were against replay in major league baseball. Replays show what actually happened and not what the ref thinks what happened. They give credibility and accountability to refs to allow them to make the correct call. I am willing to spend a couple minutes to get the correct call. I cannot stand fans who feel differently.

There is no reason for this rule. How are we supposed to know what is going in the refs head? Secondly, this rule is and can be easily abused and allow for corruption in the officiating ranks. As I said I before, how are we supposed to know what is going on in the refs head, if all the ref needs to do is say I meant to blow the whistle earlier.

Basketball happens in milliseconds too. With High def cameras running at a 60 Hz we now get a almost a perfect image of what actually happened and not what the refs thinks what happened in his mind because he was out of position.

Wow that was easy to dismantle.

There is a great reason for this rule. Hockey is played on a frozen surface, whistles freeze up all the time! Watch the replay, as soon as the puck gets covered the ref ( in great position) puts the whistle to his lips. It is possible he blew the whistle and nothing came out because it was frozen. I felt all the off sides seemed to have slow whistles all weekend.

 

[Nick Papagiorgio]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

its a great rule. pace at the college level is in fractions of seconds, and in the time it takes for a whistle to be blown a lot can happen. the moment the ref intends to stop play, that is final. there are so many whistle malfunctions that can happen that this rule has to exist. slide off his fingers, get caught on a jersey thread, the pea could become frozen, he could be shielding himself from a shot or a body collision next to him, the list goes on. to think he's not allowed to stop play just cuz he couldn't blow a whistle literally the mili-second he wanted to is beyond retarded, and it shows a lot about people who really don't understand the philosophy behind the rule.

This is well said. Basically touches on everything I would have said.

The referee decides when play is stopped. Not a 1080p HD camera. There is a lag between the whistle and the intent to call the play dead. If the puck goes in between that lag, too bad for the team that had their fake goal that they didn't deserve rightfully taken away. And yes, people that don't understand it are monumentally stupid. Time for everyone to move on.

 

[wolverine318]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

This is well said. Basically touches on everything I would have said.

The referee decides when play is stopped. Not a 1080p HD camera. There is a lag between the whistle and the intent to call the play dead. If the puck goes in between that lag, too bad for the team that had their fake goal that they didn't deserve rightfully taken away. And yes, people that don't understand it are monumentally stupid. Time for everyone to move on.

Yes, the ref decides when play should end with his whistle. If he blows it too late, then too bad. It happens in basketball all the time, so they go to replay and base upon when the whistle actually blew, not when the ref felt it should have blown. There is no accountability.

 

[nudgy_olsen]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

So why does the clock stop when the whistle blows and not when the ref intends to blow it?

That's why the rule doesn't make sense.

because 99% of the time the official is able to blow the whistle when he intends to. but there are times when they cannot fast enough (see my list of reasons above.) and in the 1% when they are not able to, they generally do not reset the clock because it is a mere second, and the delay of game just to constantly reset clocks a fraction of a second is senseless. unless it is well into the third period will they adjust it. these are petty concerns coaches themselves don't even care about. it seems the fans sure do though. perhaps the only difference is that the coaches fully understand and support the rule.

also, when this type of situation occurs, the issue is not about resetting clocks. the whole reason this rule exists is because of how much can occur in a fraction of a second. adding a fraction to the clock keeper is not even the slightest concern in these situations. no one cares that the official wanted to stop it at 12:01.9 and it ran to 12:01.4.

if you don't get it you probably never will. hope this helps.

 

[nudgy_olsen]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Yes, the ref decides when play should end with his whistle. If he blows it too late, then too bad. It happens in basketball all the time, so they go to replay and base upon when the whistle actually blew, not when the ref felt it should have blown. There is no accountability.

haha more basketball talk outta this guy. hilarious.

no, officials decide to stop play when they see something that warrants a stoppage. they dont stop it when they feel like it. the whistle merely lets everyone else know he has seen a stoppage occuring event. and if the whistle fails, his warrant still exists and will be enforced. see this natural train of logic?

easiest most common example: ref sees man in crease. this warrants a stoppage. before he can raise whistle goal is scored, he immediately waves it off and face off is nearest neutral zone. this happens all the time, and is a full fledge example of this rule in effect. to argue that the offending team should not only be allowed a pass on their violation, but then awarded a goal on top of it, all because the official couldn't raise his whistle in a fraction of a second is pretty stupid.

heres 1 more just to show how stupid you sound: if I commit a penalty in the other teams zone, and they yank their goalie so they have an empty net to get the man advantage, and one of their players makes a mistake getting it out, and i snap shot it in a fraction of a second into the open net for a goal before the official can blow his whistle, are you saying my goal counts? what about the penalty? haha see how retarded you sound?

are you saying that if an official's whistle became disabled somehow, he should let play continue until the buzzer stopped play? if his whistle breaks, are you saying he no longer has any authority at all to stop play? haha

oh god too easy. you'll never understand. sorry your team doesn't know how to score more goals after they get them appropriately and legally waved off. you had a good year though, you'll be back next spring. good luck bud

 

[wolverine318]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

haha more basketball talk outta this guy. hilarious.

no, officials decide to stop play when they see something that warrants a stoppage. they dont stop it when they feel like it. the whistle merely lets everyone else know he has seen a stoppage occuring event. and if the whistle fails, his warrant still exists and will be enforced. see this natural train of logic?

easiest most common example: ref sees man in crease. this warrants a stoppage. before he can raise whistle goal is scored, he immediately waves it off and face off is nearest neutral zone. this happens all the time, and is a full fledge example of this rule in effect. to argue that the offending team should not only be allowed a pass on their violation, but then awarded a goal on top of it, all because the official couldn't raise his whistle in a fraction of a second is pretty stupid.

heres 1 more just to show how stupid you sound: if I commit a penalty in the other teams zone, and they yank their goalie so they have an empty net to get the man advantage, and one of their players makes a mistake getting it out, and i snap shot it in a fraction of a second into the open net for a goal before the official can blow his whistle, are you saying my goal counts? what about the penalty? haha see how retarded you sound?

are you saying that if an official's whistle became disabled somehow, he should let play continue until the buzzer stopped play? if his whistle breaks, are you saying he no longer has any authority at all to stop play? haha

oh god too easy. you'll never understand. sorry your team doesn't know how to score more goals after they get them appropriately and legally waved off. you had a good year though, you'll be back next spring. good luck bud

It is ****ty rule with zero accountability. In every other sport play ends with the whistle. If there is a question about whether a play got in time before the whistle, they go to replay with audio and visual evidence. Only in hockey you put 100% trust in the refs. A ref can decide, oops I was out of position and should have blown it earlier, arbitrarily ending play. My opinion, too bad. You were out of position, then you can always go to replay. It is like this in every sport. It doesn't matter if it cold or hockey is faster. We have the technology to get a better image of plays with high definition replay.

Your example of a man in the crease and delayed penalty, should go to replay. To say it will slow the game down is just an excuse to let poor officiating go unchecked.

I am a scientist and borderline agnostic, we require a thing called evidence. To believe anything without evidence is called faith. I question way too many things in life to put trust in any authority without evidence.

 

[wolverine318]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

because 99% of the time the official is able to blow the whistle when he intends to. but there are times when they cannot fast enough (see my list of reasons above.) and in the 1% when they are not able to, they generally do not reset the clock because it is a mere second, and the delay of game just to constantly reset clocks a fraction of a second is senseless. unless it is well into the third period will they adjust it. these are petty concerns coaches themselves don't even care about. it seems the fans sure do though. perhaps the only difference is that the coaches fully understand and support the rule.

also, when this type of situation occurs, the issue is not about resetting clocks. the whole reason this rule exists is because of how much can occur in a fraction of a second. adding a fraction to the clock keeper is not even the slightest concern in these situations. no one cares that the official wanted to stop it at 12:01.9 and it ran to 12:01.4.

if you don't get it you probably never will. hope this helps.

LOL....I never seen a moron so confident. For those 1% times we have replay for a reason.

I am willing to bet most coaches actually do not support this coach. Of course we have not performed a scientific survey to get division 1 head coaches feelings on this matter. I seem to remember a nice 5 minute long rant on this rule by Red Berenson during his weekly coaches show after we got jobbed by Graveleese from the ECHA after the Miami/Michigan midwestern regional final.

I love your last line. You sound like some of the students I teach in my undergraduate chemistry courses when they attempt to argue obviously completely incorrect answers on exams and homeworks. I guess myself as the professor if I do not get their point, I will never will.

 

[wolverine318]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Rangers/Caps game tonight. Enough said.

 

[nudgy_olsen]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Your example of a man in the crease and delayed penalty, should go to replay. To say it will slow the game down is just an excuse to let poor officiating go unchecked.

I am a scientist and borderline agnostic, we require a thing called evidence. To believe anything without evidence is called faith. I question way too many things in life to put trust in any authority without evidence.

so it will go to replay, and the video will show that there actually was a man in the crease, so the official actually was correct in choosing to stop play at that instant, and his judgment was correct all along and we didn't need the video, and the end result is exactly the same except we have delayed the game by several minutes just to satisfy your bs requirements to satisfy your paranoia? lol. okay.

before there was video at hockey games were you just a sweaty paranoid train wreck when you attended? hahaha oh god the fix is in the fix is in!! haha

your evidence reasoning is flawed. because you don't have to believe anything the official says, therefore you're not putting faith in him. but what his judgment is, is final regardless if you agree, so you'll just have to live with that. its neat that you're a scientist, but you're a scientist thats retarded about whats best for hockey. and that's okay, this isn't what your area is.

and you never answered any of this:
"heres 1 more just to show how stupid you sound: if I commit a penalty in the other teams zone, and they yank their goalie so they have an empty net to get the man advantage, and one of their players makes a mistake getting it out, and i snap shot it in a fraction of a second into the open net for a goal before the official can blow his whistle, are you saying my goal counts? what about the penalty? haha see how retarded you sound?

are you saying that if an official's whistle became disabled somehow, he should let play continue until the buzzer stopped play? if his whistle breaks, are you saying he no longer has any authority at all to stop play? haha"

but thats cuz you can't without sounding retarded. you haven't said anything new in a while so you must be finished. good luck in your masters degree student teaching or whatever you're doing. take care,

-nudgy

 

[wolverine318]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I don't care what people that use the word "retarded" think. My wife works with those with traumatic brain injuries. It is one of those words when you use it, I could care less about the validity of your statement, I will automatically shut you out. This goes along with the N word and f word (referring to those of the LGBT community).

I am sorry but my logic is not flaw. I didn't say I always agree with their decision if it goes to review. Thanks for taking my statement out of context. I am content as long as they use actual physical evidence and not just some arbitrary rule that allows them to decide in their head when the play should have stopped and not when they actually stopped it.

The whistle is not going to be disabled. It is a freaking whistle. when that freak incident occurs we will cross that bridge. Besides we have two refs and two other linesmen the ref can rely upon if that incident occurs.

I am far beyond masters you moron. Try PhD. I doubt you could even read and comprehend even one sentence of my research publications.

If you want people to take your points seriously stop using slurs like "retarded."

 

[supe]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Yes, the ref decides when play should end with his whistle. If he blows it too late, then too bad. It happens in basketball all the time, so they go to replay and base upon when the whistle actually blew, not when the ref felt it should have blown. There is no accountability.

So you are saying when there is a bad goal (the whistle should have blown but was blown "too late" so "too bad"), it should count? That is crazy. In that scenario there would be no accountability, because it removes the decision process from the referee and makes it "well gee the whistle didn't blow, so it counts, too bad." THAT is no accountability. Having the ref use his judgment and explain his decision makes him much more accountable. I prefer the ref focus on being correct with his call rather than being a speedster with the whistle. Blowing the whistle too EARLY would be a much bigger problem IMO.

As for basketball, I'm not sure I've ever seen a basketball replay rely on hearing a ref's whistle. If the play in question is getting the shot off in time, they use visual review to see the clock relative to when the ball left the hands (they will listen for a horn only if it is electronically synched with the visual clock). If the review is for time to be put on the clock, say the ball fell out of bounds for example. The review is to look at what the clock said when the ball hit out of bounds, not when the whistle blew.

 

[The Rube]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I am sorry but my logic is not flaw.

I am far beyond masters you moron. Try PhD. I doubt you could even read and comprehend even one sentence of my research publications.

It's hard to take you seriously with flawed grammar.

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I am far beyond masters you moron. Try PhD. I doubt you could even read and comprehend even one sentence of my research publications.

With all due respect to a fellow wolverine fan, your advanced degrees do not put more value on your opinion.

Well, unless you have a PhD in Hockey, and did your thesis on rules, and how they are enforced. But I really doubt that your publications, where you do know something more than others, has anything to do with hockey.

Other than that, what you and other posters here knows about the rules is fairly equal. And you are talking about an opinion- it's pretty clear that your opinion is that the intention of whistle rule is flawed. Others think that it is not. Since this is opinions- you are both right.

The fact is that it IS a rule, and the call was correct. If it were incorrect, there were enough ref's on and off the ice to make the correction.

I, too, wish we scored, just like the Miami game a year ago. But the ref's intention overruled what happened. Just like back in Buffalo against Minnesota. But the only one of those calls that actually decided the game was Miami- in this case- you can't say that the final would have been 3-2, and the rest of the goals would have happened, just like I can't say that we would have beaten Minny- they could have scored, too. In the end, it doesn't matter, we can't go back and fix the games.

BTW, since you are so upset about accountabilty- since the refs also use thier judgement to call penalties- it would be fair to say that it's the same accountability. If the ref bosses don't like how their judgement is playing out, they first try to change it, and then relieve the ref of their job. But there are a lot of judgement calls in hockey that all have the same accountability.

 

[CLS]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

It's hard to take you seriously with flawed grammar.

It's also a little difficult to symphathize with someone's indignance at the use of "retarded" when they use the term "moron". That's not bad grammar or flawed logic. That's hypocrisy

 

[wolverine318]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I am sorry but there is HUGE difference between using a slur that demeans those with mental handicaps and the word moron.

I agree that the call made on Saturday was the correct call according the rules. I am just saying that the intent rule that was invoked is flawed.

*please mind my typos. This is an internet forum not a formal writing environment where I actually care about proofreading.

 

[wolverine318]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

So you are saying when there is a bad goal (the whistle should have blown but was blown "too late" so "too bad"), it should count? That is crazy. In that scenario there would be no accountability, because it removes the decision process from the referee and makes it "well gee the whistle didn't blow, so it counts, too bad." THAT is no accountability. Having the ref use his judgment and explain his decision makes him much more accountable. I prefer the ref focus on being correct with his call rather than being a speedster with the whistle. Blowing the whistle too EARLY would be a much bigger problem IMO.

As for basketball, I'm not sure I've ever seen a basketball replay rely on hearing a ref's whistle. If the play in question is getting the shot off in time, they use visual review to see the clock relative to when the ball left the hands (they will listen for a horn only if it is electronically synched with the visual clock). If the review is for time to be put on the clock, say the ball fell out of bounds for example. The review is to look at what the clock said when the ball hit out of bounds, not when the whistle blew.

I have seen it in invoked basketball when the shot clock malfunctions and they must go off a ref's stop watch. I have seen it in football too when in the same situation.

I prefer there to be actual evidence. I have zero time for faith based ventures.

 

[billmich88888]

I have seen it in invoked basketball when the shot clock malfunctions and they must go off a ref's stop watch. I have seen it in football too when in the same situation.

I prefer there to be actual evidence. I have zero time for faith based ventures.

i believe the hoops vs hockey arguement is flawed in that basketball refs generally have the whistle in their mouths at all times, whereas hockey refs have to bring the whistle up to their mouths (a few tenths of a second delay)

 

[wolverine318]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I think I will follow Champ Kinds' example for this thread...

 

[gomavs#1]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Billmich - you got it - this thread has spread to many other controversies. Quite the soothsayer.

 

[geezer]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Not only is it hilarious that this thread is still going strong, but

I am sorry but there is HUGE difference between using a slur that demeans those with mental handicaps and the word moron.

we've discovered the new Champion of Nonsense!