What's new
By:
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

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Wol4ine said:
And the not so funny thing is, it appears as though folks that are neither Wolverine or Maverick fans but wear black and white striped shirts tend to side with the "good goal" argument. Hmm...
Click to expand...

I see plenty of non-UMi/UNO fans saying, "no goal" per the rules.

kdilks said:
Overhead also shows the puck under his skate and over the line.
Click to expand...

The overhead angle does not allow the viewer to see the puck behind the line, even though most would agree it most probably was behind the line.

Que sera, sera.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

It doesn't matter now anyway.

If they'd spent 10 minutes reviewing it, I'm sure they could've proven the puck Hunwick was sitting on in the back of the net in the 3rd period went in before the whistle blew as well. Maybe if UNO had stood around complaining about it until they reviewed it or if UNO had gotten hosed on a call last year, they'd have made that choice.

Ultimate point, it doesn't matter. Goals are scored all the time and waived off, Goals are waived off all the time when they're legitimate. The point is, ref's suck and they always will.

Go CC
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

5thYearFreshman said:
It doesn't matter now anyway.

If they'd spent 10 minutes reviewing it, I'm sure they could've proven the puck Hunwick was sitting on in the back of the net in the 3rd period went in before the whistle blew as well. Maybe if UNO had stood around complaining about it until they reviewed it or if UNO had gotten hosed on a call last year, they'd have made that choice.

Ultimate point, it doesn't matter. Goals are scored all the time and waived off, Goals are waived off all the time when they're legitimate. The point is, ref's suck and they always will.

Go CC
Click to expand...

It's when the ref intends to blow the whistle, not when the whistle actually blows.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

kdilks said:
Overhead also shows the puck under his skate and over the line. At this point, I don't think there's really even any indecision about whether or not the puck went in, just people complaining about how they didn't think the video evidence was definitive enough. And even some of those people have changed their tune today once the posted videos allowed them to replay it and pick out the same proof the refs saw yesterday after analyzing for 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

It's pointless to attempt to reason with a "Husker-reject"...
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Buck 'em said:
Says the guy that was wondering why he gets negative rep. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I would say that you'll learn but you're only going to be in a conference with them for a total of three years. Trust me, they are evil and bitter little trolls. Their hatred of all things Michigan stems from Jed Ortmeyer deciding to leave Omaha for UM years ago.
 
kdilks said:
Overhead also shows the puck under his skate and over the line. At this point, I don't think there's really even any indecision about whether or not the puck went in, just people complaining about how they didn't think the video evidence was definitive enough. And even some of those people have changed their tune today once the posted videos allowed them to replay it and pick out the same proof the refs saw yesterday after analyzing for 10 minutes.
Click to expand...
In the 2005 national title game Peter Manino made a glove save where the momentum carried his glove behind the goal line. It was called no goal. With the elevated angle from the other end of the ice you cannot tell if the puck was on the ice or elevated due to parallax.

I will say I have not seen a replay, only the stills posted here, so I can't say for sure if it was the right call or not.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
In the 2005 national title game Peter Manino made a glove save where the momentum carried his glove behind the goal line. It was called no goal. With the elevated angle from the other end of the ice you cannot tell if the puck was on the ice or elevated due to parallax.

I will say I have not seen a replay, only the stills posted here, so I can't say for sure if it was the right call or not.
Click to expand...

So explain this to me, how could the puck be on the ice in one view and not on the other? Simple deductive reasoning should show you that it was a goal.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

UMICH - our hatred for all things Michigan has much to do with how successful Michigan was against UNO for many years. And, probably more than that, it was the assumption, whether fair or not, that UNO never would get a fair shake against the Wolverines in the CCHA. We were the little guy and were treated as such by many of the McInchaks of the world. Most UNO fans have no idea who you are talking about...seriously. Most UNO fans could really care less about Jed Ortmeyer.

With Dean Blais in charge - I like our chances against Michigan in the future. After all, with the exception of last night's fluke win, Blais owns Berenson. Period.
 
UMICH said:
So explain this to me, how could the puck be on the ice in one view and not on the other? Simple deductive reasoning should show you that it was a goal.
Click to expand...
All views are elevated and this parallax is a factor. Deductive reasoning can't be used to determine a goal. It must be conclusive.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I suppose the other reason that Michigan is not appreciated in Omaha has much to do with our home crowd. Whenever Michigan comes to town, every idiot with a Michigan football jersey shows up. Michigan fans living in Omaha come out of the woodwork to show their support, and to attend their first hockey game of their lives. It gets fairly annoying. On the other hand....when North Dakota came to town, the ND fans in Omaha that came out of the woodwork had a clue about the game. They actually were ardent fans of UND hockey.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
All views are elevated and this parallax is a factor. Deductive reasoning can't be used to determine a goal. It must be conclusive.
Click to expand...

So in one shot the puck must be on the ice but the in the other shot the puck could be in the air? I guess that's a Minnesota education...
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

gomavs#1 said:
I suppose the other reason that Michigan is not appreciated in Omaha has much to do with our home crowd. Whenever Michigan comes to town, every idiot with a Michigan football jersey shows up. Michigan fans living in Omaha come out of the woodwork to show their support, and to attend their first hockey game of their lives. It gets fairly annoying. On the other hand....when North Dakota came to town, the ND fans in Omaha that came out of the woodwork had a clue about the game. They actually were ardent fans of UND hockey.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, there are an awful lot of part-time Michigan fans. But on this board I'm pretty sure that all Michigan fans are die-hard. Why all the hate towards us?
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Telling you, a lot of the hatred goes back to 12 years of getting spanked by you guys. I'm just thankful that we can now finally put up a fight. It used to be, I would go to a UNO-Wolverine game and hope not to get blown out by 5 goals. Better let you get back to getting ready to watch the regional finals. :(
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

With as large a university as UM is, you have to expect a fair amount of part-time Michigan fans. They are everywhere here in Omaha. No doubts that UM fans that post on boards are die-hard....good luck to you this evening. As a WCHA member, I have to be rooting for CC. Just hope for another good game, and hopefully it doesn't come down to officials. ;)
 
UMICH said:
So in one shot the puck must be on the ice but the in the other shot the puck could be in the air? I guess that's a Minnesota education...
Click to expand...

Reread what I wrote. I have only seen the still pictures posted in this thread. And I never said one angle showed the puck was in the air and one showed it was on the ice. I'm saying that ANY view from an elevated position makes it difficult to determine whether or not the puck is on the ice.

And if you read on you will notice that I also said I don't know if it was the correct call or not since I have just seen the still pictures. (I'd make a snarky comment about Michigan reading comprehension, but I do know several people from there and they can read just fine...so, I'm going to assume it's just you).
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
Reread what I wrote. I have only seen the still pictures posted in this thread. And I never said one angle showed the puck was in the air and one showed it was on the ice. I'm saying that ANY view from an elevated position makes it difficult to determine whether or not the puck is on the ice.

And if you read on you will notice that I also said I don't know if it was the correct call or not since I have just seen the still pictures. (I'd make a snarky comment about Michigan reading comprehension, but I do know several people from there and they can read just fine...so, I'm going to assume it's just you).
Click to expand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRQLZ29WEVU

Doesn't get any clearer than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top