The Michigan OT Goal

[Nevergoodenough]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Another downfall of the BTHC.....putting up with Minny and Michigan Fans.....God help us.

Amen to that....

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

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.

Unfortunately, it's coming down to CC not showing up.

 

[kdilks]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

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.

If you watch the replays, it's very obvious that the puck is on the ice, not even wobbling. I don't know how you could possibly think the puck would be elevated when it started out on the ice, and was just being kicked/pushed around. The puck wasn't really even moving fast enough to get elevated if it hit a bump in the ice.

 

[UMICH]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Yes it does. Watching that I will say it's probably in.

Not probably, DEFINITELY. Maybe I'll see you at The X in a couple of weeks?

 

[tdzro]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I saw a puck ON the ice, and I saw White between the puck and the goalline. The overhead netting needs thinner twine. It was not conclusive, but a better case could be made for the puck crossing the goalline vs. not crossing the goalline. The referee on the ice was shielded from the original view and couldn't have seen it in or not, so the fact that it was ruled no goal on the ice was because he saw no evidence that it went in. If he has more evidence that it went in vs. stayed out, it should be a goal even though the rule states slightly differently.

On the notion of glowpucks, why we don't have a puck with gps/lasers, etc., i have no idea.

CC did not destroy UM.

 

[gomavs#1]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Talk about shutting down CC. Wow....not a big Michigan fan, in fact, not a fan of Michigan at all, but props to the defense played. Congrats on the Frozen Four.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Not probably, DEFINITELY. Maybe I'll see you at The X in a couple of weeks?

I'll be there.

 

[UMICH]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Talk about shutting down CC. Wow....not a big Michigan fan, in fact, not a fan of Michigan at all, but props to the defense played. Congrats on the Frozen Four.

OMG, the 7th sign! But thank you.

 

[The Rube]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I'll be there.

I'll say this for MNS. You will easily notice our group at the bars, at the very least.

 

[UMICH]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I'll be there.

I'll talk to my buddy who lives 2-blocks from the X and see if I'll show up.

 

[MichFan]

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)?

On the other hand, people are sent to the electric chair when the evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt," (which is less than 100% certain).

3. In order for an on-ice ruling to be overturned, there must be "conclusive video evidence."

4. Conclusive means "ending all disagreement." This means, presumably, among reasonable, objective people. Therefore, if the video evidence presented in the scorer's bench is so clear as to end all disagreement among reasonable people, then the call on the ice may be overturned.

MavRick gets it part right. Rule 60 says, "conclusive video evidence." (I quoted extensively from the rule in the regional thread.) It does not say 100% certainty. It does not say that the video must show an unobstructed view of 100% of the puck being 100% over the line. It merely requires "conclusive video evidence."

"Conclusive" is not defined in the rules. I looked at two different dictionaries, and the definitions are "serving to settle or decide a question; decisive; convincing" from one and "serving to prove a case; decisive or convincing" from the other. "Convincing" is not "certainty," or even "ending all disagreement." And it is not the same as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Conclusive? Hardly. Puck looks like it's in the air to me.

I'm saying that ANY view from an elevated position makes it difficult to determine whether or not the puck is on the ice.

It wasn't in the air. Nothing says that you have to draw all your conclusions from one replay view. (1) Front view shows goalie's pad and skate in contact with ice. (2) Overhead view shows puck emerge from underneath pad/skate, which were on ice. (3) Therefore, the puck was on the ice. (4) Front view shows white space between puck and goal line. (5) Because the puck was on the ice, the white space establishes that the puck was over the line.

 

[The Rube]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

It was not in the air. From the angles I saw (including the end of rink angle) it crossed at least partially. Did it cross enough/was there enough video evidence to overturn the on-ice call? No. Do I think, using common sense and probability and not video evidence, that it crossed all the way? Yes.

And there's the rub. Using the rules in place, it should have been no goal.

 

[UMBand]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

It was not in the air. From the angles I saw (including the end of rink angle) it crossed at least partially. Did it cross enough/was there enough video evidence to overturn the on-ice call? No. Do I think, using common sense and probability and not video evidence, that it crossed all the way? Yes.

And there's the rub. Using the rules in place, it should have been no goal.

Looks to me like a rather selective viewing of the video evidence, but there's no convincing people who don't like Michigan that a call that ended in Michigan's favor was correct.

And there's the rub.

 

[kdilks]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

It was not in the air. From the angles I saw (including the end of rink angle) it crossed at least partially. Did it cross enough/was there enough video evidence to overturn the on-ice call? No. Do I think, using common sense and probability and not video evidence, that it crossed all the way? Yes.

And there's the rub. Using the rules in place, it should have been no goal.

If it wasn't in the air, then what is the white between the puck and the goal line in the long shot?

I've still yet to see anybody even begin to describe some type of reality in which this puck did not completely cross the line.

 

[IrishHockeyFan]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

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?

Actually, maybe it's just you. And perhaps UMichhockeyRULZ, but I until proven otherwise, I suspect you and it are one and the same. As for all the other Michigan fans on this forum, at worst I find them completely tolerable, and at best (which seems to be actually just about all of them) I think they are all articulate and classy, and I find most of their posting well worth the time it takes to read. A couple are actually some of the best go-to people on this board when it comes to rules questions, NCAA tidbits, and the like. Yeah, it's pretty much just you...

Congrats to UM on another FF. If our luck holds out maybe we'll get to join you.

 

[The Rube]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Looks to me like a rather selective viewing of the video evidence, but there's no convincing people who don't like Michigan that a call that ended in Michigan's favor was correct.

And there's the rub.

Honestly, I don't give two craps about MI either way. They are just there. Now your band.....JFC I hate them. Learn more than 2 songs.

 

[streaker]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Here's where it is.

1. It is more likely than not, in my judgment, that the puck was over the line before the whistle blew. By "more likely than not," I mean the probability exceeds 50%.

2. The ruling on the ice was no goal.

3. In order for an on-ice ruling to be overturned, there must be "conclusive video evidence."

4. Conclusive means "ending all disagreement." This means, presumably, among reasonable, objective people. Therefore, if the video evidence presented in the scorer's bench is so clear as to end all disagreement among reasonable people, then the call on the ice may be overturned.

5. As I read the rules, the officials may review the play with "all available facilities," and if Piotrowski (a long-time CCHA official) said only the overhead was reviewed, he was wrong. The only shots anyone (M fans, PxP guys, etc.) contend show a goal are the 200-foot shot from the other end of the ice, and those shots were clearly on the monitor in the scorer's bench during the review period.

6. In my judgment, as a UNO fan, those shots confirm my belief that there is a greater than 50% chance that the puck was in the net.

7. I do not, however, believe "greater than 50% chance" is sufficient to meet the standard. I think "conclusive" is much closer to 100% probability.

8. Piotrowski's comments were inarticulate and should not have been made. If they had to have been made, someone without a multi-year tie to the CCHA should have made them. I do not contend this made a difference in the outcome.

9. What we have here is result-oriented officiating. On seing the overhead shots, I suspect the refs thought the same way I do: "It's probably in," and the natural tendency is to try to confirm your hypothesis with the evidence. Scientists call this "confirmation bias." I do not ascribe bad intentions to the referees. I do, however, believe they acted in the absence of "conclusive" evidence, assuming (and this is far from obvious) that words the NCAA uses have the same meanings that normal people would expect. (See: Fighting Sioux vs. Fighting Irish).

10. So maybe it's the legitimate result reached by an illegitimate decision process. I do not find this to be trivial or harmless. At the same time, nothing will change the result now. I believe Michigan played well and cleanly, and is as deserving as UNO of the win. I congratulate them.

11. I note with some amusement a sense of entitlement among M fans on this thread and elsewhere, in this case, an entitlement to unanimous acclamation of the legitimacy of the win, and a presumption that anyone who doesn't join in a chorus of The Victors has an axe to grind with Michigan. My amusement comes from the fact that they do this without a speck of detectable irony.

Cut to the chase, Rick. The puck went in, even though it took a puff of white smoke out of a cathedral to declare it, and that deviates from the normal NCAA course of getting the call wrong for the sake of following the rules to the letter of the book. That's all the legitimacy I needed, especially when the official pointed to center ice- and that took courage.

To your last point, I find irony being UNO in the same "acerbic" position Michigan was in one year ago and yet the masses-sans our own of course (whether in red & black or wearing some other school's tinted glasses) are now claiming conspiracy! or bias! or process deviation! versus, "those are the breaks, you dumb maize and blue b@stages". Plenty of evidence to support a presumption of us against the world with all of the distaste from that crowd. So, it's not just a matter of "you don't agree with us, so you must be haterz", since logic seems to be void in the face of rage. Count me in as one of those you point at in mock amusement, or should I say, join in on your amusement. The seizure inducing hatred is so delicious it should be served on crackers, especially with UNO fans who have nothing but the axe handle left in their trembling hands.

By the way, tried to post an elegant congrats for your season on Mavpuck, but I guess Bridget & co. decided to finally pull my membership. Go figure... and yet some poster asked where were all the Michigan fans on your site? Kudos to Maize & Brew for deftly suggesting that our views are not generally accepted. I guess the welcome mat got rolled up after this one.

I hope you still like me.

 

[UMICH]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Cut to the chase, Rick. The puck went in, even though it took a puff of white smoke out of a cathedral to declare it, and that deviates from the normal NCAA course of getting the call wrong for the sake of following the rules to the letter of the book. That's all the legitimacy I needed, especially when the official pointed to center ice- and that took courage.

To your last point, I find irony being UNO in the same "acerbic" position Michigan was in one year ago and yet the masses-sans our own of course (whether in red & black or wearing some other school's tinted glasses) are now claiming conspiracy! or bias! or process deviation! versus, "those are the breaks, you dumb maize and blue b@stages". Plenty of evidence to support a presumption of us against the world with all of the distaste from that crowd. So, it's not just a matter of "you don't agree with us, so you must be haterz", since logic seems to be void in the face of rage. Count me in as one of those you point at in mock amusement, or should I say, join in on your amusement. The seizure inducing hatred is so delicious it should be served on crackers, especially with UNO fans who have nothing but the axe handle left in their trembling hands.

By the way, tried to post an elegant congrats for your season on Mavpuck, but I guess Bridget & co. decided to finally pull my membership. Go figure... and yet some poster asked where were all the Michigan fans on your site? Kudos to Maize & Brew for deftly suggesting that our views are not generally accepted. I guess the welcome mat got rolled up after this one.

I hope you still like me.

Thank you, it's about time someone else saw the forrest through the trees.

 

[Pants]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

I think it's because last year there was a definite whistle blow before the puck went in...right? Even if the whistle was blown pre-maturely, etc, play was stopped before the puck went(clearly) in.

 

[uaafanblog]

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

MavRick gets it part right. Rule 60 says, "conclusive video evidence." (I quoted extensively from the rule in the regional thread.) It does not say 100% certainty. It does not say that the video must show an unobstructed view of 100% of the puck being 100% over the line. It merely requires "conclusive video evidence."

"Conclusive" is not defined in the rules. I looked at two different dictionaries, and the definitions are "serving to settle or decide a question; decisive; convincing" from one and "serving to prove a case; decisive or convincing" from the other. "Convincing" is not "certainty," or even "ending all disagreement." And it is not the same as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Perhaps you should have looked up the word "EVIDENCE" as well. See the word you chose to look at is primarily a modifier that in conjunction with means much more than your supplied definition implies.

ev·i·dence   
[ev-i-duhns] Show IPA
noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Next day after conclusiveness (which the weak picture doesn't show anyway) isn't applicable to the argument. The question is whether the referees had "conclusive video evidence" to overturn the original call. They didn't.

Arguing that the referee who made the on ice call couldn't see because his view was obstructed is meaningless. Referees not seeing everything IS PART AND PARCEL IN THE NATURE OF THE GAME. Which is why video review was instituted.

So with no "conclusive video evidence" during the review process (not grainy frame grabs from hours later) then the correct choice for the video reviewing officials would have been to uphold the on ice call.

Yes, I think the puck probably crossed the line. I think it probably should have been called a goal. And yes, a misapplication of the process ended up being justice. HOWEVER, it shouldn't have went down that way. The ends does not justify the means. There are any number of uncalled and/or called situations during a hockey game which may have measurable effects on the outcome of the game. Pretty much the same way in every sport that has subjective refereeing. It's the nature of sport. It happens. It is the way it is.

But when you introduce stupidity like "video replays" (and I've never liked them at all) to enhance objectivity then objectivity should be enhanced. In this case it wasn't. Because the video review official used his subjective judgement from the preponderance of views to come to a conclusion that the puck was probably in. He was probably 98% sure and I don't think this trite BS of "at least they got the call right" is BS. Anyway, it should be 100% to overturn a call on the ice ... that would be "conclusive evidence".

And I'm not bothered at all that rinky-dink U from bumpkinland got knocked out of the tourney.