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.
