jeteye1717
Member
I quickly scanned the relevant game thread(s) and didn't see this mentioned, so here goes - a question for the Rules Mavens:
After UML scored to tie the game at 1-1 early in the 1st period, a video review ensued (that is customary after scoring plays in the play-offs). But much of the review apparently focused not on the goal just scored, but on a 'potential' UML goal from a minute or two earlier that was judged to have deflected down into the crease after banging flush off the cross-bar; play never stopped. The tying goal just scored was the first stoppage of play after the earlier 'potential' goal, so it was the first opportunity to give it a closer look. But let's say for argument's sake that after video review it was judged to have gone in; it wasn't just a 'potential' goal but an ACTUAL goal. What then?
Would UML have been awarded *2* goals? Both recorded to have been scored at the same time (hee, hee
Or would the goal just scored have been wiped off the board and the clock rewound to the time of the earlier goal (that now counts) and the ensuing time between the 2 'goals' replayed? Would the interpretation be different if the earlier now-judged-good goal had been scored by N'Eastern instead of UML? I know there have been earlier instances of similar non-goals judged good after the fact - IIRC Michigan once had a goal awarded them in an NCAA game that was judged at a later whistle to have slipped *under* the back of the net as it was being tipped forward by scuffling players. I can't recall how these earlier after-the-fact scenarios were eventually resolved (an abundance of 'senior moments,' apparently so can someone with a better memory than me summarize the pertinent details? Thanks ...
After UML scored to tie the game at 1-1 early in the 1st period, a video review ensued (that is customary after scoring plays in the play-offs). But much of the review apparently focused not on the goal just scored, but on a 'potential' UML goal from a minute or two earlier that was judged to have deflected down into the crease after banging flush off the cross-bar; play never stopped. The tying goal just scored was the first stoppage of play after the earlier 'potential' goal, so it was the first opportunity to give it a closer look. But let's say for argument's sake that after video review it was judged to have gone in; it wasn't just a 'potential' goal but an ACTUAL goal. What then?
Would UML have been awarded *2* goals? Both recorded to have been scored at the same time (hee, hee
Or would the goal just scored have been wiped off the board and the clock rewound to the time of the earlier goal (that now counts) and the ensuing time between the 2 'goals' replayed? Would the interpretation be different if the earlier now-judged-good goal had been scored by N'Eastern instead of UML? I know there have been earlier instances of similar non-goals judged good after the fact - IIRC Michigan once had a goal awarded them in an NCAA game that was judged at a later whistle to have slipped *under* the back of the net as it was being tipped forward by scuffling players. I can't recall how these earlier after-the-fact scenarios were eventually resolved (an abundance of 'senior moments,' apparently so can someone with a better memory than me summarize the pertinent details? Thanks ...