UNO GOT ROBBED!

[dagies]

That's pretty ignorant. There's no evidence that it was a goal and by the rules it is NOT a goal. Being pissed off over that would be highly stupid.

I have to agree with DaveK's point that if this was the Sioux, and the no goal ruling was upheld, there would be a fair contingent of Sioux fans who would be screaming that the Sioux were robbed. I agree that the video was probably not conclusive to call it a goal, but if your team scored that goal I bet you would be able to find the shape of the puck as it's getting kicked out of the goal, and that shape is far enough back to be all the way in.

Conclusive? Not quite. But it's damn close and call me crazy I think it's interpreted by whether you wanted that goal to count or not. Not saying either side is right or wrong, just that's the way things usually break down. I bet if we read Michigan's board the majority of them would agree it was a good goal.

On a side note, DaveK admitted it wasn't conclusive in his first post. There were several posts with pretty harsh responses to his for some reason, and now people want to rip him for his arrogance? I don't think DaveK started this.....

[hrkac]

I don't care about all the other "fan" bickering, etc...... imo...it was not a goal. there's no conclusive evidence.

[Big A HG]

It was clearly a goal on HDTV. All evidence and visuals point this being a legit goal. If you really take your time to watch all the angles a couple times, you can piece together where the puck is when out of sight, but there IS visual evidence, even in the overhead cam, that the puck was completely beyond the line.

It was the right call....a tough call, but the right one.

[Runninwiththedogs]

Do you remember the 2005 national championship game? Peter Mannino reached his glove back into the net to catch a puck that had already crossed the line and pulled it back out. They ruled it no goal because they couldn't see the puck (even though they could see the glove clearly across the line and knew for a fact that the puck was in the glove). I felt that the Sioux got robbed on that play.

That is the EXACT SAME PRECEDENT that should have been applied here.

Even if Faulkner had come out and been like "Yeah! It was totally in the net guys, and I just tried to fake you out!!!!" that's not conclusive evidence. Nothing I've seen demonstrates there was conclusive evidence to overturn the goal. This is a single elimination tournament. Michigan was awarded the game on that goal based on a decision made by the referees that is not in accordance with the rule book. There is no way to prove that ALL of the puck crossed the goal line. We never even see any of it cross the goal line. And it is completely obvious from the blowhard who was interviewed during the Jaden Schwartz and Joe Howe Smile Time Variety Hour that there's no excuse for what happened. He gave a lot of b.s. answers and completely skirted the analyst's attempts to get a true answer as to why the referees made the decision and what they actually saw on that replay.

I don't even give a crap about either of these teams, so it's not like I have some vested interest in this. But I don't want to see anyone's tournament dreams end on a blown call by the referees that was easily correctable. Especially since it was called "no goal" originally!

DaveK - Here is a picture of it that I added to my post that you responded to: Picture of Michigan Goal vs. UNO

I can't even tell if there is a puck in that picture, let alone where it is in relation to the goal line.

[larsensa]

Sorry guys I don't buy it. Puck could be on a 45 angle and we could be looking at the bottom side of the puck and some white pixels.

We have a two refs, two linesman, a goal judge, and many angles of replay. If not one of those can show a decisive goal I don't see how you can count it.

I think Michigan beats them anyways, but it certainly shouldn't have ended that way.

The picture isn't the reason I think it was a goal, the video from the front view is what changed my mind. I watched all the games today and saw all the videos replaying the goal and didn't think it was a goal until I was watching the BC/CC game and saw the front view video. I wish I had the video I am talking about where you can see the puck shot at him and then his foot pushing it out after it crosses the line. I will post it if I find it.

[Uncle_Rico]

It was clearly a goal on HDTV. All evidence and visuals point this being a legit goal. If you really take your time to watch all the angles a couple times, you can piece together where the puck is when out of sight, but there IS visual evidence, even in the overhead cam, that the puck was completely beyond the line.

It was the right call....a tough call, but the right one.

Easy on the HD talk around DaveK. This thread could become 20 pages in no time.

[NorthDakotaHockey]

Why do people respond to your posts the way they do? Read your posts and ask yourself if they don't come across as arrogant or unbelievably sarcastic.

DaveK is actually a fine fine man. He has made many valid points on this board over his years. I think that people react to Dave the way that they do purely out of envy over Dave's supreme confidence and courage in his unwavering decision to continue sporting his great mullet haircut, and his continued undying devotion to 80's hair bands, both in the hail of scathing derision.

I have faced the same envy and prejudice over my Norwegian Mohawk hairstyle and my dedicated support of Mr. Kenny the G.

The goal was a goal if and only because the officials said it was a goal. The Sioux will not, at least today, put themselves in a position to get beat by a video review or a buzzer beater.

CC over BC was a no-brainer. UNO had its earlier chances and did not bury them. UMD will increase pressure on the Frozen Four ticket market today.

I told folks here a long long time ago. Get your Frozen Four tickets now. None of this "Let's wait and see" b.s. or you will find yourselves sporting my hairstyle without choice. Scalped.

[Siouxtimestwo]

If I had to bet my life, I would say it was a goal on the ice, but I'd hate to have to live on that replay. Even so, its hard for me to get too upset considering we were in Michigan's shoes 6 years ago and I felt we got robbed when we didn't get the goal.

This reminds me of the Calvin Johnson non-touchdown earlier this year, except the call went the opposite way. Instead of sticking to the letter of the law, the refs went with common sense and what their eyes combined with physics told them. Is that the correct thing to do? Probably not. Did the call they make reflect what happened on the ice. Probably.

[Siouxtimestwo]

If I had to bet my life, I would say it was a goal on the ice, but I'd hate to have to live on that replay. Even so, its hard for me to get too upset considering we were in Michigan's shoes 6 years ago and I felt we got robbed when we didn't get the goal.

This reminds me of the Calvin Johnson non-touchdown earlier this year, except the call went the opposite way. Instead of sticking to the letter of the law, the refs went with common sense and what their eyes combined with physics told them. Is that the correct thing to do? Probably not. Did the call they make reflect what happened on the ice. Probably.

[Siouxtimestwo]

Sorry about the double post! Dang phone!

[The Whistler]

The picture isn't the reason I think it was a goal, the video from the front view is what changed my mind. I watched all the games today and saw all the videos replaying the goal and didn't think it was a goal until I was watching the BC/CC game and saw the front view video. I wish I had the video I am talking about where you can see the puck shot at him and then his foot pushing it out after it crosses the line. I will post it if I find it.

I'm not saying it couldn't be a goal. I'm saying that under the rules it has to be clear. If there is definitive proof it would almost certainly be available on the internet by now wouldn't it?

Until that proof is available it was a bad call. No judgement calls here.

[90siouxfan]

Or sharks with lasers!!

I think lazers are an excellent direction to go to. Maybe an in ice solution for instances where the goal is knocked off its moorings... Just some random ideas..

[johndahl]

I'm not saying it couldn't be a goal. I'm saying that under the rules it has to be clear. If there is definitive proof it would almost certainly be available on the internet by now wouldn't it?

Until that proof is available it was a bad call. No judgement calls here.

Exactly. Doesn't matter if it was probably went over the line, most likely went over the line, etc. If there's not clear and undisputable visual evidence on replay that it was completely over the line, the only correct call according to the rules is that the original ruling cannot be overturned.

The fact that there appears to many to be a high probability that the puck was entirely over the goal line at some point is completely irrelevant according to the replay rule, and is not sufficient grounds to overturn a "no goal" call on the ice, according to the replay rules.

UNO therefore did get robbed, based on the rules, by having the game ended by an Official who made a call that was inconsistent with the rules because he thought he knew better.

[Frozen4sioux]

Lasers embedded in the ice, Yeeeeaah. I dont see any issues there.

Then of course you'd have the $678,000 ruggedized sensor embedded pucks.

Outta be fun watching school officials wrestle them outta the hands of little Johnny when it gets launched outta play and into the crowd.

Upon furher review I also have to admit that the right call was made, in fact I'm ready to make the most Telling gesture of my belief by accepting it and moving on.

Tough way to lose a game for a goalie easy to let that one gnaw at a guys gut for the next sixty years.

One of the greatest things about sports, any sports is the human factor and the possibility of error, judgement and misinterpretation.

Teaching kids and as much as possible adults how to deal with situations such as these is one of the greatest benefits to developing a strong character.

If every aspect of life had black and white definitive laser detected goal/no goal qualities, I don't think that would be a very interesting existence, tough to deal with yes but how it is handled can build much more into a man.

I haven't heard what dean had to say about it today or after seeing a replay but MANY PEOPLE CAN LEARN BY HIS ACTION and about how to handle oneself. Composure shows much more credential than bouncing around off the glass like a classless dasher monkey. Which by the way is looked at equally as ridiculous in the business world......where the vast majority of all these kids will end up.

[johndahl]

OK, here's rule 60, copied directly from the NCAA Hockey rule book for this year. Note specifically that it requires conclusive video evidence. There's a long history of rule interpretations saying probably or most likely doesn't cut it, and is not grounds to overturn an on-ice call of no goal.

RULE 6 / PLA YING RULES HR-93

Video Replay

SECTION 60. The use of video replay is permissible in any game using

either of the following procedures:

a. NCAA Championship Procedures.

1. In order to reverse an on-ice ruling, the replay must include

conclusive video evidence.

The rules appendix also states that the decision should be made in two minutes or under. The fact that it took five times that long suggests the video evidence was anything but conclusive.

[mikejm]

...in fact I'm ready to make the most Telling gesture of my belief by accepting it and moving on.

You realize that by "moving on" you'll be drummed out of the College Hockey Fan fraternity, don't you?

[johndahl]

I haven't heard what dean had to say about it today or after seeing a replay but MANY PEOPLE CAN LEARN BY HIS ACTION and about how to handle oneself. Composure shows much more credential than bouncing around off the glass like a classless dasher monkey. Which by the way is looked at equally as ridiculous in the business world......where the vast majority of all these kids will end up.

Good point. Even though Dean Blais hadn't seen a replay, he was always more the type to focus on what his team could have done so that one bad call wouldn't change the result of the game than focusing on the official. He took his complaints to the league when appropriate (Don Adam ring a bell?) rather than try the issue in the press. I would enjoy him seeing more success during his tenure at UNO.

John

[90siouxfan]

Lasers embedded in the ice, Yeeeeaah. I dont see any issues there.

Then of course you'd have the $678,000 ruggedized sensor embedded pucks.

Outta be fun watching school officials wrestle them outta the hands of little Johnny when it gets launched outta play and into the crowd.

Upon furher review I also have to admit that the right call was made, in fact I'm ready to make the most Telling gesture of my belief by accepting it and moving on.

Tough way to lose a game for a goalie easy to let that one gnaw at a guys gut for the next sixty years.

One of the greatest things about sports, any sports is the human factor and the possibility of error, judgement and misinterpretation.

Teaching kids and as much as possible adults how to deal with situations such as these is one of the greatest benefits to developing a strong character.

If every aspect of life had black and white definitive laser detected goal/no goal qualities, I don't think that would be a very interesting existence, tough to deal with yes but how it is handled can build much more into a man.

I haven't heard what dean had to say about it today or after seeing a replay but MANY PEOPLE CAN LEARN BY HIS ACTION and about how to handle oneself. Composure shows much more credential than bouncing around off the glass like a classless dasher monkey. Which by the way is looked at equally as ridiculous in the business world......where the vast majority of all these kids will end up.

Very good points... Has Dean Blais commented yet.

[RedFrog]

Found the UNO press conference

Dean refused to comment on the call....accepting the call and the end of the season for his team.

[Goon]

That is the EXACT SAME PRECEDENT that should have been applied here.

Even if Faulkner had come out and been like "Yeah! It was totally in the net guys, and I just tried to fake you out!!!!" that's not conclusive evidence. Nothing I've seen demonstrates there was conclusive evidence to overturn the goal. This is a single elimination tournament. Michigan was awarded the game on that goal based on a decision made by the referees that is not in accordance with the rule book. There is no way to prove that ALL of the puck crossed the goal line. We never even see any of it cross the goal line. And it is completely obvious from the blowhard who was interviewed during the Jaden Schwartz and Joe Howe Smile Time Variety Hour that there's no excuse for what happened. He gave a lot of b.s. answers and completely skirted the analyst's attempts to get a true answer as to why the referees made the decision and what they actually saw on that replay.

I don't even give a crap about either of these teams, so it's not like I have some vested interest in this. But I don't want to see anyone's tournament dreams end on a blown call by the referees that was easily correctable. Especially since it was called "no goal" originally!

I can't even tell if there is a puck in that picture, let alone where it is in relation to the goal line.

I am going to say that I have to agree with Running with the Dogs, the refs blew the call, some grainy picture of the scoreboard doesn't prove a thing. Imagine if UNO had beaten the mighty ugly helmets by this crappy ruling the college hockey pundits would be up in arms.

[28noel60]

I am going to say that I have to agree with Running with the Dogs, the refs blew the call, some grainy picture of the scoreboard doesn't prove a thing. Imagine if UNO had beaten the mighty ugly helmets by this crappy ruling the college hockey pundits would be up in arms.

I suppose the next thing will be an electronic eye on the goal line to determine goals. Update North Caroling is up four goals over Maryland in lacrosse. Gotta love that espn. We all should show some love to wdaz for getting the broadcast for today's game don't know what it is costing them but I will show mine by continueing to watch there local progaramming.

[The Whistler]

The grainy picture is more than likely a picture of part of the skate. If it isn't where is the goalies skate? It should be right along with the puck.

[Goon]

I suppose the next thing will be an electronic eye on the goal line to determine goals. Update North Caroling is up four goals over Maryland in lacrosse. Gotta love that espn. We all should show some love to wdaz for getting the broadcast for today's game don't know what it is costing them but I will show mine by continueing to watch there local progaramming.

You mean like a photo finish in horse racing? That might actually work...