Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
Sign in to follow this  
RuBNcereal

UNO GOT ROBBED!

Recommended Posts

I didn't initially see it, but if you look at the replay, I think that might be the puck between the goalie's skate blades...there's a roundish black spot on the slow motion replay...then he moves his skates outward. When you see the puck coming back out and trace its line, it goes right to that spot. That might be what they are seeing...just my thoughts and I'm not saying I'm right...but that's what I see on the replay...they looked at it for 10 minutes so they must have seen something and finally concluded that it was the puck...

In the meantime, CC is wiping up the ice with BC...go CC...

I was looking back there as well, but with the net there I couldn't tell if there was a puck there.

Wonder if they using HD cameras. The live chat on uscho said that the UNO folks were pissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if they using HD cameras. The live chat on uscho said that the UNO folks were pissed.

On a different site they said that all games are being broadcast in HD. I still feel the same way about it as before, which is that was a goal against UNO just based on what everything that happened. BUT there is no video evidence showing that it was completely across the line. The part where it is under his skate, where is the front edge of the puck? The far camera, how do you know that it was too far to pick up if it really crossed the line? In that case the original call stands just like in the NFL, no goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4-1 UNREAL more action & great play in one period than all the other games combined

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still wondering about the camera deal though. You could clearly see they were lookin at a front angle and an over head angle? Thought the over head was the only available???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that was a good goal in OT than Omaha scored in the third. EXACT same thing with pads behind the line... you can assume it was in but you can not see the puck. Such a terrible call.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% convinced that the replay showed conclusive evidence, but I believe it was a goal. Yeah, it's a tough way to lose a game if you're a UNO fan but imagine how upset you'd be if you were a Michigan fan and it had been ruled not a goal. Blais didn't argue much if at all, so that should tell you something.

Clearly no goal....classic Davek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, just saw the replay on ESPN3. Yup UNO got screwed... Good to see other conferences have their Adams too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that was a good goal in OT than Omaha scored in the third. EXACT same thing with pads behind the line... you can assume it was in but you can not see the puck. Such a terrible call.

100% correct....must call it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blais didn't argue because he hadn't seen the replay yet and must have given the refs the benefit of the doubt that they made the right call. Whoops..

Well yeah after ten minutes of studying the goal, Blais thinks they would had to have gotten it right. I hope he speaks out later about this 'no goal' and rips a new 'a' hole on someone. Rules are rules, no goal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, the replay may not have been conclusive but I still believe it was a goal. I don't know if that makes it the right call, but I do know that I would be pissed if the Sioux were in the position Michigan was in and had it ruled no goal.

is there a DaveK rule out there somewhere? I know you are aware of the rules, common now..:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although we don't clearly see the puck, we do clearly see the goalie's skate well across the goal line.

The rule is clearly see the puck. :glare:

You really know how to be a tool, don't you?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there a DaveK rule out there somewhere? I know you are aware of the rules, common now..:huh:

Let's just assume it was a goal. Who needs replay then? UNO got hosed big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't we clearly see the puck on the replay? Because it is under the goalie's skate, right? Although we don't clearly see the puck, we do clearly see the goalie's skate well across the goal line. Use your common sense, you should be able to conclude that the puck under his skate was across the line while his skate was across the line. I know the replay wasn't 100% conclusive but I guess it's a case of the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. I had no rooting interest in that game, but I tried to imagine my favorite team being in the position of both teams. If the Sioux are in UNO's position and it is ruled a goal I'm disappointed, but if the Sioux are in Michigan's position and it is ruled not a goal I'm livid.

I'm a fellow Sioux fan if I were in Michigan's position I would be upset but I'd understand why it was a no goal. If anything, it'd only fuel the Sioux to score even more. As the ESPN guys said, if this were in the NHL. It'd remain as a no goal. Common sense or not there isn't any CONCLUSIVE evidence. The way you use "conclude" is still making an assumption. Go ahead and try and label it any other way but the ref still is making an assumption. It was called a no goal on the ice, should've remained a no goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't we clearly see the puck on the replay? Because it is under the goalie's skate, right? Although we don't clearly see the puck, we do clearly see the goalie's skate well across the goal line. Use your common sense, you should be able to conclude that the puck under his skate was across the line while his skate was across the line. I know the replay wasn't 100% conclusive but I guess it's a case of the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. I had no rooting interest in that game, but I tried to imagine my favorite team being in the position of both teams. If the Sioux are in UNO's position and it is ruled a goal I'm disappointed, but if the Sioux are in Michigan's position and it is ruled not a goal I'm livid.

Then whats the point of replaying it? Judgement calls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the replay wasn't 100% conclusive but I guess it's a case of the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.

No, I don't see how you can't understand this. The spirit and letter of the law are both that you have to clearly and unambiguously see the puck entirely over the line for it to be a goal. It's no more complicated than that.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't see how you can't understand this. The spirit and letter of the law are both that you have to clearly and unambiguously see the puck entirely over the line for it to be a goal. It's no more complicated than that.

No kidding, I don't understand why this is so complicated to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the F*** did the refs have the ability to look at multiple camera angles?! ... busted bracket ....

Welcome to the board "skippy", your team lost get over it. "Common sense" says it went it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...