UNO GOT ROBBED!

[Supertrex]

Then whats the point of replaying it? Judgement calls?

This post disposes of the issue. The rule doesn't say to use your common sense...it says you must clearly see it cross the line to be a goal on replay...in addition, they are to use the overhead camera only...on that view, you cannot meet the standard...I think it's the puck but I cannot be sure...therefore ....no goal.

[Crevec]

WOW!!! I am amazed beyond belief at how my point is flying so far over everybody's head here. Again, I had no rooting interest. I was simply trying to say that IF it had been ruled no goal AND the Mavericks had gone on to win the game it would have been extremely controversial. Seriously, can't even one person comprehend that? All I'm looking for is one. Anybody, anybody?

But the problem is that it is ALREADY a controversial goal. I think that I agree with you that I know deep down as a hockey fan that the puck crossed the line completely and was a goal. BUT when you go to the video replay you must have conclusive evidence to show that it was a goal. I understand that to mean that you are not supposed to assume that it was across or say that there was no way it was still on the line or anything like that. Basically that you have to say "Look at this screen shot right here, there is a piece of white between the puck and the goal line." The problem is that I don't think that is available.

[RuBNcereal]

This post disposes of the issue. The rule doesn't say to use your common sense...it says you must clearly see it cross the line to be a goal on replay...in addition, they are to use the overhead camera only...on that view, you cannot meet the standard...I think it's the puck but I cannot be sure...therefore ....no goal.

But if you paid attention to the camera the refs had they clearly had more than the overhead

[SIOUXFAN97]

what's the over/under on how many days til blais is head coach of u o minny?

[siouxnami]

But if you paid attention to the camera the refs had they clearly had more than the overhead

Just for the record, there is no place for common sense in college hockey officiating...

[larsensa]

WOW!!! I am amazed beyond belief at how my point is flying so far over everybody's head here. Again, I had no rooting interest. I was simply trying to say that IF it had been ruled no goal AND the Mavericks had gone on to win the game it would have been extremely controversial. Seriously, can't even one person comprehend that? All I'm looking for is one. Anybody, anybody?

Not if the Mavericks scored a consclusive goal and won by the actual rules rather than stupid refs botching a call and giving Michigan the win after it took them 10 minutes to decide if it was conclusive. That alone should've given them enough pause and common sense to realize they weren't able to say it was a conclusive goal.

The NCAA should review this quickly and make sure that the refs that botched the game are not allowed to officiate another post season game this season. UNO worked hard to get to the playoffs and to have their season brought to an end like this is pathetic.

[Supertrex]

Just for the record, there is no place for common sense in college hockey officiating...

Exactly...

P.S. I get the joke..

[Crevec]

The technicality of course (not that I should have to explain this) being that even though we can safely conclude through deductive reasoning that the puck crossed the line we don't have 100% visual evidence of it.

Oh I agree 100%. The problem is that the rule states (at least I believe) that there must be conclusive video evidence showing that the puck crossed the line. I don't think that this is available and so it should have been called a no goal based on the on-ice call of no goal. If they had said goal on the ice but no video showing it definitely crossed the line then it would be a goal. Very similar to the NFL in that the call on the field/ice stands, no conclusive evidence showing otherwise.

[und1goalie]

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.

You can not assume because you can not see the puck. The puck could have been under the top of his pad moving down and not completely across the line. You can assume but that is not the rule. Puck must completely cross the line and be in the site of the ref. The ref was standing on the back of the net and could not see the puck.

[tnt]

Even when they show the spot shadow the puck is coming out of the net before you can tell if it was all the way over the line. It wasn't under the goalie pad at that point, so common sense isn't part of the equation. You can see black, but you can't see white between it.

[UNDLeafsGuy]

Even when they show the spot shadow the puck is coming out of the net before you can tell if it was all the way over the line. It wasn't under the goalie pad at that point, so common sense isn't part of the equation. You can see black, but you can't see white between it.

excellent point .................. it must be conclusive and it was NOT .......... UNO go hosed!

[sprig]

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you, Crevec, for being rational and not just hurling personal insults at me like some others here who I will not name. You're right, it is a controversial goal... and it would have been a controversial non-goal had they ruled it that way. The refs were in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation. I suppose if they had ruled it no goal and then Michigan still ended up winning the game everybody could have felt okay about it, but if I was a UNO fan and the Mavericks went on to win that game I would have a guilty conscience about it for sure. I don't feel right winning on a technicality, it just feels dirty. The technicality of course (not that I should have to explain this) being that even though we can safely conclude through deductive reasoning that the puck crossed the line we don't have 100% visual evidence of it.

No we're not; doesn't matter what we think happened, overturning the call on the ice takes conclusive evidence, which the referees did not have, so they guessed.

[urstillamelvin]

I'm just glad that tomorrow I will get to watch all the games in HD.

[gordwiser]

This post disposes of the issue. The rule doesn't say to use your common sense...it says you must clearly see it cross the line to be a goal on replay...in addition, they are to use the overhead camera only...on that view, you cannot meet the standard...I think it's the puck but I cannot be sure...therefore ....no goal.

In NCAA tourney play you can use any camera angle/view/replay available.

Also, to DaveK, this is not a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation for the refs. As stated above, the rule is clear. There has to be conclusive evidence. There is no "spirit" of the rule to enforce. If it was called a goal on the ice it should have stood because there wasn't enough to overturn it, but it wasn't called a goal on the ice.

[fargosioux]

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.

... therefore it should not be a goal!

[luapsided]

New technology: Laser technology that stretches a laser from post to post. or on ice post cams. The laser would detect the puck when crossing the line 100%

[larsensa]

OK, I just watched a replay of the goal shown from the front view and think it was a goal. You can see the puck cross the line with white between puck and goal line. I don't agree that you can see it was a goal from the overhead view unless you just assume the puck crossed the line. From the front view though you can see the puck cross the line and Faulkner kicks his right foot forward and the puck comes out. I was very against the call they made until seeing this angle. The spot shadow replays ESPN is showing seems to indicate the puck traveling across the line but that still isn't a conclusive view.

On Goon's link it is the video portion at :27 that ESPN has been showing a clip of during the CC/BC game but it starts slightly sooner where you can see the shot coming in to Faulkner. That replay makes me believe it was a legit goal. Crappy goal, but a goal.

This is actually a picture that shows what I am trying to describe:

Michigan OT Goal vs UNO

[larsensa]

New technology: Laser technology that stretches a laser from post to post. or on ice post cams. The laser would detect the puck when crossing the line 100%

Or sharks with lasers!!

[larsensa]

THANK YOU!!!

To everybody else who threw me under the bus, please watch the replay from the angle that larsensa is referring to.

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

[sagard]

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

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.

[gordwiser]

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 believe you think that is conclusive evidence... an angled shot from 200 feet away? What if the puck was slightly elevated? The angle would show white under the puck, but not whether the white was from the puck over the line.

Agree to disagree, because after watching the replay 100 times from all the angles I still don't see conclusive evidence. I agree that it probably was, but I'm not convinced it was.

[passit_offthegoalie]

Excellent work!!! You have established an incredible amount of credibility here as it takes a very big man to admit when he was wrong. Now I think the title of this thread should be changed as they obviously did not get robbed. I was only 99% sure before, but now I am 100% convinced that they made the right call. It would be nice to get apologies from some of the people who were so rude to me in this thread, but I won't hold my breath.

This is why you rub people the wrong way.

If you just made your point, I think people would respect it. But that's not enough for you for some reason.

[tnt]

Excellent work!!! You have established an incredible amount of credibility here as it takes a very big man to admit when he was wrong. Now I think the title of this thread should be changed as they obviously did not get robbed. I was only 99% sure before, but now I am 100% convinced that they made the right call. It would be nice to get apologies from some of the people who were so rude to me in this thread, but I won't hold my breath.

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.

[BigGame]

Excellent work!!! You have established an incredible amount of credibility here as it takes a very big man to admit when he was wrong. Now I think the title of this thread should be changed as they obviously did not get robbed. I was only 99% sure before, but now I am 100% convinced that they made the right call. It would be nice to get apologies from some of the people who were so rude to me in this thread, but I won't hold my breath.

I agree with you that is was very likely a goal. The problem is that we have no absolute proof the puck was over the line, thus no goal and the game should have continued. If you think that pic is proof, you're nuttier than a squirrel turd.

[SiouxFanatic]

Excellent work!!! You have established an incredible amount of credibility here as it takes a very big man to admit when he was wrong. Now I think the title of this thread should be changed as they obviously did not get robbed. I was only 99% sure before, but now I am 100% convinced that they made the right call. It would be nice to get apologies from some of the people who were so rude to me in this thread, but I won't hold my breath.

:lol: