NORTH DAKOTA vs. Northeastern // Mich vs. Notre Dame

[stoneySIOUX]

2 minutes ago, scpa0305 said:

Absolutely!  The focus here seems to be on Cam....I was simply trying to point out that we should focus on our offense.  Our D is great.

 

Fair enough.

[fsioux]

22 minutes ago, Emerald joker said:

Who was it in the head office that didnt feel the need to review this again?

I was at the game so unable to see this.  At what point in the game did this occur?

[Emerald joker]

2 minutes ago, fsioux said:

I was at the game so unable to see this.  At what point in the game did this occur?

I can't remember, the announcers just said that it was an awesome save. If I remember from the view we saw it from, you couldn't tell the pad was in the net. Then fro, another view you could kind tell the pad was in the net just not how far. Someone in the head office decided they didn't want to review it and Berry didnt want to risk loosing a time out.

[brianvf]

27 minutes ago, fsioux said:

I was at the game so unable to see this.  At what point in the game did this occur?

It was during the first period.  UND was up 1-0 at that point...right after UMD killed off the UND PP.

[snova4]

1 minute ago, brianvf said:

It was during the first period.  UND was up 1-0 at that point...right after UMD killed off the UND PP.

Yes it was. In my opinion that's a pretty big no review call. That goal goes in, it likely deflates Duluth and they don't get the momentum going into the second.

[Sioux>Bison]

I was in that corner where it happened and said to my wife that it could have went in as the goalie pad was inside the goal. It was a pretty quick shot and bounce out of the goal. I guess the fans didn't raise enough fuss or it would have been reviewed. This could have really changed the game completely. Maybe it was meant to be so our team would be even more motivated for the regional 

[ksl_sioux4ever]

Why was there No over the net view?

[yzerman19]

14 minutes ago, ksl_sioux4ever said:

Why was there No over the net view?

Target Center?

[UMDDogz]

2 hours ago, siouxstudent said:

If that is indeed the puck there is a lot of white in between that and the goal line.

The puck is in the air though.  You'd have to bring the puck down to ice level and see if any part of it overlapped the red line.  Tough to do from this angle.  It certainly looks close enough for a review, but if this is the only angle and the call on the ice was no goal it would not be overturned.  Need to be conclusive visual evidence.  If they had a shot from overhead, or even from the side of the net it would be easier to determine whether the puck completely crossed the line.  This is the same crew that initially whiffed on the UMD point shot goal later in the game. 

[yababy8]

It happened at about the 7 min mark of the first period. I have it on my dish recording.  It was 100% a goal. There is 0% chance it didn't go in.  The fact that it was not reviewed by the refs was completely inconsistent with their behavior in this respect all year...

[UMDDogz]

11 minutes ago, yababy8 said:

It happened at about the 7 min mark of the first period. I have it on my dish recording.  It was 100% a goal. There is 0% chance it didn't go in.  The fact that it was not reviewed by the refs was completely inconsistent with their behavior in this respect all year...

Do you have any better screen grabs?  The one that was posted earlier certainly does not provide conclusive evidence it was a goal.  If you have anything that shows a better angle that would be cool.  Nobody on the ice or in the bench area seemed to notice or make a big deal about reviewing it though.  Again, this is the same crew that initially whiffed on the UMD point shot goal later in the game that everyone in the arena saw go in, but you'd think some of the players would have reacted, and had the captain or head coach talk to the referee.

[yababy8]

1 hour ago, UMDDogz said:

The puck is in the air though.  You'd have to bring the puck down to ice level and see if any part of it overlapped the red line.  Tough to do from this angle.  It certainly looks close enough for a review, but if this is the only angle and the call on the ice was no goal it would not be overturned.  Need to be conclusive visual evidence.  If they had a shot from overhead, or even from the side of the net it would be easier to determine whether the puck completely crossed the line.  This is the same crew that initially whiffed on the UMD point shot goal later in the game. 

What makes it conclusive is that it had to have gone in because it collided with the pad toward the skate area and that was well inside the goal line when the puck intersected/crossed  the line.   At that point the puck blurrs into the pad so it's hard to see so the refs could have stated it was not conclusive because you don't see the puck across the line clearly.  However, this does not change the fact that it had to have gone in.  Had to.. It was indeed a goal.

...they should mandate that goalie pads should be white.  Actually all goalie equipment from waist down should be white. If his pad and skate were white we would have very clearly seen it across the line. The puck blended with his skate and pad..

[yababy8]

3 minutes ago, UMDDogz said:

Do you have any better screen grabs?  The one that was posted earlier certainly does not provide conclusive evidence it was a goal.  If you have anything that shows a better angle that would be cool.  Nobody on the ice or in the bench area seemed to notice or make a big deal about reviewing it though.  Again, this is the same crew that initially whiffed on the UMD point shot goal later in the game that everyone in the arena saw go in, but you'd think some of the players would have reacted, and had the captain or head coach talk to the referee.

Ill see if i can take a pic with my phone at the moment the blurr of the puck is at the line heading for his pad and his pad is well inside the line.

[Cratter]

Karma for UND's penalty shot vs UMD. 

[tnt]

1 hour ago, UMDDogz said:

The puck is in the air though.  You'd have to bring the puck down to ice level and see if any part of it overlapped the red line.  Tough to do from this angle.  It certainly looks close enough for a review, but if this is the only angle and the call on the ice was no goal it would not be overturned.  Need to be conclusive visual evidence.  If they had a shot from overhead, or even from the side of the net it would be easier to determine whether the puck completely crossed the line.  This is the same crew that initially whiffed on the UMD point shot goal later in the game. 

Yeah, don't think it would ever have been overturned, but when everyone in our section was looking for a review, it certainly seems odd they didn't take a quick look.  But as you say, this is the crew that had to look at the Duluth goal that everybody knew was in.  

[siouxweet]

March 25, 2005-Dave Hakstol made his NCAA tournament debut as head coach and the Sioux beat BU 4-0 in the first game of the mini Bean Pot run for UND.  As we all know that was also the last season UND made it to the championship game.  Here's to Berry and co. beating another HE squad in the first round and hopefully make it back to the title game in a few weeks and right the ship from the past decade in the Frozen Four.

[yababy8]

Sorry this took a bit.  I had to go pickup my son from work. The only thing standing in my way was the 25" of snow that fell outside today.

Ok, I'm going to upload a set of still frames from my dish HD recording of the goal.  I used the zoom frame setting on my receiver as well. The first pictire here is 3 frames BC (before crossing lol). You can see the streak which was exposed by the fast moving puck as it is heading toward the goal.  Three things to pay attention to:

1.  The trajectory- where is that puck going. 

2.  How long the blur mark is indicates how fast it is traveling relative to other objects in frame (goalie pad being one I take note of)

3. How far the puck streak moves from frame to frame allows one to extrapolate general puck location as we go from  frame to frame.

Ok again here is frame 3-BC.

[yababy8]

Here we have the next frame 2-BC.

Again notice the trajectory and notice how far the puck traveled in-between frames.  The blur is the same length indicating as one would expect no significant change in velocity.

Also, it is pretty evident that the puck is up on its side based on how thin the line is.  Not that this matters..

[yababy8]

Now for frame 1-BC

Puck is right were you would expect extrapolating what you saw between 3-BC and 2-BC.

Next shot is the money shot!

(Did  I just say that, Yikes@#%#@)

[yababy8]

Here we go..

As you can see the puck streak extends into the red line meaning that unless that goalie is superman and can swing his foot to meet the puck in the very instant this frame ends the puck is going to cross that line@!

For the naysayer who says, "But he could be super leg kicker super goalie man".  Well Mr. Skeptic check the next post and let me introduce you to the glove that don't fit-the next frame, frame 1-AC (yes that stands for after crossing).

[yababy8]

Frame 1AC

Goalies pad is still inside the line.  You can't even see the puck and you won't see it for about 6 or 7 more frames and then it appears on the way up and out.   (See above for that frame-another post from someone else has a shot of it.)

At this point the puck is absorbed into the pad. Like a golf ball mashes onto a golf club face.  It is impossible for us to see it as the pad and the puck are both very dark.

Hence my assertion that pads should be by rule white.

Oh and further, until they change that rule our goalie should wear as much black as possible. Why not? 

Again this picture would clearly show a goal if you could distinguish the puck from the pad...put it this way, if that pad was white we would probably be watching the Sioux at the excel this weekend...

[yababy8]

Frame 2-AC

Area of impact on pad still not to the line.

[Cratter]

I see nothing.

[yababy8]

Frame 3-AC

[yzerman19]

On the grassy knoll...