Quantcast
Feature

College Hockey:
This season, Michigan gets overtime call in its favor

— The overtime goal Friday that sent Michigan into the West Regional final with a 3-2 victory over Nebraska-Omaha felt eerily familiar.

In the 2010 Midwest Regional championship last March in Fort Wayne, Ind., between the Wolverines and Miami, Kevin Lynch appeared to have scored the winning goal at 2:37 in overtime. That goal was disallowed after a brief review, however, because the whistle had blown to assess a high-sticking penalty to Miami’s Joe Hartman.

Michigan coach Red Berenson called that one “a tough one to swallow” after the game. Matt Rust hit the crossbar at 12:38 in OT for the Wolverines and the score remained tied, 2-2, until Alden Hirschfeld scored at 1:54 in the second overtime to send Miami to the Frozen Four.

That ended a miracle run for Michigan, which finished sixth in the CCHA and needed the league’s postseason title just to qualify for the NCAA tournament. The Wolverines won six in a row in CCHA playoff action before beating Bemidji State for the chance to play Miami, prompting Berenson to say that his team had made “believers out of everyone that wouldn’t have given us a hope in heck of making” it to the NCAA tourney.

Friday, there was no lack of belief among the Wolverines. The longer the play was reviewed — 10 minutes, 21 seconds — the more confident Michigan was that the call would go its way. In the end, it was Lynch who scored, touching Greg Pateryn’s shot after it rebounded off the back boards to send the Wolverines to another regional title contest.

“I went out there and I was trying to win the faceoff to get it to Greg,” said Lynch. “He made a nice shot off the boards and I was just trying to get a stick on it and I think it may have gone off of a defenseman. I knew it was in.

“It took a while for them to call it a goal so I figured … it was a goal.”

“Because when they call a goal a no-goal,” added Berenson, “it has to be conclusive that they change the call.”

“The longer it took, the more comfortable we felt,” said Louie Caporusso, who had the first Wolverines goal of the game. “We still had to stay focused, and coach was trying to keep us in the game, regardless of whether it was a goal or not.”

Belief had to play a big role for the Wolverines, who were down 2-0 after one period but didn’t panic.

“We had to play with resolve, with an unlimited amount of persistence and patience,” said Caporusso. “I think that’s what paid off. We didn’t get down on ourselves. We just stuck with it and stuck with the game plan. We knew things would turn in our favor eventually.”


The following is a self-policing forum for discussing views on this story. Comments that are derogatory, make personal attacks, are abusive, or contain profanity or racism will be removed at our discretion. USCHO.com is not responsible for comments posted by users. Please report any inappropriate or offensive comments by clicking the “Flag” link next to that comment in order to alert the moderator.

Please also keep “woofing,” taunting, and otherwise unsportsmanlike behavior to a minimum. Your posts will more than likely be deleted, and worse yet, you reflect badly on yourself, your favorite team and your conference.

  • Bklein09

    http://imgur.com/a/quDF8

    Here’s a series of photos showing the puck in the net. I think it was a good call.

  • Mnwizkid

    OK, so they lost one like that, didn’t see the game, but 15 mins. to determine the winner, give me a break! But that’s the way it seems to go, the players play, and a ref (paid off )? Oh well, I guess they need some teams from the east yet.

  • Btcooke

    Michigan isn’t from the East, so I don’t understand your comment.
    In regards to the goal, all logic tells us that this is a goal. Whether they didn’t follow the rule book to the letter of the law doesn’t matter in my opinion (though the far end zone camera clearly shows space in between the puck and the line) because the fact is that the puck WAS in the net, and it WAS a good goal so how they came to their conclusion is irrelevant because it was the correct call.
    Everybody from the WCHA needs to quit their whining. I swear, every single year there is SOMETHING that you guys find a need to complain about. Either this team got screwed in a game, or this other team got screwed on seeding, or it’s unfair that they have to play out East, blah blah blah..
    Also, Michigan was screwed last year in OT, and nobody made a fuss about it even though it was a BS call. This year, Michigan is on the good side of a “controversial” call (though again I say, it clearly is the correct call) and all of the sudden it’s a huge deal. Funny how that works.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501157411 Joey Loeffler Jr

      You are at least right and wrong.

      “In regards to the goal, all logic tells us that this is a goal.” correct
      “though the far end zone camera clearly shows space in between the puck and the line” incorrect
      “how they came to their conclusion is irrelevant because it was the correct call.” incorrect
      “though again I say, it clearly is the correct call” correct

      There is something to complain about. They did not follow the rules. The right team won so good for them, but you have to follow the rules in order to maintain integrity. Its not going to matter anyway, neither of these teams are/would have won it all regardless.

      • Khryx

        Joey, by and large I agree with you but why do you think they didn’t follow the rules?

    • GB

      Btcooke – I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you are a michigan man and I do not have a horse in this race (in fact I picked michigan in the game for my pool). However, the video replay is inconclusive and has been from the start. You can not tell me that a camera angle from 200 feet away at slightly above ice level can provide conclusive evidence. It does not give us the proper angle with the necessary depth perception to confidently draw a conclusion to reverse the call (the angle from above in super slow mo with a highlighted spot is inconclusive). How would your respond to the quality of the call (even if the ref sat there for a month and reviewed) where michigan was now in the role of UNO and you were playing let’s say micigan state or ohio state (in a weekend series in Ocotober). Then what would you conclude??? Now you are playing these same guys in the tournament then what is your heart rate and blood pressure level??? There is no way that a game of this magnitude should be handled in this manner. These are the NCAA’s…… The call was WRONG no matter which side of the fence one sits on. It is INCONCLUSIVE!!!! Altering one’s reality does not change the facts. These student-athletes deserve better!

    • Suture1

      Hey Beano Cooke, I’m a WCHA fan and I am not complaining. I think the call was not made correctly (according to the rules) but I agree with you the puck was almost certainly across the line. Don’t put ALL WCHA FANS in the same bag. Just as I don’t put all CCHA or ECAC fans in the same group. There’s plenty of ignorance to go around in every league Beano (and plenty of excellent posts as well) so try to not generalize too much….:) I thought UNO had UM’s number yesterday but it was a great game in general and you simply have to live with the results and move on..end of story eh?

      • Anonymous

        “Almost certainly”?

        Were you one of the referees that disgraced the sport last night?

        It’s supposed to be incontrovertible evidence in order to overturn a ruling on the ice. The ruing was no-goal.

        • Suture1

          Hey Arby’s, calm down a little bit. I think my comment that the puck was “almost certainly” across the line tells you that I was not even 100% sure either. I’m just giving you my opinion….as is everyone else on here. I think the spot shadow….IMHO…does show the puck crossed the line. Is it perfect footage and could I be wrong? Yes. But, this is just my vantage from what I saw. As I just posted, I think UNO did get screwed because the officials did NOT have the spot shadow feature available to them yesterday. Without that feature there is NO WAY you could conclude, much less overturn, that the puck crossed the line. I am with you on this buddy…take it easy….:)

        • Khryx

          RBTGT, the rules say nothing about “incontrovertible evidence” (that is college football, I believe). The rules do state “A replay must be conclusive for an instant-replay official to overturn an on-ice official’s call.” The replay is done by the instant replay official. Originally I thought watching the game that it was one of the officials on the ice but now I honestly don’t know. Moral of the story is check out the official NCAA rulebook.

      • Guest

        UNO def had michigans number in the first, however in the 2nd and 3rd, UNO looked very tense at times.

    • Sucky Chucky the chicken eater

      Would you be willing to go to jail based on this evidence? I have so much respect for your coach I’m glad he caught a break.

  • Guest9

    If you did not see that game, how the hell would you know if the call was correct or not? You just say because it took a long time, it is automatically wrong. I actually watched the game and the angles given and it was the correct call, the puck was over the line before the UNO goalied kicked it out!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501157411 Joey Loeffler Jr

      There is no way you saw the puck over the line. You couldn’t . . . with it “spot shadowed” in super slow-mo on ESPN you could see it on the line. You could assume it went over because the probability is that it did, but there was no evidence. I.E. You could not see the whole puck across the whole line (with a spot of white between the black and red). You are obviously pulling for Michigan . . . All of ESPN said the no goal should have stood, and even the NCAA guy they brought up was side skirting the issue.

      Had it been ruled a goal, it would of obviousy been upheld, but it wasn’t and there is no way it should have been overturned.

      • Suture1

        Joey, I agree with you on this. I do think it was a goal just by seeing the overhead footage….but ONLY when ESPN used that spot shadow feature. On the other hand, I TOTALLY agree there was NO WAY you could conclusively tell that the puck crossed the line. Moreover, the original call was NO GOAL. To turn that call over with the footage the refs had available to them at the time was totally wrong. Anyway, the puck “probably” crossed the line and today we all have to just deal with it and move on. UNO will be back, they have the best coach in all of college hockey and this is just a lump UNO has to swallow. As other posters have mentioned on here there have been numerous instances where “their” team has been screwed at one time or another….it’s just part of the game so I don’t see a reason to complain too much. If you noticed, Dean Blais did not say one thing about the call. He is the classiest guy and I think everyone should follow his lead. I just wanted to make a point about the officiating and agree with your analogy.

        • KOV

          I agree with you 100%, with the exception that Rico(MU) is the best coach in college hockey!

          • Khryx

            KOV, I don’t think Suture1 said that Dean was the best coach. He may think that but I don’t think he said it. He said Dean is the classiest guy. I can’t say that of Rico. I do think Rico is one of the best coaches though.

          • Btcooke

            Khryx, actually he did say “UNO will be back, they have the best coach in all of college hockey”. Personally I think Red Berenson is the best coach, but it’s all just opinion anyway :-)

          • Khryx

            My mistake I stand corrected… And I agree it is all opinion.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FBETSQYS6VDXIILQM463BFOTLU Cary Kruger

    Red must be senile! Play went on as it was a no-goal call! According to ESPN U- If this was the NHL, it would of been a no goal because of no clear cut evidence that the entire puck crossed the line. Can’t wait to watch CC blow out the over matched Michigan Blue Skunks!

    • BERNHARDTP

      BLOW ME

    • Sfaf6972

      Blow out huh? How did that work out for ya? Idiot! GO BLUE!

      • Sioux

        It went poorly for cc! The reffing was so fair in that one! How many bs penaltys were called on cc. Yeah it was pretty fair. Can’t wait for the ff4 so michigan can get some wcha refs .

        • Sfaf6972

          Want some cheese to go with the WHIINE!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FBETSQYS6VDXIILQM463BFOTLU Cary Kruger

        I can only hope you guys win the Frozen Four, as I’ll be pulling for the team that advanced by way of a royal screw job. UNO now knows how you feel.
        You got screwed in Fort Wayne and we found the shaft in St. Louis.
        I so remember you’re last frozen Four choke job against Notre Dame and hope you have Chip McDonald (McFool) on your side.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FBETSQYS6VDXIILQM463BFOTLU Cary Kruger

    ESPN U put a “highlight on the Puck” and you couldn’t tell where the puck was.
    Correct Call is to follow the letter of the Law, or why else have rules.
    Of course, Big 10 (Tressel etc.) doesn’t follow the rules. Can’t wait for the Huskers to beat up on the Little guys next year in football

  • Snookie

    They couldnt have let another WCHA team win. They (NCAA) never wants to see an all WCHA Frozen Four, even thou it would be the best finals ever!!! Refs blew that one.

    And it doesn’t matter what we think we see or what we might see…the evidence was NOT CONCLUSIVE enough to call it a goal. Time limit on video replays!!!

    • Anegadatortola1

      the view from the far endzone camera confirmed the goal.

      • Anonymous

        What brand of glue do you sniff?

  • spwood

    C’mon, USCHO, can we get a little more than this on such a big call? I don’t even buy the “it must have been in” argument that we kept hearing from the ESPN folks. I couldn’t even see where “it had to have been in”. That’s a terrible call from what I understand of the NCAA replay rules. How about some reporting on the rule and how it was interpretted?

    • Paula Weston

      When I wrote the recap and this feature, there was NOTHING available to the media regarding the call — no statement, no video, nada. We didn’t get the statement from Steve Piotrowski, head of CCHA officiating, until the CC-BC game was well underway (the second period, I think — it’s kind of a blur), so there was no way I could have commented on Michigan’s game-winning goal or its ruling when I was writing last night.

      Today, I’m not sure I have much more to say. Even after the CC-BC game, the press was still not shown the video that factored into the decision to call it a goal. In other words, I still haven’t seen the puck cross the line. I’m not criticizing the officials’ ruling — how can I, as I haven’t seen the play? — so all I’m saying is that at this point, I’m not qualified to comment on the actual goal.

      • GB

        You sound like you should announce your candidacy for political office. You are a natural! Please enlighten me!

      • spwood

        It just feels like something more should be said about this. To just let the NCAA slide without any explanation? ESPN had no video that could possibly be used to call that a goal. The NCAA should have to explain themselves…if they refuse, that’s a story I’d like to read too. Even a blog post that the NCAA has no comment and won’t explain anything would still explain alot. The fact that we havne’t even heard “no comment” gives the appearance the question hasn’t been asked….

  • KOV

    Paid off Mn Pee Kid?? That is taking this subject to a whole new level. There is such great money involved here in college hockey???? NOT!

    Cary, welcome to a real league, I am sure there has never been any cheating at any Big 12(minus ?) schools.

    For disclosures sake I am a Miami Grad and fan, and I had Mushigan in my pool. I saw it, slowed it even further on my DVR, I agree that there was no conclusive proof, play should have continued.

  • Justin

    It was over the line. End of story. If you want proof, here’s a picture: http://postimage.org/image/2tr4ydjes/ The idea that people could complain that the refs got the call right is ridiculous.

    • Big Al

      “I have proof… it is a Yeti”, says the drunken camper who took a pickture in the Rockies at Dawn.

      “Conclusive evidence”, said the Arizona resident that showed everyone a picture of three lights over the dessert sky.

      “End of story”. says Justin. Quite complaining because this one has a pretty red arrow which distracts you from the fact that it doesn’t proove anything

      • Miami North

        If you were talking about Aliens in AZ, I think you got the jist of Justins proof. Nice red arrow, though. Good graphics.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think there is a soul here that can tell a thing from this grainy picture. Looks about as good any shot of the Loch Ness monster I have ever seen.

  • Anonymous

    These photos are right on par with the other poster’s picture of the abominable snowman.

    Like you can really tell ANYTHING from these grainy pictures.

    And then cite it as “evidence”?

    Sheesh. There are plenty of people posting here on this topic that I hope never serve on a jury.

    • http://profiles.google.com/wolverine319 Josh Skodack

      Better image that is in high definition

      http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/7052/goalo.jpg

      It was a good call.

    • bluetell

      for the love of god. watch a video of it. look at the stills. the puck is in the net.

      all the WCHA morons on here have convinced themselves that the puck didnt go in the net and when they are shown a video OF THE PUCK IN THE NET they just go “LALALALA CANT HEAR YOU. WCHA IS INVINCIBLE LALALA”

  • Theohawk4

    This was a complete joke of a call and those refs need to be fired… There are rules and those rules are for getting things right. Those pictures show nothing but the puck could still be touching the line…

    I watched the game and all the replays, call on ice was no goal, video does not show the puck was 100% over the goal line, original call has to stand.

    here you have refs more or less guessing where the puck was and not following rules to make things in all games uniform. This call was a complete disgrace and those 2 refs need to fired from doing anymore games ever in the ncaa.

    They made their own rules up and did not do their job…

    I don’t care who wins this game just that it is decided fairly, which it was not….

    • Khryx

      Theohawk4, I felt similar to you after the Vermont goal against Air Force two years ago, then I saw the replay. I felt that this was no goal for Michigan until I saw all of the replay and looked it over several times. Reading the official rules (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/MWIH02.pdf), they appear to have followed them in both games.

      Does it suck that a game has to end on a call like this? Yes it does and it should never happen but it does. And it does time and time again. Any sporting event that gets decided by a refs call, whether right, wrong, or disputable tends to suck. You never want to see the outcome of a game put in the refs hands, it should be the players that decide the game.

  • Theohawk4

    Paula Reston, your article is a joke! How much did the NCAA pay you to gloss over the complete incompetence by their officials?

    You act like it was no big deal. The refs made uptheir own rule and guessed what happened

    • Paula Weston

      Again, I did not have video of the goal at the time I wrote this. NO ONE in the press box did. I filed the game recap before the end of the first period of the CC-BC game and this feature at about the middle of the second period of that game. The statement from Steve Piowtroski, head of officiating for the CCHA, came out after I filed the game story (but I can’t remember when, exactly, because things were moving very quickly after the OT game cut short the time for the press between games).

      The press was never shown the video that the officials used to make their ruling, nor did we have all the television angles that those watching at home did. In fact, we didn’t have replay at all in many cases, and many of us tried to watch on tiny computer screens the ESPN3 replay, but we were never provided with adequate video to help us explain what happened.

      I was not acting like it was no big deal. There was nothing I could say about the actual call. I had no evidence — still have no concrete evidence — either way.

      • Theohawk4

        You were not at the game? You have not seen any video of the game at all?

        From all that I saw the problem is the refs ignored the rule book and made their own rules up for the goal call….

        That is the problem, yet you say nothing about the refs…Nor the NCAA hiding their call of the goal…

  • Guest09

    The puck was in the net. Everyone seems to be caught up on the fact that you cant see it. OK. But was it in the net? Almost certainly YES. So it would have been better to disallow a good goal and have UNO win the game? That makes much more sense.

    Sorry but it was IN THE NET. I don’t care if there was good angles or not.

    • KOV

      Dude, you make the perfect argument against yourself, “…you can’t see it?” and “almost certainly????” that is exactly why the rule is “conclusive video evidence” The ref’s blew this one!

  • Guest
  • Voice of Reason

    Some of you WCHA NUTJOBS truly are unbelievable. The end zone angle clearly shows the puck is completely over the line as evidenced by the white between the puck and the goal line.

    As for the officials, they called an outstanding game, one of the best tournament games I’ve seen in some time. For a stark contrast, see the Union-UMD game. Who cares if they took 9 minutes to thoroughly review all of the angles they had at their disposal! They got the call right WHICH IS THE SOLE PURPOSE OF VIDEO REVIEW!!!!

    Congrats to Coach Blaise and UNO on a fine season. Certainly a program on the rise and classy fans too, at least the ones I have encountered. Not so much the case for the “WCHA conspiracy theorists.” Get the net, eh?!?!

    • Mnnice

      WCHA NUTJOBS? lol…a comment that surely was spawned by a kid brother Hockey East wannabe. The LOWEST WCHA seed in the tournament (Colorado College) utterly embarrassed the defending champs last night and I couldn’t have been more proud to be a fan of the strongest hockey conference in the NCAA.

      We will be represented in the Finals. If not for a controversial video replay debacle, the bracket would be dominated by WCHA teams. Your comments prove your ignorance and are hardly worth replying to…but I felt a duty to set you straight…EH!!!!

      • Voice of Reason

        Wrong again WCHA NUTJOB! I support CCHA Hockey until Big Ten Hockey begins and also ECAC Officials. I strongly dislike HE except for UNH. Nice try though. You further illustrate the point I raise about the NUTJOB mentality of so many of your fans. You are like SEC Football with one very notable exception: SEC Football teams actually win championships!!!

        • Mnnice

          You’re the one talkin out your A**…you define all WCHA fans as NUTJOBS…that actually makes you seem like the whacko.

          As far as winning championships, I think the WCHA’s record speaks for itself. LOL

          Let’s talk again when this is all done and the Fighting Sioux or Pioneers are putting up yet another championship banner in the rafters of their arena. ; )

          By the way, it’s spelled BLAIS…not BLAISE…”DEAN BLAIS” who coached several championship teams in NORTH DAKOTA!!! LOL

          • Voice of Reason

            NUTJOB apparently you can’t read either. I didn’t label all WCHA fans nutjobs. Have somebody read it to over again. You absolutely fit that description however. WCHA record in recent years does speak for itself: haven’t won one in a while. No wonder you couldn’t see the puck over the goal line!!!!

            p.s. Go Broncos!!!!!!

          • Mnnice

            I think I read it clearly…”some of you WCHA NUTJOBS”…sounds pretty blanket to me…

            Haven’t one one in a while…true if 2006 is a while…how many from the CCHA since then??? Michigan State in 2007 I believe was your last…then I think you have to go back a couple decades before that…LOL

            Broncos will get bent over by Denver in much the same way as the Sioux are taking it to RPI as we speak. Keep wishing though. At least you’ll get stronger when Minnesota and Wisconsin come your way.

          • Mnnice

            Down goes ANOTHER CCHA team!! LOL
            Miami, OH upended by UNH!!
            Voice of Insanity is eating his words. =)

          • VoiceOfReason

            Not exactly, WCHA NUTJOB. Despite being a Miami Alum (grad school), UNH is the one HE team for which I root. Glad to see that result, as Michigan’s path the national title just got a little easier. Nice try though…..

  • george

    that so called white could be because the puck is in the air and not over the line. no goal should have stood, inconclusive evidence.

    • Guest

      you george, are a dumbass…

  • Zach in A2

    I’ll be totally straightforward, I’m a Michigan student. That said, I can’t imagine how anyone could complain about this goal. I have yet to see a single person say that the call was wrong. People are complaining that the call was correct!! Or that they used circumstantial evidence! Are you kidding me?

    Re camera from the other side of the ice – The idea that the white space in the images is vertical space? And yet the puck is perfectly horizontal? The chances of that happening are one in a million

    Re camera from over the net – Everyone agrees there was conclusive circumstantial evidence, but because they can’t see the puck in the net it shouldn’t count? Let me give you a similar example: I’ve got a knife in my hand, blood all over my shirt, and you have video of me walking into an empty room with one other person and walking out alone as blood flows out of the doorway. You didn’t see me do it. Am I innocent? Or do you want it to be harder to get a college hockey call right than to send a man to prison?

    There is no controversy. I’m sure UNO fans are emotional. The people who are angry that aren’t UNO fans, answer this: if this were the other way around would you be complaining? I guarantee not. This is an issue because we’re Michigan, and everyone hates us. And because the college hockey media wants a story. Give me a break.

    • Theohawk4

      Obvious you have no clue about rules and how to ref hockey..

      Zack if you can’t see the puck how can you say that no part of the puck is touching the line?

      I don’t know if it was all the way over or not, no one does. The call on the ice was no goal, there is no conclusive evidence showing the puck is all the way over the line. There for the call on the ice stands. That is the rule in the rule book.

      These 2 refs threw the rulebook away and made up their own rules…

      I don’t care who wins but rules are there and have to be followed…They were not and that is a big big problem here…

      • Zach in A2

        The rulebook says “the replay must include conclusive video evidence” (6.60.a — I looked it up to make sure)

        If there is no reasonable probability in keeping with the laws of physics that the play was not a goal. You want to interpret that rule to make it harder to overturn a call than it is to send someone to prison. That’s just an unreasonable reading of the rule that would invalidate almost any replay there is.

        And we can argue all we want about procedure, but we can’t argue whether it was a goal. Watch this video in HD

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRQLZ29WEVU&feature=player_embedded

        • Josh

          After seeing that video I honestly don’t know why we’re arguing about this. That is more “conclusive” evidence than most other video replays I’ve seen where the call was overturned. The puck is clearly across the line (white space-easy to see), and resting on the ice (objects don’t usually hover an inch or two above the ground and move perfectly horizontally). Looks like a good goal to me, and please correct me if I’m wrong. Explain to me how that puck is not across the line in that video. I would love to hear it because I really don’t understand where this argument is coming from.

  • Theohawk4

    Ya, that’s a real definitive picture….

    you people with pictures from 100 ft. away are a complete joke, as bad as the officials…

  • Theohawk4

    Call on ice was no goal, there is not inconclusive evidence that the puck was all the way over the line form anything I have seen… Refs guessed and ignored the rule book, that is the bottom line…

    Until the NCAA shows the video of the puck being all the way over the line they are covering up a huge mistake by their officials..

    • Josh

      TheoHawk, please look at the video that Zach in A2 posted above and explain to me how that is not conclusive evidence. Maybe I’m biased because I’m a Michigan fan, but I really don’t see how you or anyone else doesn’t think that video is conclusive.

  • Jon

    The only travesty is people’s conveniently poor eyesight when they don’t want to see something. I watched the replays last night over and over and guess what? There are at least 2 full frames where the white of the ice comes through between the black of the puck and the red of the goal line. One of these frames is illuminated by a flashbulb making it even more obvious that the white of the ice is visible. The distance of the camera is irrelevant. The quality of the photo is irrelevant. The fact that white ice appeared between black puck and red line is the only thing that matters.

    If people don’t want to see something, no manner of picture, video, or technology will convince them otherwise. From what I see in the comments on here, half these people could have had their heads on the goal line and still wouldn’t believe what their eyes told them.

    People are going to whine when calls don’t go their way and bitter feelings cloud both sight and judgment.

  • Anonymous

    Postmortem, the most interesting thing about this whole fiasco are the constant strange allusions to the officials having seen some “mystery” video/angle/shot that everybody else wasn’t privy to.

    O.K., where is it?

    Given the controversy surrounding this blown call, wouldn’t you think the NCAA would, in an effort to, for a lack of better way to put it, want to exonerate their officials and get them back into the frying pan and out of the fire?

    From Chad Purcell of today’s Omaha World-Herald:

    “In the end, the goal was good in the eyes of the only person who matters: Referee Chip McDonald.

    That doesn’t mean the UNO hockey team wasn’t disgusted — away from the official NCAA podium — about the way its season ended Friday. Michigan won the NCAA West regional opener 3-2 over the Mavs in overtime on a score that was ruled a no-goal on the ice, then ruled a goal after a video review that took more than 10 minutes.

    What infuriated UNO the most was that this review went against the norm of the process. If the goal had been ruled good on the ice, the video review would’ve only needed to confirm that call.

    But for the video review process to actually reverse an on-ice call, there supposedly needs to be clear-cut, undeniable video evidence that a puck did or did not cross the goal line. The ESPN replays were inconclusive. And if there was some other clear-cut video evidence that the goal was good, why did it take more than 10 minutes to determine that Michigan won? The puck was either in the net completely or it wasn’t. When it takes more than 10 minutes to figure it out, how conclusive can the evidence be?

    Even hours after the game had ended, the UNO folks who still were at Scottrade watching the CC-BC game hadn’t received any answers.”

    If they had ruled it a goal on the play, on the ice, and then looked at the same video we’ve all seen and then still said it was a goal, I’d have had no problem with that. Because, just like the video doesn’t confirm that it’s a goal, it would not confirm that it isn’t, either. That video could not, and, should not have been used to overturn whatever call was made on the play.