Quantcast

College Hockey:
Lynch’s OT goal completes Michigan’s rally past Nebraska-Omaha

— After 60 minutes of hard-fought, back-and-forth hockey, the game-winning goal in the first game of the NCAA tournament’s West Regional took 10 minutes and 21 seconds to score.

Michigan beat Nebraska-Omaha 3-2 in overtime on Friday, with a lengthy review of Kevin Lynch’s game-winner at 2:35 of the extra session.

“We knew that this would be a close game,” Michigan coach Red Berenson said. “The teams if you look at them on paper … there wasn’t much to choose. Maybe it was fitting that it came down to overtime and the team that got a break ended up winning the game.”

Greg Pateryn’s shot came from the right point and rebounded off the back boards to the front of the net, where it appeared to be touched first by Lynch before hitting a UNO player and goaltender John Faulkner. There was no goal called at the time of the play, and the referees reviewed the goal at the next stoppage of play — although it’s not clear yet why the play was stopped in the Michigan zone when it was.

“We’ve had tough losses, obviously, but just the circumstance in overtime — the potential national championship, gone,” said Mavericks coach Dean Blais. “You can’t really do a whole lot when your whole team is sitting around the dressing room and ended their season on such an abrupt moment.”

 Lynchs OT goal completes Michigans rally past Nebraska Omaha “We talked in the locker room that it’s not going to be a pretty goal that wins the game,” said UNO senior Joey Martin. “It’s probably one of the toughest ways to lose, just waiting for that call. Once they called it a goal, it just kind of sinks your heart.”

The Mavericks jumped out to a 2-0 lead after one period on goals by Rich Purslow and Alex Hudson. Purslow scored on a short-handed breakaway at 1:35, taking a pass from Martin and beating Michigan goaltender Shawn Hunwick five-hole for the one-goal lead.

At 8:18, Hudson made it 2-0 when he capitalized on Ryan Walters’ quick feed from behind the goal line near the right post.

Michigan nearly mirrored Nebraska-Omaha in the second period, scoring at 1:17 and 8:36. Louie Caporusso’s power-play goal was a shot from the top of the right circle that went through traffic — including UNO defenseman Andrej Sustr’s legs — and found the near side of the net, clean, to cut the Mavericks’ lead to one goal.

Lynch had the tying goal on a beautiful play from Chad Langlais, who took the puck in the right corner, swiveled to elude two defensemen and dished across the crease to Lynch, who went to the opposite side for the 2-2 tally.

The scoreless third period saw chances for both teams, early on as the Wolverines took penalties and later when UNO had to kill. At 17 seconds into overtime, Michigan found itself down a man with Matt Rust in the box for boarding.

“I thought the penalty in overtime was huge, to kill that penalty,” said Berenson. “We were in our zone and with a break one way or another or a bounce one way or another, it could have been a different outcome.”

One specific bounce could have ended it in the Mavericks’ favor in their OT power play, when Purslow had an open back-door net, with Hunwick drawn completely to the right. Wolverines defenseman Jon Merrill flew to the crease, turned the puck away, and then threw himself prone to the ice and blocked another shot — making the save of the game.

“I think the puck came out and … I thought the season could be over right here,” said Hunwick. “Jonny got a stick on it and redirected it wide. Yeah, Jonny definitely saved the day.”

When the game-winning goal took over 10 minutes to review, Lynch said that the longer it took, the more confident the Wolverines were of the outcome.

“I knew it was in,” said Lynch. “At first I was pointing, not even recognizing that play was going on. When it took them that long to review it, I figured it was a good goal.”

Blais said that he didn’t want to comment on the game-winning goal. “The referee signaled that it was in and we’re going to accept that,” he said.

Steve Piotrowski, the secretary-rules editor of the NCAA ice hockey rules committee, issued a statement after the game:

“The officials’ initial on-ice call was no goal. There was reasonable evidence to believe the puck had completely crossed the goal line. The play was stopped at the next non-advantage situation to allow an opportunity for the on-ice referees to review the video. Following video review, the on-ice referees determined through conclusive video evidence that the puck had completely crossed the goal line and exited the net by way of the goalie’s leg pad.”

Video: Michigan coach Red Berenson:

Video: Michigan’s Shawn Hunwick:

Video: Nebraska-Omaha coach Dean Blais:

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.

  • Guest1

    Glad to know officials can logically deduce that the puck crossed the line without actually seeing it on the tape. The video evidence was not 100% conclusive and I hope the NCAA takes a further look at this. Did the puck go in? Probably. But was it *absolutely* clear on tape? No way.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JDGZXFDMDYK6NNRD2QK3DAGXVQ Jason Stanko

      Funny how the only conclusive angle was the one that they did not show over and over.. It was the far endzone camera that was the only conclusive shot.

      Can I add that the NCAA rulebook chairman is a bumbling idiot? He did not interview on the situation well..

    • Phog5233

      Ir was absolutely clear. No doubt it was a goal. The puck was visible 5 inches inside the goal. Tough break but 100% the right call.

      • ahsibs

        I disagree. I have no dog in this fight. The video was not conclussive. The view from above was blocked by the mesh netting on the goal. If the officials had another view that we didn’t get on TV, fine. Otherwise that was a bad decision.

    • EastCoastYost

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

      Decide for yourself if the white gap shown is conclusive. I am biased, but red-WHITE-black from the far end zone looks pretty damn conclusive.

      • OMavs!

        I am a HUGE UNO fan and every replay they showed on TV I deemed inconclusive and, admittedly, have been quite bitter about the whole situation. However, this video shown to us by EASTCOASTYOST definitively shows that the puck, unfortunately, WAS in the net. Hopefully the officials saw THIS blown up video and didn’t just use deductive reasoning to make their call. Thanks

        • Liveaid

          I have to agree with OMavs! The attached YouTube video says it’s ESPNU, but I swear they did not show this replay during the game – at least I never saw it. While watching the game, I was convinced the goal was in, but the video didn’t show it clearly and convincingly. I was using “deductive reasoning.” There was no other place the puck could be except IN the goal. Hard to explain. But THIS YouTube video does show it clearly. All doubters need to watch this.

  • Hockey Rube 1

    This was a good hockey game with a terrible ending. I have not seen one replay that conclusively shows the puck in the net. Also, if it took the refs 9 minutes of looking at replay there must not have been that single shot that showed 100% that the puck was in the net. Bad call. The puck was probably in, but no clear evidence. Very disappointed.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JDGZXFDMDYK6NNRD2QK3DAGXVQ Jason Stanko

      Again they kept showing the wrong replay over and over. far endzone camera picked it up.

      • hockey1

        The far endzone camera didn’t show anything.. you can’t even see the goal line in the far end camera and if you know hockey you know the “golden rule” is you must see that the puck is 100% across the line and that there is white in between the line and the puck. that never happened and there was no view that showed that. it appeared that it was under his skate which was behind the line but you don’t know where exactly that puck was under his pad. terrible call and an awful way to end a game.

  • LincolnJim

    Tough way to end the season but proud of you guys and let’s hope that like with a lot of championship teams before the big win there was a loss that hurt a lot and everyone learned from it. Great year boys!

    • GeauxSioux

      Good sportsmanship Lincoln. I was sad to see the outcome here. Your Mavs will be a force in the future.

  • Guest2

    Guest1 is right on….. the evidence is not conclusive even when one watches the recently added spot light…… one still can not tell if the entire puck had crossed the line….. a terrible call even though “the referees spent 10 minutes reviewing”….. Now to all my good friends in Michigan you can not tell me that if the skate was on the other foot that you would agree with the call…… you wouldn’t because it is not conclusive….. watch out for CC tomorrow night!

  • Ippy27

    Even the anchors on ESPNU, who have been looking at it for hours now, say it is not conclusive, even with a spot shadow (which the refs didn’t even get to see). No way was that a conclusive goal, sad ending to the game and a great season for UNO (and I am not a UM or UNO fan).

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JDGZXFDMDYK6NNRD2QK3DAGXVQ Jason Stanko

      again i blame the ncaa off-ice rules official for saying the overhead replay angle was conclusive.

  • psyclone

    As a hockey fan/player/coach in general & DU fan specifically, I have no dog in this hunt except for the integrity of the game. That was lost when the refs ignored the rules and awarded the Wolverines that OT goal. From all the TV angles available, there was NOT ONE that provided undisputable proof that the puck crossed the line. Yes, common sense and physics say it probably did, but you don’t count goals that “probably” go in.

    The standards for overturning the goal ref’s initial decision are very high and the video replay didn’t meet those standards.

  • Q1

    The consipracy against the WCHA continues. 1st the brackets get screwed up beyond comprehension. Now a hardworking, well coached, potential contendeder gets inexplicably bounced on the worst call I’ve seen based on the evidence available. I didn’t care who won this game, but that was brutal. I hope that officiating crew gets benched for the remainder of the tournament.

    • bluetell

      so what was bad about it? everyone here seems to want them to call it wrong because they were only 99% sure it was in. the puck was CLEARLY in the net. there is no evidence whatsoever that the puck stayed out. if you look at the replays theres ample evidence that the puck was in. There’s no conspiracy about it. The puck was in. WCHA fans need to stop whining about everything.

      • hockeygurl179

        the NCAA rules says that there has to be conclusive evidence showing that the puck crossed the line, which means 100% not 99%. And don’t get your panties in a bunch about the wcha fans. You are just pissy that whatever conference you cheer for isn’t as good.

      • Q1

        Based on the replays available last night, I didn’t see anything that should have overturned the call on the ice. Fine, maybe it was in. Don’t really care because I’m not a UNO fan, but as of my post last night, I didn’t see anything clear enough to call it a goal. Regading “ashibs” post, if you would have read the thread last nite, I already acknowledged the bracket blunder for Yale and Union. To your point on BC having to travel west, everyone does. Not even the #1 overall seed gets to play in their own rink. Be honest, does it make sense to have 4 of the 5 WCHA teams on one side of the brackets? Does it make sense to double 2 teams up in 2 regionals, especially Denver and UND?

      • Hard58core

        You cannot discern that a puck was CLEARLY in the net from a camera that is 200 feet away at a 25-30 degree angle. Was it in? Probably, but there is no clear evidence that shows it was in. You cannot end a team’s season on a call like that, on a goal that wasn’t even earned…by overturning the original call no less! This would have never been a goal in the NHL.

    • ashibs

      Wow. Conspiracy against the WCHA? Union and Yale, the top two ECAC schools and both in the top 8 in the nation end up in the same region. BC, one of the top three teams etering the tournament gets shipped to St Louis, Denver and NoDak in the same regional, and on and on. The brackets were screwed up for everyone. Where is the conspiracy? Bad seeding, but I don’t see a conspiracy.

      • hockeygurl179

        First, BC went to St. Louis because they couldn’t play in the NE region because UNH was hosting and two teams from the same conference can’t play in the first round. Yale and Union are in the same region because that is where the standings but them. Denver and North Dakota are in the same region because again that is how the standings came out. The NCAA has been putting 2 WCHA teams in at least one of the regions and having one region with no WCHA teams in a region since 2005. In 2005 all four teams in the Frozen Four were in the WCHA. Now try and explain there is no conspiracy.

      • OMavs!

        well, well, well. I guess your beloved ECAC’s “top two” schools who are both “top 8 in the nation” weren’t even good enough to make it past the second round. Both of whom lost to the 4th best team in the Powerful WCHA. My math tells me that would make them 5th and 6th best in the “better” conference. Just sayin’.

  • Hockey2011

    Great refs from ecac Harry Dumb as and Chip McDonald. If it takes 10 minutes, it can’t be conclusive to overrule the on ice call. Again NCAA tries to do everything to support the refs even when they are wrong.

    They can be thankful that Blais is such a class act because some other coaches would have been making tons of comments to the media

  • guest

    just a little work done by a fellow on a mich board…
    http://postimage.org/image/2tr4ydjes/
    that should prove that it was a good goal….that being said…what a great effort by both teams. hate to see anyone lose that game!

    • Hockey2011

      You can see the puck clearly past the goallinen that picture??? Take off those homer glasses

    • snide

      I think I see the virgin mother in the net’s webbing just as conclusively in that photo. And the goaltender looks suspiciously like Sasquatch.

    • psyclone

      LOL! I think you can see the Great Wall of China in that photo too!

    • Guest7

      Not great resolution in the pic, but even so the puck looks like it’s across the goal line by quite a bit.

    • CollegeHockeyRules

      I am not sure the black blob the arrow is pointing to is the puck. It does not appear to be shaped right or be the right size. Don’t get me wrong, I think there is a good chance that the puck crossed the line. However, this is certainly the lowest I have ever seen the bar set for conclusive evidence of a goal.

    • guest

      was this picture taken 30 years ago? nice resolution.. im pretty sure you cant define that as definitive evidence

    • Michigan87

      Cross ice camera proves nothing when trying to see a gap between the puck and the line.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JDGZXFDMDYK6NNRD2QK3DAGXVQ Jason Stanko

    lol @ conspiracy. ECAC’s only 2 teams are in the same regional.

    was a good goal they just kept messing up on showing the right review. far endzone was conclusive.

    • Q1

      I’ll grant you that. They could have avoided Yale and Union in a bracket together as well. Isn’t RPI ECAC though?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JDGZXFDMDYK6NNRD2QK3DAGXVQ Jason Stanko

        Ya RPI is. my bad.

  • snide

    The precedent has long been set in sports that use video replay that you don’t overturn a call based on what “probably” happened according to the video evidence. There may be exceptions, but generally, making assumptions based on the video evidence should not be allowed in review situations. Until someone can offer a compelling reason that this should not continue to be the case, this is the standard that should be kept intact. Unless there is a replay angle or picture of higher quality that the refs were privy to, but not the rest of us, this result is the wrong one.

    • snide

      Despite my insistence that the replays do not show conclusively that the puck crossed the line completely, I do think we can logically conclude, when you review all angles, that the puck probably did cross the line. I recorded the re-broadcast on DVR and am satisfied that it probably did. In that regard, I feel somewhat satisfied that the right team won.

      However, a big part cannot be satisfied because I don’t like seeing the right team winning the wrong way. I have seen many a video replay call go the wrong way because of the aforementioned precedent being strictly followed – that you cannot overturn a call unless you are absolutely sure of it (people saying things like they are 99.9% sure either don’t understand math, are letting their hearts speak for their brains, or are simply lying). It certainly sucks knowing logically that you are probably right, but that the video – the actual pictures – must show conclusively that overturning the call is correct.

      Overturning this no-goal call sets a dangerous precedent. Using a court of law analogy, in the past we have used the criminal law standard – “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This call used the civil court standard – “on the balance of probabilities.”

      Again, I’m torn as a fan of the game, but neither team (in fact, I am a current Minneosta and WCHA fan, but have an interest in Michigan doing well, as the Big Ten hockey conference comes closer to reality). Michigan deserved to win, but once the call of no-goal was made live, UNO deserved to keep playing.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JDGZXFDMDYK6NNRD2QK3DAGXVQ Jason Stanko

        Well said.
        You would hope that they would rig microcams in several safe spots in the goal frame or something to remove all doubt but I guess it would remove to much of the human element.
        This whole thing would have gone better if the broadcast wasnt adimately saying that the overhead review angle was conclusive.. it wasn’t.
        Both teams played their butt off and deserved to win. No one likes to lose on a so called technicality. Has happened many times before. Will happen again.

        But really, did we want to read about how a slightly favored Michigan team won by a sequence that can only be greater glorified by a pinball machine? A goal that was scored off of the foot of a defenseman by an endboard carom? No one would have read it.. Except for a Michigan fan.

        Way to go conspiracy theory. way to go.

  • Undsiouxfan

    UNO was robbed

  • bluetell

    Michigan deserved this one. The puck was in the net with 99.9% certainty and in case everyone forgot, we were totally screwed last year in OT when we had our OT winner called back because the refs blew the whistle early. It was in the net. The right call was made

    • Hoalie

      So two wrongs make a right?

    • hockeygurl179

      So you are a MIchigan fan? You think Bemidji didn’t deserve to win last year because you wanted MIchigan to win. The goal wasn’t counted because the ref blew his whistle. It is his job to do that. Go ahead and think he blew his whistle early but he probably saw worth blowing the whistle for. You are probably argueing this because another WCHA team stopped Michigan’s season, yet again.

      • Guest90

        Are you kidding me! If you are going to talk crap, at least try and sound knowledgeable: Michigan beat Bemidji 5-1 in regulation! The screw-over came against MIAMI (another CCHA team). Clearly you’ve never even seen the shot and have NO idea what you’re talking about.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JDGZXFDMDYK6NNRD2QK3DAGXVQ Jason Stanko

          I’ll add that to the list of people that need to WATCH the games.. like the reporter that said CC’s 8th goal with 5 seconds left was an empty netter.. Come on WCHA fans. You might travel but what do you do when you get there;)

      • bluetell

        actually, he blew his whistle early not because it is his job but because he lost sight of a live puck thus taking away the GWG from us. and in case you didn’t see we shut down your precious colorado college team tonight. We absolutely crushed them. Don’t let me stop your whining though. Please, continue

  • Bklein09

    http://imgur.com/a/quDF8

    Here is a series of photos that seem to show the puck clearly behind the line. At the end of the day, the job of the officials is to make the RIGHT call. I think the puck was in the net. Doesn’t really matter how they came to that conclusion because it was the CORRECT one.

    • snide

      Look at photo #8 of the series. If the series is conclusive evidence of the puck being across the line, then phot #8 is evidence that the line is not a “line” at all. Look at how it conclusively looks to not be straight at all. There is white in the pixels where it should be dark/red.

      Point is, videos of this quality are not reliable. Unless the refs got to see it in an HD monitor and saw something else, the video replays showed no proof at all.

    • hockeygurl179

      Were you a ref of that game? If not, it doesn’t really matter what you think.

    • Harvard Fan

      I don’t agree. The only photos showing white between the (apparent) puck and the (apparent) line are nos. 4 and 6. But in no. 4 the bottom half of the image of the puck is missing, and if it were present there would be no white. And in no. 6 the near end of the puck is tilted up. At the angle these photos were taken from, only a small lifting from the ice of a part of the puck that is on the line would be sufficient to show white.

      These are clearly not conclusive enough to have overturned an on-ice ruling.

      But as one who has seen these ECAC officials’ missed calls before, I’m not surprised.

  • guest3

    I think the NCAA just likes hearing the WCHA fans cry. It doesn’t take much. Goal or no Goal you guys are the worst.

    • hockeygurl179

      We are the worst at what? Hockey? NO. We are the best conference by far. Are fans? Wrong again. WCHA travel how far they need to, to see their team play. What other conference has fans like that? What other conference has teams with such high stregnth of schedule and still are ranked high? The answer is NONE!

      • bluetell

        WCHA fans find anything to whine about. You all are like SEC football fans. If you can’t win the national title (which none of you outside of ND, Denver, Minn & Wisky do) then blame it on the refs screwing you over. If that isn’t really valid, then proceed to be proud of being in the tuffest conferince ever!! and continue to whine

  • Guest9

    I agree with Jason Stanko, there was evidence the puck was in from the endzone view. The endzone view clearly showed white between the puck and the line just before the UNO goalie kicks if forward with his skate. The overhead view with the spot shadow shows the puck after the goalie had already kicked, hence had time to move back on the line!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HVM5QWREKL5ZTSPY6HF2V2UPO4 Neil

    They (NCAA) have this amazing technology…and for some reason can’t seem to figure out when to use it. Maybe they should go back over old game footage as far as possible and overturn games where pucks might have gone in but didn’t count..if they call it a no goal it should stand..As a goalie I have made many a save only to be pushed over the line with the puck underneath a pad minus the whistle. Technically a goal but if it is that debatable, it probably is not. I don’t favor Michigan or UNO, but a game shouldn’t end like that…it is so anti-climatic and goes against the excitement of the tournament.

    • NO GOAL

      I overheard a NCAA “Official” last night after the game talking about the no goal turned goal. saying that it was inconclusive on 2 views but then on the mystery 3rd camera there was not doubt about it. So I guess it takes 10 mins to decide there was no doubt about it…….try again NCAA you robbed UNO

  • Anonymous

    One of the biggest screw stories in the tournament in a long time.

    The NCAA should be ashamed.

    Good thing for the absolute clowns that called the game that I’m not the Director of Officiating.

    • John

      Actually, Michigan’s “screw story” last year was a little bigger in my opinion.

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

    I’m suprised that no one mentioned the play during regulation where the Michigan goalie’s butt was shoved back into the net, and clearly the puck was under is Big Fat Butt, and “What!” No review of the goal. Didn’t argue it at the time because the rule – being conclusive is exactly that. You can’t assume the puck is in the net, YOU must see the Puck is in the net. What goes around comes around, and when the over-rated Wolverines get bounced tomorrow night all will be well in Hockey land

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JDGZXFDMDYK6NNRD2QK3DAGXVQ Jason Stanko

      Ref was actually in an unobstructed spot to make his own call on that one.

  • Anonymous

    In regular season WCHA games the only view the refs get is the overhead. They don’t look at any other view. Is that the case in other conferences? The refs clearly looked at numerous camera angles in this game even though they stated the overhead shot as the conclusive evidence. Anyone know if NCAA rules allow that or did they overstep their bounds by using other angles and then cover themselves by referencing the overhead shot as their evidence?

    To me the overhead shot was not conclusive. The far end zone shot was the best and appeared to show white between the puck and the goal line. Although probably the correct call, ‘probably’ is not supposed to overrule the call or no call on the ice. And it took rediculously way too long.

    Side note. I second the comment about Blais’ class. With Blais at the helm UNO is going to be a team to be reckoned with over the coming years and a worthy replacement for the Goofs and Bucky when they jump ship to the BTHC.

  • robodad

    Take a look at the tape again and pay attention to the goalies left skate. You CAN see the puck under the BACK of his blade well beyond the goal line. The goalie then kicks his left foot forward. This was even visable on espn3d. Be objective but most of all be fair. The Mavs whole team did act with class kudos to them for that as well as their great play.

  • GoTech!

    I agree that it should not have been a goal. Being a Clarkson alum, I didn’t care one way or the other who won, I just wish I could have seen the “definitive” shot of the puck completely across the line. What really cracked me up was when ESPN showed the “spot shadow” in the overhead camera shot. This is laughable to me. Couldn’t they move that spot shadow any way they wanted? I could only see the puck in the spot shadow when it came out from under the goalie’s pad. Useful video enhancement? I think not.

  • Michigirl

    You say what goes around comes around??? Funny how most of you don’t remember how UM got screwed last year in OT, robbing them of a Frozen 4 berth in their back yard! Yes, things do come around eventually!! We’ll beat CC just like we did in 96!!! Go Blue!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JDGZXFDMDYK6NNRD2QK3DAGXVQ Jason Stanko

    leave it to a “gurl” to start the trash talking. Any wagers on a WMU upset of Denver? think the oddsmakers would make that profiatble.

  • Anonymous

    They should never allow ECAC refs to do a game of this magnitude they were out of their league. Did anyone watch the 2nd game much better officiating. Michigan should’ve scored get an overhead shot there were 6 gold jerseys on the ice on the non -goal. And what was with all the tutorials on every face off. ECAC = bad officiating

  • Theohawk4

    NCAA officials did not follow the rule book. Call was no goal and there is no video evidence of the puck being fully over the goal line..

    Talk about a cover up. The director of officials said conclusive evidence but yet they have nothing to show us… Complete lie…

    They looked and said it makes sense it was over but they can’t see where the puck is and if it takes 10 minutes to review that play tells me they were trying real hard to make it a goal no matter what…

    Seems like the refs were fixed or showed conference allegiance in their call still comes down to they threw the rule book out the window and made up their own

  • Guest1

    I had no dog in this fight either but there is no way that the video replays were conclusive. UNO got screwed out of its chance to win or let a no-doubter beat them. That’s what I would want if I were to lose, to let it be a no-doubt, net-ripping goal to beat me, not an official’s hunch.

  • UM Guest

    As someone already said, what goes around comes around. Michigan was totally screwed last year in OT, and this year they got the benefit. It’s not ‘two wrongs make a right’, it is the ‘what goes around comes around karma theory.’.

    Otherwise it would have been two years in a row that Michigan would need to ‘win by two – in OT’ to advance. Now I love OT hockey, but does Michigan always need to win by two?

  • Garbagegoal

    Its just cause its michigan they r gay

  • hword

    You can say “far end zone camera conclusive” till you are blue in the face, don’t make it true. Just connect the overhead shot with the far end shot. You see some light as it appears under the pad, but it’s the same as it moves laterally when you know, connecting the sequence from the overhead that it is not across the line.
    That camera is a long way off at a slant that shows the bottom edge of the puck looking lighter in that shadow.
    That little section of the zoom at 26-28 seconds into the you tube clip is NOT enough to over rule. Obviously fractions of an inch in play, but NOT conclusive.

  • Hard58core

    Just because the puck appears to be in from a camera 200+ feet away at a 25-30 degree angle doesn’t mean it is. Pure and simple, you cannot make that call. You cannot end a team’s season based on that “evidence.” If a tree falls in the forest, but nobody is around to see it, it doesn’t make a sound. If a puck crosses the line, but nobody sees it cross the line, it doesn’t make a goal.

BNY Mellon Wealth Management