Is there anyone besides me who thinks the revised explanation for the OT
winning Michigan goal against Nebraska-Omaha is bogus? I continue to
believe that the original explanation, that the puck crossing the line
was highly probable, was what the refs were acting on but they caught
flak from someone(s) who pointed out that explanation violated the
definition of a goal. Note that I do not question whether it was a goal
or not. I just doubt the explanation. And I am also troubled by 9:30
to review the situation - if you can't find definitive evidence in 5
minutes, I doubt it exists. What about putting an actual time limit on
reviews?
I guess we need in-the-cage cameras like the NHL has.
Tom Rowe