It seemed to me that they blew the call.  I don't think they saw anything to reverse the original call on the ice.  It also sounded like the announcers felt the same way. A time limit might be a good idea but then again that may cause problems as well.  During an SLU game this season we lost out on a "no-goal" call being over turned because they couldn't get the replay equipment to work. Would equipment problems count in the time allowed? 

Sara
SLU '77
Let's go SAINTS!!!

----- Original Message -----
From: Tom or Carrol <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:32:44 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Michigan OT goal

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