Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 27 Mar 2011 17:51:20 -0400 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=UTF-8 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I've seen this scenario in numerous NHL games, and if they cannot actually see the puck, they invariably wave the goal off.
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Sara M. Fagan" <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Mar 27, 2011 12:01 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Michigan OT goal
>
>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
|
|
|