Greg Ambroose wrote:
 
> Mike Machnik's (and other's) less than enthusiastic endorsement for replays
> is puzzling.  We communicate via the Internet, a truly remarkable 20th (and
> 21st) century testament to technology.  Yet, when it comes to sports we want
> to remain in the dark ages.  I'll agree that, when used incessantly, replay
> becomes tedious. The NFL's problem is that they used it too much, for every
> mundane play.  If we saved replay for only goals how many times we would it
> be used it per game?  Ryan Robbins' reaction as an umpire is puzzling as
> well.  Isn't it the credo of every official to get the call right.  There are
> certainly occasions in every game where the officials huddle together to
> interpret a rule or to get a 2nd opinion on whether a call was the correct
> one.  Why not use the technology we have to enhance the results of these 2nd
> opinions?  Off the top of my head I can think of 4 instances where a game
> might have been better served by having replay:
>      1) 1994: Northeastern scores the apparent winner vs
>         LSSU, only to have it waived off.  LSSU goes on
>         to win the game and the national title.
>      2) 1993: LSSU scores the apparent tying goal in the
>         NCAA Final vs. Maine, only to have it waived of
>         off.  Maine wins the game and the title.
>      3) 1994:  Detroit Lions beat the NY Giants in OT.
>         The tying and winning TDs are scored by Herman
>         Moore on plays where the replay clearly shows
>         he did not have possession (TD#1) and he was
>         down by contact (TD#2).  The Lions make the
>         playoffs, the Giants don't.
>      4) 1985: Royals vs. Cardinals World Series. Don
>         Denkinger calls Jorge Orta safe at 1st base when
>         he is clearly out in the 9th inning of the 6th
>         game, Royals down 3 games to 1.  Royals rally,
>         win the game and the Series.
>
> I say, lets get the call right, especially when the outcome of a game or the
> season hangs in the balance.
>
> Greg Ambrose
> Go UNH BLUE, beat Denver!
>
 
When I got down to the 1985 example in this list, I expected to see a
comment that RPI's George Servinis was offsides.  Since this was not
used as an example, I will admit that I agree with what Greg wrote.
The key point must be, however, that replays should only be used on rare
occasions, essentially when the game hangs in the balance.
 
On a different vein, I want to add my comments to what others have
said about Bob Croce's reasons that RPI may beat Minnesota.  RPI does
have a chance to beat Minnesota, but how can he say that Minnesota
started off hot and finished the rest of the year as basically a .500
team when I recall that RPI started the ECAC season at 5-0 ended up
10-9-3.  Clearly, RPI is currently on a bit of a roll, but so is
Minnesota.
 
I personally think that some of the Badger fans will root for "anyone
but Minnesota" but others will root for their fellow WCHA team.  I
will root for Clarkson to win (until they meet up with RPI :-) ).  As to
the size of the rink -- it has been pointed out that the larger rink
is favorable to both teams.
 
 
Ralph Baer
Go RPI!  (by the way, what is a "Rensselaer Tech" ? )