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