Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:52:33 -0700 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi All:
I know it is too late to affect anything, but arent these games
videotaped? Someone could certainly take a slomo look, esp if the camera
does a narrow angle focus to follow the action. Just a thought. Maybe not?
Tony Buffa
RPI '64
==========
On Sat, 14 Mar 1998, Justin Huyck wrote:
> First of all, the second disputed goal was clearly not a goal...it hit
> the post and bounced to the boards. The light did go on, but that was
> probably because of the goal-judges ansiness after the first disputed
> goal....
>
> Which brings me to the FIRST disputed goal! I was sitting right behind
> the net, and I have to agree with Mr. Lewin that it was clearly a goal.
> It seemed to reach the back of the net, even toucing the net, and bounce
> out. If it had not been a goal, and had instead hit the post, the
> bounce it would have taken would have been different.
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
|
|
|