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