NC$$ games Saturday 3/28/09

abmarks
BemidJi putting up 4 on ND.

Still think we shouldn't worry?

Of course we should worry - if we played RPI in a one game series last week we wouldn't even be here today - but I don't think we need to worry as much as I was worrying at 7 o'clock when I thought we were going to play Notre Dame.

I'm sure that Bemidji has some very talented players and they played a great game tonight. At the same time I'm going to guess that this was the worst that Notre Dame played all year. As fast as Bemidji looked tonight, this is a team that lost to Mankato, SCSU, UAH, Niagara (twice) and Robert Morris (twice). Can they beat us? Sure. But is it as likely as a loss to Notre Dame? Hell no.

If you give me a choice, I'll take Bemidji every day and ESPECIALLY this Sunday.

reilly83
That shot was at about 10:00 of the OT. Seems a shame to review it now (abount 4:00 something) and possibly change the score. Would be a crappy way to end it. (Especially since I'm rooting for AF)

It looks like it had to be the correct call, but this stretches the definition of "instant" replay.

What if AFA had scored in the "forgotten" six minutes?

So, the play-by-play for the VT-AFA game will read oddly. Won't it?

Eventually, it'll say "goal, Lawson" at 10:16 or whatever, then a whole bunch of plays follow, even though it was over at that point.

Weird.

I understand your point, but after all these years of having no replay in the regular season (and I know other leagues are different) and learning to live with wrong calls, I still don't like it.

My real problem with it is the delay between the shot and when it was reviewed. I admit I was flipping back and forth between the channels, was this the first stoppage in play since that shot six minutes before?

Kudos to the refs for doing the right thing and making the right call.... especially since their was a 6 minute wait for a whistle and chance to review it

Seriously? You're ok with a magic puck that can pass through a net at will? I think they completely blew the call. It either skimmed off the top of the net of went off the post. At any rate, the video was not conclusive to call that a goal.

reilly83
was this the first stoppage in play since that shot six minutes before?

Yes

Yes, I'm pretty sure that it was the first stoppage

Al DeFlorio
What if AFA had scored in the "forgotten" six minutes?

Presumably they would have had a video review (they review all goals anyway I think) and declared that UVM had ended the game a few minutes earlier.

It does feel pretty weird, but you also wouldn't want to interrupt the flow of the game by blowing the whistle every time there was a maybe-goal.

Al DeFlorio
What if AFA had scored in the "forgotten" six minutes?

UVM would have won, and the AF fans would have been magnanimous.

Had it been against Minny or BC, they would have burned the rink down.

CowbellGuy
Seriously? You're ok with a magic puck that can pass through a net at will? I think they completely blew the call. It either skimmed off the top of the net of went off the post. At any rate, the video was not conclusive to call that a goal.

The net moved. There is no physical way with the shots they showed that the puck did not go in the net. It would have been nice though if they checked for a hole in the area where it went through.

CowbellGuy
Seriously? You're ok with a magic puck that can pass through a net at will? I think they completely blew the call. It either skimmed off the top of the net of went off the post. At any rate, the video was not conclusive to call that a goal.

View from behind the shooter shows the puck going under front crossbar, netting moving upwards, and then puck deflecting downwards. Had to go through

If the puck skims over the top of the net it will move. HOW THE HELL DOES A PUCK MAGICALLY GO THROUGH A NET?!

CowbellGuy
If the puck skims over the top of the net it will move. HOW THE HELL DOES A PUCK MAGICALLY GO THROUGH A NET?!

Theres a hole?
The net puckered outwards, and the view from the other end of the ice showed that the puck definitely went under the crossbar. They made the right call as unfortunate as it is.

did any of the VT players act like they had just scored a goal(celebrating) right after it happened?

It didn't skim off the top. It went under the cross bar and inside the post. What else would it be but a goal?

No way that was a goal!

A few things:

1. Pucks don't go threw a net and then ricochet without changing velocity

2. The puck could go over the net and without even touching the net get the net to move (try putting a napkin on your finger and just blow -- what direction does the napkin go?)

3. The puck could be in front of the net from a certain angle and then go over the crossbar and either hit the back bar or just glance over the net. The world is not 2D!

4. No way it's conclusive to overturn the ruling on the ice.

The refs blew it.

CowbellGuy
If the puck skims over the top of the net it will move. HOW THE HELL DOES A PUCK MAGICALLY GO THROUGH A NET?!

The announcers said "the netting is small, but it's not that small". Um, isn't that the point, the spaces in the netting are designed to be smaller than the puck?

I can't imagine that the net somehow stretched enough to allow the puck through without ripping.

The shooter seemed to celebrate a split second - although in the postgame he said he thought it didn't go in - and a handful of fans behind the net jumped up right away.

They talked to the guy who allegedly scored the goal and he said he didn't think it went in.

I was at the game, but did not see any VMT celebration at the time of the supposed goal.

Jacob '06
There is no physical way with the shots they showed that the puck did not go in the net.

Yes there is! Try the napkin experiment!

Jordan 04
It went under the cross bar and inside the post.

There's no way to tell if a puck is actually in the net just because a frame from the front of the net shows a puck "under" the crossbar.

The bottom half of the bracket now consists of UVM, BU, and UNH, which means that Hockey Least is guaranteed a spot in the final.

Trotsky

reilly83
That shot was at about 10:00 of the OT. Seems a shame to review it now (abount 4:00 something) and possibly change the score. Would be a crappy way to end it. (Especially since I'm rooting for AF)

Not as crappy as if they blew the call...

We had a really awful no-goal call go against us in a late season game against Vermont where the puck when in and out of the net back in, uh, '89 I want to say that cost us home ice in the playoffs*. So if the call had been blown it would have just been really really slow Karma for Vermont.


* Or didn't. Doing this from memory. Do remember I was really annoyed about it when it happened.

jtwcornell91
I can't imagine that the net somehow stretched enough to allow the puck through without ripping.

The only times I have seen this happen, there has been a rip, and each time it's been just inside the post and a separation between twine and post, which might be the weakest point in the design.

The UVM guys mentioned seeing LeClaire do it once with Philadelphia.

I haven't seen the replay -- but it's hard to imagine a straight shot from in front of the net grazing the netting. It would have to have come from below the crossbar, right -- hence a goal?

What? Since we don't like the WCHA either (right, Al?), were we hoping for a CCHA-ECAC-CHA final four???

Trotsky
I haven't seen the replay -- but it's hard to imagine a straight shot from in front of the net grazing the netting. It would have to have come from below the crossbar, right -- hence a goal?

It is possible. All shots on on an arc trajectory. It is possible for a puck to go over the crossbar and hit the rear crossbar and move the net outward.

JDeafv

Jordan 04
It went under the cross bar and inside the post.

There's no way to tell if a puck is actually in the net just because a frame from the front of the net shows a puck "under" the crossbar.

Right, the replay is two-dimensional so the shot from the end of the rink can't be conclusive. But on the overhead, it looked like it was still on the inside of the post when it passed the crossbar.

TimV
What? Since we don't like the WCHA either (right, Al?), were we hoping for a CCHA-ECAC-CHA final four???

Well, we were hoping for an ECAC-ECAC-ECAC-CCHA final four.

jtwcornell91
Right, the replay is two-dimensional so the shot from the end of the rink can't be conclusive. But on the overhead, it looked like it was still on the inside of the post when it passed the crossbar.

I agree that the overhead show it went between the pipes, but that doesn't tell you it was below the crossbar, and I doubt the cameras on the end and overhead are synchronized.

TimV
What? Since we don't like the WCHA either (right, Al?), were we hoping for a CCHA-ECAC-CHA final four???

AHA, not CHA. The CHA team is in our regional.

JDeafv

jtwcornell91
Right, the replay is two-dimensional so the shot from the end of the rink can't be conclusive. But on the overhead, it looked like it was still on the inside of the post when it passed the crossbar.

I agree that the overhead show it went between the pipes, but that doesn't tell you it was below the crossbar, and I doubt the cameras on the end and overhead are synchronized.

Ah, I had been considering the null hypothesis to be that the puck somehow went around the post and glanced off the netting in back. But from your other posts, I see that your alternative explanation involves the puck not actually touching the part of the net that bulged out. Now I'd have to stare at the replays again.

But really, the simplest test would have been to check the net for holes. The odds that there's a hole in that part of the net that it didn't go through are tiny, and as you say, the puck couldn't go through an intact net like that.

jtwcornell91
I see that your alternative explanation involves the puck not actually touching the part of the net that bulged out.

You've articulated my hypothesis much better than I did. Thanks.

8 minutes to go, still 2-0 Miami. The winner will play the winner of the Cornell-Bemidji game.

Kate and I just did an experiment where we stretched a napkin over two sticks (simulating the crossbar and rear bar) and then by just passing my hand quickly, but closely over the setup the napkin bulges outward.

JDeafv
Kate and I just did an experiment where we stretched a napkin over two sticks (simulating the crossbar and rear bar) and then by just passing my hand quickly, but closely over the setup the napkin bulges outward.

That's how airplanes fly.

OK, not really, it was just a breeze. But if you passed hands quickly both over and under the napkin and the napkin was curved, it would levitate.

Concerning the UVM final goal, I just checked the Zapruder film with Kevin Costner and there is no way there was a single shooter for this goal.

Duluth scored with an extra attacker. Miami up, 2-1, 2 minutes to go.

UMD just scored an EA goal. > 2 min to go.

Miami wins

TimV
What? Since we don't like the WCHA either (right, Al?), were we hoping for a CCHA-ECAC-CHA final four???

Got my wish, Tim. Last year there were no WCHA teams in the championship game. This year there are none in the frozen four. I like the trend.

Cornell is now the second-highest ranked team remaining in the tournament:

1. BU
9. Cornell
11. Vermont
12. UNH
13. Miami
22. Bemidji State

JDeafv
Kate and I just did an experiment where we stretched a napkin over two sticks (simulating the crossbar and rear bar) and then by just passing my hand quickly, but closely over the setup the napkin bulges outward.

That's the weirdest foreplay ever.

Just saw the replay on SportsCenter. Sorry, I thought it was in. Not 100% sure, but pretty sure.

Its possible for wind to cause that effect, but not likely, based on how small the puck in. The scale of the puck doesn't match the scale of Jon's hand in his experiment... that'd be more like the goalie flying over the net at puck speed.

I'm still confused about where Yale was yesterday

DeltaOne81
Just saw the replay on SportsCenter. Sorry, I thought it was in. Not 100% sure, but pretty sure.

Its possible for wind to cause that effect, but not likely, based on how small the puck in. The scale of the puck doesn't match the scale of Jon's hand in his experiment... that'd be more like the goalie flying over the net at puck speed.

However, my hand (this is Jon) is moving approximately 20.5 MPH, while the puck was moving 4-5 times faster.

Soberer corrollary from Age: his hand isn't 5x bigger than a puck

Whether or not they eventually made the right call on the goal it seems wrong to do so after the game has resumed. Once the game has resumed video review should not be able to overturn calls on the ice. If there's enough uncertainty about the call to review it then they should stop play right than and there.

They called Harvard and asked for advice on post-season play.

KeithK
Whether or not they eventually made the right call on the goal it seems wrong to do so after the game has resumed. Once the game has resumed video review should not be able to overturn calls on the ice. If there's enough uncertainty about the call to review it then they should stop play right than and there.

Not sure what seems wrong about it. If a team scores, they should be awarded the goal.

KeithK
Whether or not they eventually made the right call on the goal it seems wrong to do so after the game has resumed. Once the game has resumed video review should not be able to overturn calls on the ice. If there's enough uncertainty about the call to review it then they should stop play right than and there.

But if it isn't a goal then to stop play isn't fair either. Long breaks to review can be killers too (Buffalo in 2003) but the present system isn't likely to change.

KeithK
Whether or not they eventually made the right call on the goal it seems wrong to do so after the game has resumed. Once the game has resumed video review should not be able to overturn calls on the ice. If there's enough uncertainty about the call to review it then they should stop play right than and there.

I don't know. This is the kind of callous logic that allows a man to be put to death even if he has proof of "actual innocence" because it is administratively burdensome to hear the appeal writ very, very small.

It was incompetent to take so long to review the play, sure, but I wonder when Vermont's coach got the word that he should complain. It might have taken that long for the team to realize that it had been jobbed.

ugarte

KeithK
Whether or not they eventually made the right call on the goal it seems wrong to do so after the game has resumed. Once the game has resumed video review should not be able to overturn calls on the ice. If there's enough uncertainty about the call to review it then they should stop play right than and there.

I don't know. This is the kind of callous logic that allows a man to be put to death even if he has proof of "actual innocence" because it is administratively burdensome to hear the appeal writ very, very small.

It was incompetent to take so long to review the play, sure, but I wonder when Vermont's coach got the word that he should complain. It might have taken that long for the team to realize that it had been jobbed.

I think it's been said the review was done at the first stoppage of play after the incident.

KeithK
Whether or not they eventually made the right call on the goal it seems wrong to do so after the game has resumed. Once the game has resumed video review should not be able to overturn calls on the ice. If there's enough uncertainty about the call to review it then they should stop play right than and there.

Was there a stoppage and resumption of play before the break when the review was made? I listened to the announcers who thought that the play hadn't been stopped since the blast in question.

Al DeFlorio

ugarte

KeithK
Whether or not they eventually made the right call on the goal it seems wrong to do so after the game has resumed. Once the game has resumed video review should not be able to overturn calls on the ice. If there's enough uncertainty about the call to review it then they should stop play right than and there.

I don't know. This is the kind of callous logic that allows a man to be put to death even if he has proof of "actual innocence" because it is administratively burdensome to hear the appeal writ very, very small.

It was incompetent to take so long to review the play, sure, but I wonder when Vermont's coach got the word that he should complain. It might have taken that long for the team to realize that it had been jobbed.

I think it's been said the review was done at the first stoppage of play after the incident.

Then this exact thing happened in the Rangers - Canucks Stanley Cup final, except that it wasn't in overtime. There shouldn't be any controversy whatsoever (unless, per Age, it wasn't a goal...)

DeltaOne81
Just saw the replay on SportsCenter. Sorry, I thought it was in. Not 100% sure, but pretty sure.

Here is the video. Looks like a goal to me, but that's a helluva tough call.

ugarte

KeithK
Whether or not they eventually made the right call on the goal it seems wrong to do so after the game has resumed. Once the game has resumed video review should not be able to overturn calls on the ice. If there's enough uncertainty about the call to review it then they should stop play right than and there.

I don't know. This is the kind of callous logic that allows a man to be put to death even if he has proof of "actual innocence" because it is administratively burdensome to hear the appeal writ very, very small.

It was incompetent to take so long to review the play, sure, but I wonder when Vermont's coach got the word that he should complain. It might have taken that long for the team to realize that it had been jobbed.

If that's true, then if Air Force had iced the puck right after the unseen goal, no one would have thought to review it, play would have resumed, and it would never have happened.

I wonder what everyone in the arena thought. I'm assuming that as usual they didn't show replays in the rink and therefore most fans had no idea what was being reviewed. When they announced the goal, did they explain that Vermont had scored six minutes before the whistle?

the puck change direction by 5-10 degrees as well it had to hit somehing.

KP '06

DeltaOne81
Just saw the replay on SportsCenter. Sorry, I thought it was in. Not 100% sure, but pretty sure.

Here is the video. Looks like a goal to me, but that's a helluva tough call.

Oh weird. During the broadcast they said Lawson's shot came around the 10-minute mark, but the SC full-speed replay showed a bit under 6 minutes on the click, and the box shows it at 14:10. So they only played a little under two minutes of "fake hockey", not six as we'd originally thought.

jtwcornell91

If that's true, then if Air Force had iced the puck right after the unseen goal, no one would have thought to review it, play would have resumed, and it would never have happened.

Can't be sure if that's true. I'm not sure we know what triggered the review or when. Perhaps the referees noted the incident right after the puck went through the net and were just waiting for a stoppage, in which case it would have been reviewed right after Air Force hypothetically iced the puck.

Agreed, the broadcasters (or whomever, I didn't watch the game) saying 6 minutes of hockey had passed is incorrect. It was closer to 2 minutes.

Also, based on the reaction of both the crowd near the goal and a few of the players, I can't think that anyone needed any time to decide to review that potential goal.

The refs did nothing wrong there, unless you happen to feel it didn't go in. But the preponderance of evidence is that it did.

DeltaOne81
The refs did nothing wrong there, unless you happen to feel it didn't go in. But the preponderance of evidence is that it did.

And, I suppose, this is a civil, not a criminal, case.

what's also interesting about the instant replay rule... is that if it had occurred during the regulation game... the 6 (or 2) minutes would've been replayed... even if it was the end of regulation by the time there was a whistle.

I don't know the specifics in the NCAA, but I think in the NHL, the video review booth says there will be a review... it's not up to the on-ice refs.

Imagine if after the Vermont shot, before the next stoppage, Air Force had scored what would have appeared to be the game winning goal, only to have the win taken away and given to Vermont after the video review. That would have been something.

andyw2100
Imagine if after the Vermont shot, before the next stoppage, Air Force had scored what would have appeared to be the game winning goal, only to have the win taken away and given to Vermont after the video review. That would have been something.

I suspect that had that happen they would have decided there wasn't enough evidence to give Vermont a goal and Air Force would have won. I know it shouldn't matter but the officials are human and I bet that's what would have happened.

In general I like instant replay, but I don't think people in general realize how much the TV picture can distort reality. I've actually worked the corner camera at TV broadcasts of hockey games. When we had that call go against us against UNH during the NCAA semis a few years back, the one where they used replay to determine how high the guys stick was when it deflected the puck, I remember thinking that I could make it look almost whatever height I wanted by raising and lowering my camera. Unless the knew exactly how the camera was set and were willing to do some trigonometry it was a meaningless image. When it comes to hockey I think pretty much the only use of replay should be a camera directly over the goal line determining if the puck crossed the line. For pretty much everything else the relation of the TV picture to reality is purely coincidental.

schoaff
Unless the knew exactly how the camera was set and were willing to do some trigonometry it was a meaningless image. When it comes to hockey I think pretty much the only use of replay should be a camera directly over the goal line determining if the puck crossed the line. For pretty much everything else the relation of the TV picture to reality is purely coincidental.

I'd also like to know something about the source of their replay. Do they use actual video or an uncompressed digital stream? I certainly hope they don't look at an MPEG-encoded replay: the motion estimation algorithms in digital video compression can for example make it look like one object has passed in front of another when in fact it went behind.

Kyle Rose

schoaff
Unless the knew exactly how the camera was set and were willing to do some trigonometry it was a meaningless image. When it comes to hockey I think pretty much the only use of replay should be a camera directly over the goal line determining if the puck crossed the line. For pretty much everything else the relation of the TV picture to reality is purely coincidental.

I'd also like to know something about the source of their replay. Do they use actual video or an uncompressed digital stream? I certainly hope they don't look at an MPEG-encoded replay: the motion estimation algorithms in digital video compression can for example make it look like one object has passed in front of another when in fact it went behind.

They managed to show us briefly what the refs were looking at last night before someone started holding hands up in front of the camera - and from the time-elapsed graphic that appeared on the bottom of the screen when they were going forward and backward, it seemed to me that it was a TiVo.

Beeeej
it seemed to me that it was a TiVo.

That is scary, because the TiVo video is compressed. Yikes.

Kyle Rose

Beeeej
it seemed to me that it was a TiVo.

That is scary, because the TiVo video is compressed. Yikes.

Unless its an HD TiVo, in which case its not compressed, beyond whatever the broadcast video signal is - i.e. doesn't do any compression on its own.

However, I don't think you necessarily need raw perfect video in this case. The YouTube quality video is fairly conclusive.

Tom Lento

Trotsky

CKinsland
Yeah. I'm watching on TV, so I'm pretty sure it's 4-1. I guess they just got used to Bemidji being the only scoring team (or, the whole thing fried the innards of their computers).

TV here has the heartpounding action of a US soccer game against Slovakia. Or Slovenia, I'm not sure.

Bemidji - ND is on ESPN Classic, not ESPN 2. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, either.

ANY game is which Notre Dame plays is classic.

DeltaOne81
Unless its an HD TiVo, in which case its not compressed,

As you say, beyond what it already does. It's still compressed, which means it is still subject to motion compensation artifacts.

However, I don't think you necessarily need raw perfect video in this case. The YouTube quality video is fairly conclusive.

My point is that something that looks conclusive may only look that way because the compression artifacts are making it look that way.

Seriously, can we get back to the issue of the puck magically passing through the net, at an angle without any significant loss in energy? It didn't slow down at all after, as you all claim, it passed through the net. I still maintain that there's no way a puck at any speed could deform the netting (or the puck) enough to pass through without putting a hole in it, or dissipating enough energy to rewrite the laws of physics. Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.

CowbellGuy
Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.

I think it was a bad call simply because the video was not conclusive: you can't reverse an on-ice judgment based on an inconclusive replay video.

CowbellGuy
Seriously, can we get back to the issue of the puck magically passing through the net, at an angle without any significant loss in energy? It didn't slow down at all after, as you all claim, it passed through the net. I still maintain that there's no way a puck at any speed could deform the netting (or the puck) enough to pass through without putting a hole in it, or dissipating enough energy to rewrite the laws of physics. Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.

"I don't know how it happpens, but it happens..."

NY Times

CowbellGuy
Seriously, can we get back to the issue of the puck magically passing through the net, at an angle without any significant loss in energy? It didn't slow down at all after, as you all claim, it passed through the net. I still maintain that there's no way a puck at any speed could deform the netting (or the puck) enough to pass through without putting a hole in it, or dissipating enough energy to rewrite the laws of physics. Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.

I think it was tunneling. The puck is both particle and wave.

lynah80
I think it was tunneling.

Sadly, I thought the same thing. The difference is that I didn't post it.

peterg

CowbellGuy
Seriously, can we get back to the issue of the puck magically passing through the net, at an angle without any significant loss in energy? It didn't slow down at all after, as you all claim, it passed through the net. I still maintain that there's no way a puck at any speed could deform the netting (or the puck) enough to pass through without putting a hole in it, or dissipating enough energy to rewrite the laws of physics. Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.

"I don't know how it happpens, but it happens..."

NY Times

I was going to mention the Joe Kocur goal - but based on the photo credit, that's obviously what prompted the article. It happens. The puck hits the netting at exactly the right angle and it stretches just enough to pass through.

lynah80
I think it was tunneling. The puck is both particle and wave.

Only until you observe it.

CowbellGuy
Seriously, can we get back to the issue of the puck magically passing through the net, at an angle without any significant loss in energy? It didn't slow down at all after, as you all claim, it passed through the net. I still maintain that there's no way a puck at any speed could deform the netting (or the puck) enough to pass through without putting a hole in it, or dissipating enough energy to rewrite the laws of physics. Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.

I'll explain that right after you explain how a puck shot from the goalie's right can hit the outside of an inward-sagging net on the goalie's left and continue to travel right to left at the same angle as it came off of the stick.

ugarte

CowbellGuy
Seriously, can we get back to the issue of the puck magically passing through the net, at an angle without any significant loss in energy? It didn't slow down at all after, as you all claim, it passed through the net. I still maintain that there's no way a puck at any speed could deform the netting (or the puck) enough to pass through without putting a hole in it, or dissipating enough energy to rewrite the laws of physics. Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.

I'll explain that right after you explain how a puck shot from the goalie's right can hit the outside of an inward-sagging net on the goalie's left and continue to travel right to left at the same angle as it came off of the stick.

Step 1)
a)The net was manufactured imperfectly and had one spot where there was a hole was just a bit too big.

Or,
b) was slightly stretched by a, or a number of, previous shot(s).

Or,
c) was mishandled just a bit during transit or handling previously and stretched just slightly.

Any one or combination thereof of could lead to a hole that was just a tiny bit bigger than it should have been, but not big enough to be noticed in a quick check by a ref.

Step 2)
The puck just happens to hit that very spot just perfectly, so it slips through the net, just slightly rubbing against the fabric causing it to deform the netting due to friction, but not perceptibly altering its course.

Its not the the puck busted through like through a piece of paper. Its more like it went through a strainer, or a sieve, if you will.



From the overhead shot, there's no way you can say the puck went wide. So you'd have to argue it went over the net. If that's the case, I can't see how a puck traveling mildly left-to-right going over the the net, can cause the left side of the net to deform while producing no effect to the top.

Trotsky

lynah80
I think it was tunneling. The puck is both particle and wave.

Only until you observe it.

Schrödinger's cat!

DeltaOne81
It's more like it went through a strainer, or a sieve, if you will.

Isn't it already a given that the puck went through a sieve?

Willy '06

DeltaOne81
It's more like it went through a strainer, or a sieve, if you will.

Isn't it already a given that the puck went through a sieve?

You're welcome.

As the third # seed to lose in the Regionals, does that mean that the Irish "choked?"

Rich S
As the third # seed to lose in the Regionals, does that mean that the Irish "choked?"

Why do you care so much what we think of Clarkson?

I hope I can shed some light on a few things .... First of all, I believe it's possible for a puck to do that, so no problem with the call. It's very rare - sure - but kind of like how if you hit plexiglas just right, it will shatter into a million pieces. Certainly more feasible than the magic bullet theory of puck trajectory.

Now ... the ESPN announcers did have it wrong ... it was just under 2 minutes until the whistle.

The rule is that the play goes on until the next whistle. This seems like a perfectly reasonable methodology for refs to follow.

The referee did say that he thought it might have been a goal, but wasn't sure. So he waited for the next whistle to check the video. The Vermont bench was screaming immediately, but again, had to wait.

In the building, I saw the net move when the shot was taken, and was like "Whoa" ... but since there was no reaction on ice seemingly - we just forgot about it.

Two minutes later, we get the whistle. People in the building were clueless, because they don't show replay. Seemed amazing they were taking that long to review the play the directly preceded the whistle, b/c the puck seemed nowhere near the goal on that one.

The way that people in the building started realizing which play was being reviewed, was because people at home watching the game were texting people in the building. The wonder of modern technology. As we started realizing what was going on - we remembered back to the shot where the net moved. At that point it was "oh my god - this may actually be a goal"

Weird way to end it ... you always like to see a spontaneous celebration on a clean goal. However, it's more important to get the call right than to worry about theatrics. Considering one of the referees has been involved in a fair number of WCHA video replay debacles, kudos for getting it right.

Air Force was exceedingly gracious about it.

More here ...
[www.collegehockeynews.com]

And our home page currently has a picture from just after the puck went through. Hard to tell anything from that picture, but it's cool nonetheless.

I don't care.

I simply asked if people here think that ND "choked" as a #1 seed that lost to a #4 seed. Or the other two #1s who lost?

Clarkson supposedly "choked" according to elynah logic when we lost to U Mass in OT 2 years ago. ND didn't come close to OT yesterday.

So did they choke?

Rich S
I don't care.

I simply asked if people here think that ND "choked" as a #1 seed that lost to a #4 seed. Or the other two #1s who lost?

Clarkson supposedly "choked" according to elynah logic when we lost to U Mass in OT 2 years ago. ND didn't come close to OT yesterday.

So did they choke?

I think they did. yes. As did, IMO, Michigan. Not sure about Denver. Definitely sure about Princeton and NoDak. And FOR SURE Clarkson against UMass.

absurd "logic."

Rich S
absurd "logic."

Not really...there's a mathematical formula that unequivocally proves Clarkson's status as a third-rate engineering school, as Kyle and Ugarte were clearly explaining.

sah67

Rich S
absurd "logic."

Not really...there's a mathematical formula that unequivocally proves Clarkson's status as a third-rate engineering school, as Kyle and Ugarte were clearly explaining.

Clarkson is a third-rate tech school.
Nickerson has syphilis.
Clarkson habitually chokes in the NCAAs.
Harvard sucks.
Mark Morris beats his players.
Clarkson is a bunch of goons.


Did I leave anything out?

Has the troll been sufficiently fed? Will RichS go back under his bridge now?

DisplacedCornellian
Has the troll been sufficiently fed? Will RichS go back under his bridge now?

How long have you been here?

DisplacedCornellian

sah67

Rich S
absurd "logic."

Not really...there's a mathematical formula that unequivocally proves Clarkson's status as a third-rate engineering school, as Kyle and Ugarte were clearly explaining.

Clarkson is a third-rate tech school.
Nickerson has syphilis.
Clarkson habitually chokes in the NCAAs.
Harvard sucks.
Mark Morris beats his players.
Clarkson is a bunch of goons.


Did I leave anything out?

Has the troll been sufficiently fed? Will RichS go back under his bridge now?

Latullippe (sp?) is a hack
Weller is a goon
Leggio was a hot head
Roll is a whiner

if you dig hard enough, you can find all sorts of diggs on this board...

Dpperk29

DisplacedCornellian

sah67

Rich S
absurd "logic."

Not really...there's a mathematical formula that unequivocally proves Clarkson's status as a third-rate engineering school, as Kyle and Ugarte were clearly explaining.

Clarkson is a third-rate tech school.
Nickerson has syphilis.
Clarkson habitually chokes in the NCAAs.
Harvard sucks.
Mark Morris beats his players.
Clarkson is a bunch of goons.


Did I leave anything out?

Has the troll been sufficiently fed? Will RichS go back under his bridge now?

Latullippe (sp?) is a hack
Weller is a goon
Leggio was a hot head
Roll is a whiner

if you dig hard enough, you can find all sorts of diggs on this board...

You left out headhunting Willie Mitchell.