Union No-Goal

If you look real hard, you can see a UFO...

Actually, I took the shot the moment the puck hit the net. I'm 99% sure it's completely obscured because it's behind the crossbar in the top-right corner.


Here's the corner at full size:

Wow, what a picture! I assume the puck is on-edge compared to where the picture is coming from.

How did it pop back out after it was in the location in the picture?

I watched it happen through the viewfinder so I have no idea, but a few milliseconds earlier or later and I'm sure it would be visible. *grr*

Age resumes drooling over Nikon D2H...

Any who frequents and keeps up with the discussion at USCHO, did any of the Union fans have anything to say about the (non)goal?

In my mind, I thought I clearly saw it go in and pop right back out, and by the time Dunn caught up with the play, the puck was sitting outside the net. I say that "I thought I clearly saw it" because of course, my bias might have influenced what I thought I witnessed. I wonder if any Union fan can objectively say what s/he saw.

Mike Schafer did not make a fuss about the (non)goal, but he didn't exactly have the best angle to see the play. I'm surprised Adam didn't mention anything on air.

Regardless, we lost the game. I guess there's no point crying over spilled milk.

Do unbiased Union fans exist? Schafer and Wodon would have seen it from roughly the same bad angle, and Adam was even further away. I think we certainly had the best view.

i think the best veiw has to be that of Mr Hynes ... did he make any noise during/after the play? i mean he was only 9'-10' away from the goal...

I think you should send that to the ECAC. I am sure Buttafuoco would love to see what a great job his ref's are doing this season.

I had pretty much the same angle as you did for this shot (great job, BTW), only I was closer, in the front row. The puck went into the upper corner, bulged the net behind the bars (without hitting any metal, or it would have made a clanging sound), and was thrown back out in front of the goal. There was no question that it had gone in.

I was surprised to see the ref waive it off immediately. What did he think he'd just seen? But I was more surprised to see that our guys on the ice didn't make a bigger stink about it. Maybe they didn't really have the right view or maybe they just knew they wouldn't get anywhere and didn't want to risk anything with the officials.

Nevertheless, look at Mayotte. What do you think HE's looking at? If the puck can't be seen in the picture, and we sure as heck know it didn't go past the goal, the only place it can be is behind the bars: 1-0 Cornell...and the whole complexion of the game, and maybe the standings is changed.

[Q]I think you should send that to the ECAC. I am sure Buttafuoco would love to see what a great job his ref's are doing this season.[/Q]Oh come on. I wasn't at the game but this kind of thing can be a difficult call. Refs will miss goal calls now and again - that's part of being human. How the guy calls the game, what infractions he calls or lets go, when he swallows the whistle are much bigger concerns, because those are much more subjective.

Dunn did not waive it off immediately. He hesitated for a maybe two seconds because he didn't see the shot and then waived it off. He waived it off because he heard metal and guessed.

Regardless, Cornell lost this game. They didn't play well. Very disappointing effort.

<"Dunn did not waive it off immediately. He hesitated for a maybe two seconds because he didn't see the shot and then waived it off. He waived it off because he heard metal and guessed.

Regardless, Cornell lost this game. They didn't play well. Very disappointing effort.">

Dunn waived it off as soon as the puck was visible in front of the goal. Two seconds? One second? Who knows? It was quick.

Cornell did indeed lose because they did not play a strong game, and admittedly, not entirely because of this call. Yes, the tide shifted in the second period, but Cornell never really took control of the game. And for all the tough defense they play, they still need to score some goals. As much as I love the smothering defense, I have to admit that I also liked watching us frequently score 5 or 6 goals (or more) when I was there in the 70s. There is something comforting about a 4-goal lead, late in the game - one slip-up can't turn it around on you.

BTW, don't you wish we could get inside Mayotte's head? There's the one guy who knows without any doubt where that puck went...but I'll bet he's not telling.

[Q]Dunn did not waive it off immediately. He hesitated for a maybe two seconds because he didn't see the shot and then waived it off. He waived it off because he heard metal and guessed.[/Q]Based on this description Dunn made the proper call, even if it wasn't the right call. If the goal light doesn't go on and the ref doesn't see the puck go in the net he can't call it a goal. Sucks, but it happens.

I think the reason so many people are pissed is because it was so obviously a goal from the side we were on, and the fact that the ref, goal judge, and I guess assistant refs (if they saw it, I'm sure they could tell the ref) missed it is pretty sub-par.

[Q] call. If the goal light doesn't go on and the ref doesn't see the puck go in the net he can't call it a goal. Sucks, but it happens.[/Q]

Which begs the question, why didn't the goal light go on? Was the goal judge sleeping? Was he being a homer and hoping it would be a no-goal? Did the puck really not go in?

I'm not assuming that the goal judge cheated us from a goal, but he really did have the best angle to see what really happened. Like Mayotte, I bet he won't be spilling his beans either.



Post Edited (02-23-04 17:40)

Killer wrote:
BTW, don't you wish we could get inside Mayotte's head? There's the one guy who knows without any doubt where that puck went...but I'll bet he's not telling.

I dunno... I mean, realistically, it was directly behind him one way or another, so he probably didn't have the best view.

At least it wasn't a disallowed goal in the Frozen Four though. Hope that never happens to us!

Oh.....wait......

RedAR wrote:

Which begs the question, why didn't the goal light go on? Was the goal judge sleeping? Was he being a homer and hoping it would be a no-goal? Did the puck really not go in?

All he probably saw was that the puck hit the crossbar (he probably didn't see it hit the top of the net), bounce downward (where on the ice it touched is anyone's guess), and then bounce right out of the goal. He either thought it really wasn't a goal or wasn't sure and erred on the side of not getting killed by a flurry of Union annoying mini-cowbells.

RedAR wrote:

Which begs the question, why didn't the goal light go on? Was the goal judge sleeping? Was he being a homer and hoping it would be a no-goal? Did the puck really not go in?

I'm not assuming that the goal judge cheated us from a goal, but he really did have the best angle to see what really happened. Like Mayotte, I bet he won't be spilling his beans either.

Here's my theory: I don't think the goal judge ever did see it. The puck was in and out of the net so fast, that he only had an instant to see what had happened. And since it never went in more than a few inches, from his vantage point (slightly above the goal), it may have been blocked by the curved bars at the back of the goal. Remember, it went straight in and straight out. It never dropped inside the goal and then came out. It was out as fast as it could hit the net and rebound. BTW, if you look at the enlarged photo, about 4-5 inches behind the crossbar is a strap that holds the net tight at the top. I think that's what the puck hit, which caused it not to deflect farther into the goal, but back out.

And as for Mayotte, look at the first version of the photo. He's looking right up there where the puck is behind him and in. He knows. Yeah, he knows.

Alas, as much as we kick it around, it's all moot, eh? We'll never change the outcome. But maybe the loss will inspire the guys to kick some butts next week and again in the playoffs.

Avash '05 wrote:

At least it wasn't a disallowed goal in the Frozen Four though. Hope that never happens to us!

Oh.....wait......

Yeah, that one really sucked. But I have to admit that watching the tape over and over (including many months later), I have to agree that it was over 4 feet. I tried to rationalize that one based on camera angles, but it never worked. Darn that instant replay!

Keith K '93 wrote:

[Q]I think you should send that to the ECAC. I am sure Buttafuoco would love to see what a great job his ref's are doing this season.[/Q]Oh come on. I wasn't at the game but this kind of thing can be a difficult call. Refs will miss goal calls now and again - that's part of being human. How the guy calls the game, what infractions he calls or lets go, when he swallows the whistle are much bigger concerns, because those are much more subjective.

I agree. There will be missed calls and it is impossible to get them all correct. They have a rough time during the playoffs with the damn cameras rolling. In fact they can't even tell if the puck is higher than the crossbar in certain parts of New York State. (Must have been the effect of all the electricity radiating from the falls.)

It's part of the game and since Age doesn't do the video camera thing anymore, we aren't as likely to have definitive proof of a goal in the way Age caught the puck in and out of Maine's net a few years ago.



Post Edited (02-23-04 18:48)

Age:

Do you have another frame of the same angle at another time in the game? (I'm sure you do.) It would be interesting to see if the shadow in the top right corner is still there or not. You'll note that on the other side of the net in the top left corner, there is a slight amount of daylight visible that does not appear on on right side in your shot.

Larry

Sure, I'll find one tomorrow.

[Q]You'll note that on the other side of the net in the top left corner, there is a slight amount of daylight visible that does not appear on on right side in your shot.[/Q]

Which would be fully consistent with a shot from the grassy knoll...

[Q]And as for Mayotte, look at the first version of the photo. He's looking right up there where the puck is behind him and in. He knows. Yeah, he knows.[/Q]

That was always my contention. He held his pose and stared into the goal as if the uck went in. I called it a goal on his and Moulson reaction alone. Both were stunned; Mayotte, staring back in disbelief, and Moulson, slamming his stick on the ice when Dunn waved off the goal.

and the magic spitball from Seinfeld...

What struck me first about the picture is that there appears to be a layer of white vinyl (?) material covering the top of the goal underneath the netting.

I don't remember ever seeing anything like that at a hockey game. Do the goals at Lynah have this?

What's the point of the material? To catch drips from the goalie water bottle?
Why is it there? It would certainly prevent the goal judge from actually seeing a puck hit the top of the net. If the puck hits it the center part of the netting on top of the goal, you'll see a noticeable bulge. Obviously in this case the net didn't bulge because it hit just behind the crossbar.

Oh well. Water under the bridge...., but if I were Schafer or the league I might look into that vinyl covering.

Eric Hoffman wrote:

What struck me first about the picture is that there appears to be a layer of white vinyl (?) material covering the top of the goal underneath the netting.

I don't remember ever seeing anything like that at a hockey game. Do the goals at Lynah have this?

I've been to eleven NCAA/ECAC hockey rinks plus the Pepsi Arena in Albany, and the only time I've ever seen anything like this was at Union. It was strange, though as far as I know, unless it fell or was hanging into the goal, it really shouldn't affect the game that much.

[Q]it really shouldn't affect the game that much[/Q]

Unless it blocks the view of the puck in the net for, say, the ref or the linesman...

Marty'74 provided me with video he got from local news. I've put some together and cleaned it up a bit. You need Quicktime 6 or better.

[elynah.com]

Also, you can see from the video that the goal judge is, in fact, Don Zimmer...

Avash '05 wrote:

At least it wasn't a disallowed goal in the Frozen Four though. Hope that never happens to us!

Oh.....wait......

Oh, you are sadistic, bringing that back up! What still bothered me with that call was the 7-8 minutes needed to make the (correct) call. We had them on the ropes, they got the double benefit of the waived-off goal AND the breather.

That was DEFINITELY a goal! The puck hit the rear cross bar (inside the net) then deflected off the center upright and out. But there's nothing we can do about it now ...

Yup, that was a goal, which would have changed the complexion of the game. Damn...

That was a marvelous piece of video work. We are not worthy...
Maybe you could send THAT to the ECAC.
Lenny

Can anyone who was there tell me where exactly the puck came out of the net/dropped? In the clip I can follow it from Moulson's stick up to just below the crossbar, but then I never see it again after that. Mayotte's reaction appears to follow it around behind his back, but that could have just been a panic reaction if he had no idea where it went.

The frame after it's clearly visible hitting the back bar, you can see a black streak heading down and to the left (back out of the net). If I recall correctly it shot back out from behind Mayotte's right side and away from the net.

I was sitting/standing behind Age, and I can attest that I definitely recall seeing the puck shoot back out to Mayotte's right. So, with the puck going in over Mayotte's left shoulder, and the puck shooting out so quickly, it is impossible for the puck not to have gone into the net. If it had bounced off the outer crossbar or post, the puck could not have shot out the way it did.

I guess I am crying over spilled milk, but we know that Mayotte knows that he really didn't have a shut-out, and that it's possible that Union actually might have lost.

Ok, no more crying for me

Edit:
The fact that we can see the puck going towards the net, then it disappears (under the crossbar) from sight is evidence that the puck went in. If it had hit either the crossbar or the post, we would see the puck ricochet off of it.



Post Edited (02-24-04 17:37)

I agree. I freeze framed the original tape and it looked like it went down and behind Mayotte. I will try to get a still shot of the puck before and after the crossbar, but this likely won't be tonight. If you can imagine, I have something else to do!

This isn't just another bad call, though. It meant the difference between 2nd place in the ECAC and tied for 3rd. They wouldn't have had the chance for those other 2 EN goals if that had counted. I wasn't at the game, so all I can base this on is the picture, but it looks like a goal. And the refs have been disproportionately bad to Cornell this year, too. I was at the RPI and Colgate games, and have never been angrier at the referees. I think Schaefer has every right to be mad. Did anybody see the replay of the Hynes 5 minute major? The guy didn't even flinch. He barely touched him. It shouldn't have been a 2 minute minor, let alone a major. Hopefully the refs will stop their grudge against the Red in the ECAC tourney.

Fellow Cornell Faithful,
I am a resident of the Capital District and am acquainted with Chief Albany Alum Bear. His trenchent remark to me regarding the photo of the " Union no goal" is worth consideration. Who can say that at the moment captured on film the puck has not hit the crossbar and bounced back out front beyond the reach of the camera eye? Since the entire sequence of events occurred in the twinkling of an eye, it's a reasonable hypothesis. We all realize the rabid hockey-fan mind can't be provoked into logical thought, but the Chief's observation is less of a strain on incredulity than seeing a phantom puck in the photograph. A more philosophical mind calmly accepts the truth that many hockey games are decided by the inscrutable decrees of chance. It all washes out in the end. Chance was on our side the night before in Troy. Let's Go Red.
Abel M.

Because I've been doing sports photography for 15 years, I took the shot, and I know it wasn't anywhere outside the frame.

And because we have the video, which shows the puck flying toward the net on Mayotte's left side, and then disappearing. Because I was there, and I know that the puck shot out on Mayotte's right.

Objects can't just disappear, and since we all know that the puck didn't go behind the net, the fact that it disappears in the video leads to one conclusion. It REALLY did go in.

I agree. I saw it go in live and I saw it go in on the video.

Besides, this was Union we were playing, not RPI. Maybe those engineers could have rigged up some stealth device to make the puck invisible to Dunn and the goal judge, but not these guys. You're right, the only disappearing it did was in going behind the pipes.

Abel seems to have left out one important fact. The Red he is referring to in his "Let's Go Red" tagline can only be interpreted as those Cherry and White players whose Puckman mascot graces the morgue in Troy. We have an intruder in our midst and a very loyal hockey fan and good friend to boot.

And with that I give good Abel a ceremonial boot!

P.S. Thanks for dropping by!

Marty'74 wrote:

Abel seems to have left out one important fact. The Red he is referring to in his "Let's Go Red" tagline can only be interpreted as those Cherry and White players whose Puckman mascot graces the morgue in Troy. We have an intruder in our midst and a very loyal hockey fan and good friend to boot.

And with that I give good Abel a ceremonial boot!

P.S. Thanks for dropping by!

Well, I don't know what his fan affiliation is, but the fact that he feels the need to use the name of a character from Great Expectations is somewhat suspect.

you can even see the left side of the net move as the puck hit it on the way down..

John's right. If you keep your eye on left side of the goal, the netting pops out right after the puck "disappears."

RedAR wrote:

John's right. If you keep your eye on left side of the goal, the netting pops out right after the puck "disappears."

In the video or in Age's stills?

In the video.

That was my contention as well, watching it live. There was this sudden, albeit slight, bulging of the net behind the pipes, just where I believed I'd seen the puck go in. Oh well.

Go Dartmouth! (LOL. That would just be tonight against Brown, BTW. Just trying to clear out the number 2 spot for us. For that matter, Go Knights!)

I saw it! I saw it! Stage left, your right.

Don't strain your eyes too hard trying to see the puck under the netting in the upper corner. After studying the photograph and comparing it to the video footage, I have come to the conclusion that the puck has already ricocheted out and is behind Mayotte's body in the picture. If you view the clip frame by frame, the instant the puck goes under the bar, Mayotte's glove is too low in the air (~1/2 the height of the post and still below the level of his head) to match up with his pose in the photo (~2/3 the post height and above the level of his head). If you then advance the clip a couple more frames until his body configuration in the video frame approximately matches up with the picture, the puck has already streaked down and to the left, which indicates that the puck has to be behind his body in the picture, since it is not visible. So unfortunately, there is no way the puck could be under that upper right corner when the photograph was taken, since the timeframe of the video tells us otherwise.

Cornell Fan wrote:

Don't strain your eyes too hard trying to see the puck under the netting in the upper corner. After studying the photograph and comparing it to the video footage, I have come to the conclusion that the puck has already ricocheted out and is behind Mayotte's body in the picture. If you view the clip frame by frame, the instant the puck goes under the bar, Mayotte's glove is too low in the air (~1/2 the height of the post and still below the level of his head) to match up with his pose in the photo (~2/3 the post height and above the level of his head). If you then advance the clip a couple more frames until his body configuration in the video frame approximately matches up with the picture, the puck has already streaked down and to the left, which indicates that the puck has to be behind his body in the picture, since it is not visible. So unfortunately, there is no way the puck could be under that upper right corner when the photograph was taken, since the timeframe of the video tells us otherwise.

So what you're saying is that Mayotte is actually slower than we all gave him credit for and was beaten even worse than the photo would indicate.

RedAR wrote:

In the video.

Well as Age noted and I agree there are two interesting frames in the video. The one that occurs just before the puck hits whatever it hit and the one after that. In the second frame the puck can be seen as a blur in its downward trajectory behind Mayotte's back. So that is where I assume you are seeing the difference in the net.

I am still trying to find the time to transfer just those two frames to still images for posting. It's been a bit busy and the VCR to PC thing is a major time imposition.

The video was in S-VHS & EP (6 hour) mode. Too bad I wasn't recording in SP.



Post Edited (02-27-04 14:23)

Marty'74 wrote:
The video was in S-VHS & EP (6 hour) mode.

Good lord. I thought I was the only person with an S-VHS VCR

Cowbell Guy wrote:

Marty'74 wrote:
The video was in S-VHS & EP (6 hour) mode.

Good lord. I thought I was the only person with an S-VHS VCR

Makes three.

Upon reviewing all the evidence (primarily, the video), I am more convinced that Don Zimmer, even in his old age, saw the goal (he had to have seen the net bulge from his point of view) but was being a homer.

is there a picture from the exact opposite angle? if there was that is something to complain about.

Marty'74 wrote:


The video was in S-VHS & EP (6 hour) mode. Too bad I wasn't recording in SP.

Sounds like a perfect reason to ask your wife for a Tivo....

"But honey if I had Tivo, I could *prove* Cornell scored."

Actually I want a combo TIVO and DVD recorder but the one I want hasn't been invented and/or is too expensive.

The Pioneer at a grand almost fits but is too expensive for me. What I like about the Panasonic models is that they record to DVD RAM in addition to other DVD media. DVD RAM allows you to watch a show on demand (skipping commercials and pausing) and record that same show at the same time you are watching. But the Panasonic combination players have hard drive recorders which are not TIVO's. The least I have seen the Panasonic models for is $530.

My wife has already given me a lifetime license to buy whatever I want!

And here is an edit. DVDs are already obsolete. High definition DVDs will be here within a year or so. The short cycle on these gadgets is unbelievable.



Post Edited (02-28-04 13:36)

Marty, has your wife also given you a lifetime license to have you buy *me* whatever *I* want?

I have the Panasonic DVD RAM recorder without the hard disk. Spend the extra bucks and get the one with the hard disk. It's vastly more versatile.

The Wall Street Journal of 3/10 has an article comparing the Panasonic DMR-E80H (the one with a hard drive) to a $300 Gateway DVD recorder and a GoVideo unit that includes VHS playback (for transferring old tapes to DVD).

The reviewer did not like the Panasonic in comparison with a TIVO. The article didn't change my opinion. I am waiting for the next generation of recorders or for these to be sold at more reasonable prices. They don't seem to be worth as much as the asking prices with the possible exception of the Gateway.

As someone without Tivo and awaiting to buy the Panasonic ... the DMR-E80H looks great, but does not, for some reason, include Firewire input (to go digital to digital from a mini-DV camcorder). ... The next step up, the 100 something or other, has a 120GB hard drive and includes Firewire input. Price on Amazon, $850 (retails for $1119) ... The E80H is on Amazon for $520.

There is no perfect Personal Video Recorder yet. Tivo is best but the new Replay 5500 series is not much different. You have to pay a monthly service fee of $10 or a lifetime fee of $300 and it's lifetime of that unit, not your lifetime. If the unit goes belly up after the warranty, you're hosed. You can upgrade to a bigger hard disk and keep the guide license intact. (see weakness.com for upgrade info)

Panasonic has very nice units but until recently the best unit didn't have Firewire, DVD-RAM, and big hard disk. You could get 2 of 3. Panasonic uses VCR+, which is inferior to the programming guides of Tivo / Replay for setting up season taping of favorite shows. But, it's free. You can video edit on Panasonic and burn discs (DVD-R) but the edit features are, ah, not optimal. Keep an eye on Samsung, too. Samsung is the next Sony.

If you want to record off satellite, get a combo satellite receiver / PVR so you don't have to do the MPEG2 decode / re-encode. But satellite PVR is typically closed and will not record off cable TV or take a camcorder 1394 (Firewire) input.

HD PVRs are coming this year. You can also get PVR - set top boxes from your friendly cable company.

Windows Media Center Edition PCs are great for music and photos but, except for Sony, the TV quality is not yet that good. Give it another year. Also the fan noise may be a killer in your living room. MS uses the Tribune TV guide and for now it's free. When the TV tuner part gets good, that's going to put a lot of pricing pressure on TiVo / Replay.

If you're upgrading a PC to do TV in and PVR, check out the ATI Radeon 9800. That's the hot ticket now. - BH