Discuss.
North Dakota and New Hampshire are tied at 3-3 in the second.
[quote nyc94]North Dakota and New Hampshire are tied at 3-3 in the second.[/quote]
I thought UVa won that game in the 7th overtime. ::shifty::
No RedCast yet. It was 28 minutes late for today's lacrosse game.
ND now up 4-3 late second period
REDCAST up.
UNH ties it up with .03
And UHN defeats ND 6-5 in PT.
Well, we came this close to seeing the WCHA wiped out.
Quote...the WCHA wiped out.
That was my secret wish.
[quote reilly83]
Quote...the WCHA wiped out.
That was my secret wish.[/quote]
Never a secret with me.
Justin TV feed bafk up now showing the UVM AFA game
Guy went out and just got homew and fixed it........
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote reilly83]
Quote...the WCHA wiped out.
That was my secret wish.[/quote]
Never a secret with me.[/quote]
Minn Duluth advanced last night.
[quote lynah80][quote Al DeFlorio][quote reilly83]
Quote...the WCHA wiped out.
That was my secret wish.[/quote]
Never a secret with me.[/quote]
Minn Duluth advanced last night.[/quote]
Yes, we both know that. My post said "we came
this close..." and reilly said it was his "secret wish" that it
had happened. If not for the Hobey finalist's brain fart, it
would have happened.
Yes, we know. I guess I should have quoted Al's whole comment, but that's what the "..." was for. ;-)
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote lynah80][quote Al DeFlorio][quote reilly83]
Quote...the WCHA wiped out.
That was my secret wish.[/quote]
Never a secret with me.[/quote]
Minn Duluth advanced last night.[/quote]
Yes, we both know that. My post said "we came
this close..." and reilly said it was his "secret wish" that it
had happened. If not for the Hobey finalist's brain fart, it
would have happened.[/quote]
Ok, thanks.
[quote Al DeFlorio][If not for the Hobey finalist's brain fart, it would have happened.[/quote]
UNH tied the game off of a late-game faceoff. I wouldn't cast too much blame on Zane.
BU up on tOSU 5-0, midway through the game.
Air Force and Vermont scoreless after one
[quote Trotsky]BU up on tOSU 5-0, midway through the game.[/quote]
Well, at least one of eight higher seeds had to win a game going away.
Air Force gets the first goal. 1-0 with 16:14 left in the second.
Bemidji State has come out of the gate flying and leads Notre Dame 1-0.
[quote cbuckser]Bemidji State has come out of the gate flying and leads Notre Dame 1-0.[/quote]
This game is on ESPN Classic right now.
[quote cbuckser][quote Al DeFlorio][If not for the Hobey finalist's brain fart, it would have happened.[/quote]
UNH tied the game off of a late-game faceoff. I wouldn't cast too much blame on Zane.[/quote]
A faceoff with 6 seconds left, if I heard correctly.
BEMIDGI 2-0!!!!!!!!!
[quote abmarks]BEMIDJI 2-0!!!!!!!!![/quote]
Please, please, please, please...
(also, FYP. When they are willing we respect them with proper spelling.)
[quote abmarks]BEMIDGI 2-0!!!!!!!!![/quote]
Faceoffs B 7/10
Shots B 5/4
[quote ugarte][quote abmarks]BEMIDJI 2-0!!!!!!!!![/quote]
Please, please, please, please...
(also, FYP. When they are willing we respect them with proper spelling.)[/quote]
Sorry, can't ever respect a 16 seed. Even if I want them to upset the better team so we can feast on them
Bemidji is looking pretty strong so far. Notre Dame really shaky coming out.
[quote abmarks][quote ugarte][quote abmarks]BEMIDJI 2-0!!!!!!!!![/quote]
Please, please, please, please...
(also, FYP. When they are willing we respect them with proper spelling.)[/quote]
Sorry, can't ever respect a 16 seed. Even if I want them to upset the better team so we can feast on them[/quote]
In the event we end up playing Bemidji State, it wouldn't be an easy matchup for us. Bemidji looks like the Yale of the upper Midwest.
Actually I want ND to win.
BemidJi is really fast/quick.. more so than the ND.
Being banged up and not quic ourselves, I'd rather play ND. BemidJi might do us like Yale...we just don't fare well against the speedthis year.
lol Cbuck and I said the same thing at the same time
[quote abmarks]Actually I want ND to win.
BemidJi is really fast/quick.. more so than the ND.
Being banged up and not quic ourselves, I'd rather play ND. BemidJi might do us like Yale...we just don't fare well against the speedthis year.[/quote]
This is a sample size issue. Even if ND has no jump today, BSU went 4-10 OOC including an 0-5 record against tournament teams. I'll take BSU the day after they pull off a Holy Cross instead of Notre Dame the day after their coach tears them a new asshole for sleepwalking through the first period.
[quote ugarte][quote abmarks]Actually I want ND to win.
BemidJi is really fast/quick.. more so than the ND.
Being banged up and not quic ourselves, I'd rather play ND. BemidJi might do us like Yale...we just don't fare well against the speedthis year.[/quote]
This is a sample size issue. Even if ND has no jump today, BSU went 4-10 OOC including an 0-5 record against tournament teams. I'll take BSU the day after they pull off a Holy Cross instead of Notre Dame the day after their coach tears them a new asshole for sleepwalking through the first period.[/quote]
I agree. 31-5-3 Notre Dame, or 18-15-1 Bemidji State? Please. Who's an easier team to beat? A team that's won 31 times this year? Or a team that's dropped 15 games?
[quote HeafDog]31-5-3 Notre Dame, or 18-15-1 Bemidji State? Please. Who's an easier team to beat? A team that's won 31 times this year? Or a team that's dropped 15 games?[/quote]
"To be the Man, you got to beat the Man."
NOtre Dame we can play the same game p[lan as Northeastern.
Even though BemidJi is by fa the worse of the two - they say in boxing styles make fights.
That's the problem we are facing here. An excellent team with a style we can often handle? Or the quick upstart -- when quick teams were extremely tough for us all year.
That said, I don't want to play Notre Dame either. I said in another thread earlier in teh week that ND would rip us up if we got lucky enough to play them
[quote Trotsky][quote HeafDog]31-5-3 Notre Dame, or 18-15-1 Bemidji State? Please. Who's an easier team to beat? A team that's won 31 times this year? Or a team that's dropped 15 games?[/quote]
"To be the Man, you got to beat the Man."[/quote]
Agreed. But if the Man wants to lose earlier than that's also fine with me.
[quote Trotsky][quote HeafDog]31-5-3 Notre Dame, or 18-15-1 Bemidji State? Please. Who's an easier team to beat? A team that's won 31 times this year? Or a team that's dropped 15 games?[/quote]
"To be the Man, you got to beat the Man."[/quote]
If we win the title, I do not care if we beat a bunch of 5 year old bantams.
The banner is the banner
[quote KeithK]Agreed. But if the Man wants to lose earlier than that's also fine with me.[/quote]
Can't argue with that.
They showed the highlights of ND - BSU during the UVM-AFA intermission. The first BSU goal was, actually, all the goalie's fault. He skated behind his net to get the puck, lost sight of it and basically kicked it into the crease for an easy tap-in. The second goal was a pretty Holmstrom-style deflection by a guy camped in front of the net.
[quote Trotsky][quote HeafDog]31-5-3 Notre Dame, or 18-15-1 Bemidji State? Please. Who's an easier team to beat? A team that's won 31 times this year? Or a team that's dropped 15 games?[/quote]
"To be the Man, you got to beat the Man."[/quote]
OK. So if BSU wins, they're the Man. Then we can try to beat them.
if Bemidji is so quick how did they lose so many games? the announcers make it sound like they have one real solid line and little else.
UVM ties AFA
wow- uvm goes up 2-1......... afa ties it back up a couple minutes later in the third
Bemidji leads 3-0.
OWN GOAL by Notre Dame to put Bemidji State up 3-0!
Ok, I'm heading to the Saturday night scrimmage. Hold down the fort, and GO BEMIDJI STATE!
Vermont and Air Force headed to overtime.
Bemiji up 4-0
BemidJi putting up 4 on ND.
Still think we shouldn't worry?
2-2, 3 minutes into o.t. Milo's line on.
Good God, on the UVM radio feed the PBP guy has to mention the sponsor whenever he gives the score. It's the most annoying gimmick I've ever heard in broadcasting -- it's basically an ad every 30 seconds.
5-0. Wow.
Now 4-1. 12:40 in Third. ND going on PP.
[quote CKinsland]Now 4-1. 12:40 in Third. ND going on PP.[/quote]
Gametracker says 5-0. They must have assigned the goal to the wrong team.
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).
Now... Bemidji going on PP off a dumb offensive zone penalty. 10:19 to go.
Really close to accurate quote:
"If Bemidji makes is past this round, I think they match up really well against Cornell. Cornell is a big strong team, but they aren't that quick."
Yeah, quick teams give us fits.
[quote 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).[/quote]
TV here has the heartpounding action of a US soccer game against Slovakia. Or Slovenia, I'm not sure.
[quote Trotsky][quote 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).[/quote]
TV here has the heartpounding action of a US soccer game against Slovakia. Or Slovenia, I'm not sure.[/quote]
El Salvador actually. Its pretty pathetic that we are losing right now.
[quote Jacob '06]El Salvador actually. Its pretty pathetic that we are losing right now.[/quote]
Our fans bring thunder sticks, theirs bring machetes. It's probably good we're losing.
Ouch, UVM takes a penalty in overtime. They're on the "Rehab Gym Penalty Kill, for all your aches and pains..."
Cats kill the penalty.
[quote Trotsky][quote 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).[/quote]
TV here has the heartpounding action of a US soccer game against Slovakia. Or Slovenia, I'm not sure.[/quote]
Bemidji - ND is on ESPN Classic, not ESPN 2. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, either.
Vermont though they had a goal...nope.
First OT over.
UVM hits the post.
On the replay, UVM announcers are screaming it's a goal.
Edit: now they're back-peddling.
Goodness! what a UVM no-goal at the end of the first OT. They are reviewing, but it doesn't look to me that it crossed the line.
Quote from: TrotskyUVM hits the post.
Not a post...way more exciting.
Puck was in the air a few inches above the ice, AFA guy sliding in crease somehow hooked his stick behind it as it seemed to be over (not on the other side of, but directly over) the goal line and flung it back out.
Watching the replay over and over to see if "no goal" was correct call.
Hard to tell, even from directly overhead shot. Still discussing.
Ruled. No goal. They must have watched that play a dozen times.
3:42 left in Grand Rapids, 4-1 Beavers. I believe ND has an empty net.
5-1 a few seconds later, empty net goal.
Yep. ENG, 5-1 Bemidji. How 'bout that.
5-1 ENG.
p.s. their fight song sucks
They're chanting "We want Cornell."
[quote Tom Lento][quote Trotsky][quote 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).[/quote]
TV here has the heartpounding action of a US soccer game against Slovakia. Or Slovenia, I'm not sure.[/quote]
Bemidji - ND is on ESPN Classic, not ESPN 2. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, either.[/quote]
At one point there were three (scheduled) hockey games on at once, so they put the third one on ESPN Classic.
Quote from: redGrinchp.s. their fight song sucks
Here's hoping we don't have to hear it much.
I'm pretty sure this is the first NCAA tournament win by a CHA team. (Niagara was an independent when they upset UHN.)
[quote jtwcornell91][quote Tom Lento][quote Trotsky][quote 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).[/quote]
TV here has the heartpounding action of a US soccer game against Slovakia. Or Slovenia, I'm not sure.[/quote]
Bemidji - ND is on ESPN Classic, not ESPN 2. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, either.[/quote]
At one point there were three (scheduled) hockey games on at once, so they put the third one on ESPN Classic.[/quote]
That makes as much sense as ESPN's refusal to show hockey on the main channel.
Bemidji State wins!
The number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 ranked teams in the last USCHO poll are all out. Cornell is the third-highest ranked team remaining in the tournament:
1. BU
8. Minn-Duluth
9. Cornell
11. Vermont
12. UNH
13. Miami
18. Air Force
22. Bemidji State
That was just a destruction. I'm not sure if Notre Dame didn't take Bemidji seriously or what, but this is not going to be easy tomorrow.
One thing that struck me, though, was Bemidji's reaction after they won. The goalie was jumping and they jumped over the boards to get on the ice as the clock struck 0. I'm not saying they shouldn't be happy or proud, this is a seminal win for them, but it was 5-1, not a heart-stopping victory. It almost seemed like they were still surprised to win. Maybe they won't show up like this tomorrow because they did "more than was expected". Or maybe they'll keep playing with house money and play the same way - I don't know.
Either way, it's gonna be interesting tomorrow.
Let's Go Red!!!!
Miami and Minn-Duluth scoreless about halfway through the second.
Miami with a SHG 1-0
If Miami and UNH win, the total national championships of the Frozen Four field will be either 2 or 0.
Miami killed off one 5x3, is on their second 5x3 and is called for a third penalty
Air Force and VT halfway through second OT.
[quote Trotsky]If Miami and UNH win, the total national championships of the Frozen Four field will be either 2 or 0.[/quote]
If Miami wins, BU's path to the title will not involve any team higher than a 3 seed.
They are apparently reviewing on video to see whether a UVM shot went through the net to win it.
[quote Trotsky]They are apparently reviewing on video to see whether a UVM shot went through the net to win it.[/quote]
Sure looks like it.
Miami up 2-zip against Duluth, late in the second. The UVM announcers are getting hopeful for their review.
Yeah, this is taking forever.
It confused the announcers because the play under review happened well before the whistle, so they thought a totally different play was under review.
There has to be a hole in the net if that was a goal.
Do people still have audio for the UVM/VT game? I lost the audio ~ 20 min ago.
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Trotsky]They are apparently reviewing on video to see whether a UVM shot went through the net to win it.[/quote]
Sure looks like it.[/quote]
Wasn't it UVM who got effed when there was no video review in their NCAA SF against CC in 1996?
[quote Robin]Do people still have audio for the UVM/VT game? I lost the audio ~ 20 min ago.[/quote]
The UVM feed is very fragile, but right now it's up.
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)
That has to be a goal.
got it. Thanks. was on airforce before.
[quote 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)[/quote]
Not as crappy as if they blew the call...
The replay does appear to have gone in the net and then through it. Very tough call. Sure looks like it's a goal to me.
Miami 2 UMD 0, after 2.
UVM wins.
goal
They ruled it a goal...so the last 6 minutes of play (or whatever) were for no reason.
VT advances
Incredible finish. VT is going to the Frozen Four!!!
[quote abmarks]BemidJi putting up 4 on ND.
Still think we shouldn't worry?[/quote]
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.
[quote 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)[/quote]
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.
[quote reilly83] was this the first stoppage in play since that shot six minutes before?[/quote]
Yes
Yes, I'm pretty sure that it was the first stoppage
[quote Al DeFlorio]What if AFA had scored in the "forgotten" six minutes?[/quote]
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.
[quote Al DeFlorio]What if AFA had scored in the "forgotten" six minutes?[/quote]
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.
[quote 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.[/quote]
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.
[quote 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.[/quote]
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?!
[quote 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?![/quote]
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.::flipd::
[quote 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?![/quote]
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? ::screwy::
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.
[quote Jacob '06]There is no physical way with the shots they showed that the puck did not go in the net.[/quote]
Yes there is! Try the napkin experiment!
[quote Jordan 04] It went under the cross bar and inside the post.[/quote]
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. ::yark::
[quote Trotsky][quote 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)[/quote]
Not as crappy as if they blew the call...[/quote]
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.
[quote jtwcornell91]I can't imagine that the net somehow stretched enough to allow the puck through without ripping.[/quote]
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???::wtf::
[quote 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?[/quote]
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.
[quote JDeafv][quote Jordan 04] It went under the cross bar and inside the post.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.
[quote TimV]What? Since we don't like the WCHA either (right, Al?), were we hoping for a CCHA-ECAC-CHA final four???::wtf::[/quote]
Well, we were hoping for an ECAC-ECAC-ECAC-CCHA (http://www.videosift.com/video/YYYN-experiment-14) final four.
[quote 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.[/quote]
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.
[quote TimV]What? Since we don't like the WCHA either (right, Al?), were we hoping for a CCHA-ECAC-CHA final four???::wtf::[/quote]
AHA, not CHA. The CHA team is in our regional. :-}
[quote JDeafv][quote 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.
[quote jtwcornell91] I see that your alternative explanation involves the puck not actually touching the part of the net that bulged out.[/quote]
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.
[quote 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.[/quote]
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.::banana::
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
[quote TimV]What? Since we don't like the WCHA either (right, Al?), were we hoping for a CCHA-ECAC-CHA final four???::wtf::[/quote]
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
[quote 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.[/quote]
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::screwy::
[quote 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.[/quote]
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.
[quote 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.[/quote]
Not sure what seems wrong about it. If a team scores, they should be awarded the goal.
[quote 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.[/quote]
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.
[quote 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.[/quote]
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.
[quote ugarte][quote 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
I think it's been said the review was done at the first stoppage of play after the incident.
[quote 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.[/quote]
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.
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote ugarte][quote 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
I think it's been said the review was done at the first stoppage of play after the incident.[/quote]
Then this exact thing happened in the Rangers - Canucks Stanley Cup final (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Stanley_Cup_Finals#Game_six), except that it wasn't in overtime. There shouldn't be any controversy whatsoever (unless, per Age, it wasn't a goal...)
[quote DeltaOne81]Just saw the replay on SportsCenter. Sorry, I thought it was in. Not 100% sure, but pretty sure.[/quote]
Here (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4024800) is the video. Looks like a goal to me, but that's a helluva tough call.
[quote ugarte][quote 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.
[quote KP '06][quote DeltaOne81]Just saw the replay on SportsCenter. Sorry, I thought it was in. Not 100% sure, but pretty sure.[/quote]
Here (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4024800) is the video. Looks like a goal to me, but that's a helluva tough call.[/quote]
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 (http://www.collegehockeystats.net/0809/boxes/mafaver1.m28) shows it at 14:10. So they only played a little under two minutes of "fake hockey", not six as we'd originally thought.
[quote 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.
[/quote]
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.
[quote 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.[/quote]
And, I suppose, this is a civil, not a criminal, case.B-]
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.
[quote 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.[/quote]
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.
[quote 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.[/quote]
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.
[quote Kyle Rose][quote 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.
[quote Beeeej]it seemed to me that it was a TiVo.[/quote]
That is scary, because the TiVo video is compressed. Yikes.
[quote Kyle Rose][quote Beeeej]it seemed to me that it was a TiVo.[/quote]
That is scary, because the TiVo video is compressed. Yikes.[/quote]
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.
[quote Tom Lento][quote Trotsky][quote 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).[/quote]
TV here has the heartpounding action of a US soccer game against Slovakia. Or Slovenia, I'm not sure.[/quote]
Bemidji - ND is on ESPN Classic, not ESPN 2. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, either.[/quote]ANY game is which Notre Dame plays is classic. ::yark::
[quote DeltaOne81]Unless its an HD TiVo, in which case its not compressed,[/quote]
As you say, beyond what it already does. It's still compressed, which means it is still subject to motion compensation artifacts.
QuoteHowever, 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.
[quote 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.[/quote]
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.
[quote 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.[/quote]
"I don't know how it happpens, but it happens..."
NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/14/sports/on-hockey-rule-changes-focusing-on-net-area-leave-some-in-nhl-seeing-red.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)
[quote 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.[/quote]
I think it was tunneling. The puck is both particle and wave.
[quote lynah80]I think it was tunneling.[/quote]
Sadly, I thought the same thing. The difference is that I didn't post it. ;-)
[quote peterg][quote 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.[/quote]
"I don't know how it happpens, but it happens..."
NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/14/sports/on-hockey-rule-changes-focusing-on-net-area-leave-some-in-nhl-seeing-red.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)[/quote]
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.
[quote lynah80]I think it was tunneling. The puck is both particle and wave.[/quote]
Only until you observe it (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/schrodingers-lolcat1.jpg).
[quote 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.[/quote]
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.
[quote ugarte][quote 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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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.
[quote Trotsky][quote lynah80]I think it was tunneling. The puck is both particle and wave.[/quote]
Only until you observe it (http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/schrodingers-lolcat1.jpg).[/quote]
Schrödinger's cat!
[quote DeltaOne81]It's more like it went through a strainer, or a sieve, if you will.[/quote]
Isn't it already a given that the puck went through a sieve?
[quote Willy '06][quote DeltaOne81]It's more like it went through a strainer, or a sieve, if you will.[/quote]
Isn't it already a given that the puck went through a sieve?[/quote]
You're welcome.
As the third # seed to lose in the Regionals, does that mean that the Irish "choked?"
[quote Rich S]As the third # seed to lose in the Regionals, does that mean that the Irish "choked?"[/quote]
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 ...
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2009/03/29_etashot.php
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?
[quote 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?[/quote]
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."
[quote Rich S]absurd "logic."[/quote]
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.
[quote sah67][quote Rich S]absurd "logic."[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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?
[quote DisplacedCornellian]Has the troll been sufficiently fed? Will RichS go back under his bridge now?[/quote]
How long have you been here? ;-)
[quote DisplacedCornellian][quote sah67][quote Rich S]absurd "logic."[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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?[/quote]
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...
[quote Dpperk29][quote DisplacedCornellian][quote sah67][quote Rich S]absurd "logic."[/quote]
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.[/quote]
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?[/quote]
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...[/quote]
You left out headhunting Willie Mitchell.