NC$$ games Saturday 3/28/09

[DeltaOne81]

[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.

[lynah80]

[quote Trotsky][quote lynah80]I think it was tunneling.  The puck is both particle and wave.[/quote]

Only until you observe it.[/quote]

Schrödinger's cat!

[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?

[DeltaOne81]

[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.

[Rich S]

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

[Rosey]

[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?

[adamw]

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.

[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?

[ugarte]

[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.

[Rich S]

absurd "logic."

[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.

[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?

[Rosey]

[quote DisplacedCornellian]Has the troll been sufficiently fed?  Will RichS go back under his bridge now?[/quote]
How long have you been here? ;-)

[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...

[ugarte]

[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.