harvard-cornell non-goal

[upprdeck]

non-goal

here is the goal that was not reviewed..  when you watch it in slow mo you can see it change direction twice after it hits the post. once it goes left, then it suddenly goes down..

its also strange to see a post deflection that only goes about 10 ft and goes down..

in or not it was worth a review..

[ugarte]

Definitely should have been reviewed from the behind-the goal cam.

[CU2007]

Doesn't look like it went in to me. I also would think the people standing behind the net would have had more of a reaction if it had.

[Jim Hyla]

Definitely should have been reviewed from the behind-the goal cam.

Above the goal cam, it's in the rafters. We don't have a camera in the goal net.

I'd say no goal by that view and the ref had a good look. I can't argue this one too strongly, but it certainly could have been reviewed from overhead. I suspect the refs view was so good that they felt no need to review.

[upprdeck]

watching him live, he hesitated then waived it off.  If he had called it a goal I have no doubt they would have reviewed it.

Either way it was real close, it looked funny and sounded funny. Section A and O thought it was good

[ugarte]

Definitely should have been reviewed from the behind-the goal cam.

Above the goal cam, it's in the rafters. We don't have a camera in the goal net.

The angle I'm talking about is the one the broadcast cuts too after the puck comes back into play. Presumably it is recording even when it isn't being shown to the folks at home.

[Jim Hyla]

Definitely should have been reviewed from the behind-the goal cam.

Above the goal cam, it's in the rafters. We don't have a camera in the goal net.

The angle I'm talking about is the one the broadcast cuts too after the puck comes back into play. Presumably it is recording even when it isn't being shown to the folks at home.

Gotcha, but I don't think that would help, as I think the puck was airborne and therefore you couldn't align it with the goal line. The overhead view, which is what I think the refs look at, could help, but I sill don't think it was a goal.

[Dafatone]

Definitely should have been reviewed from the behind-the goal cam.

Above the goal cam, it's in the rafters. We don't have a camera in the goal net.

The angle I'm talking about is the one the broadcast cuts too after the puck comes back into play. Presumably it is recording even when it isn't being shown to the folks at home.

Gotcha, but I don't think that would help, as I think the puck was airborne and therefore you couldn't align it with the goal line. The overhead view, which is what I think the refs look at, could help, but I sill don't think it was a goal.

If it hit the net, you could see it from that angle.

[abmarks]

watching him live, he hesitated then waived it off.  If he had called it a goal I have no doubt they would have reviewed it.

Either way it was real close, it looked funny and sounded funny. Section A and O thought it was good

watching the loop here from the tv, there was no hesitation at all.  Nor did the ref go out of his way to make an emphatic gesture, which they often do when there is a close call to be had...and he was in perfect position on this IMO.

also, to op, it changes direction once on the way out of the net, not twice.  it ricochets out to the left and then hits the harvard player on the fly. no mystery here.