Video clips of the @Union game

[sah67]

A Union fan was kind enough to put together TV-captured clips of all the goals (both teams + Romano's disallowed one) from last weekend's Union game, including replays on most (especially useful on the Carefoot blindsiding, and Romano's stolen goal).

A bit of precaution: the clips have the TV commentary playing faintly, but drowned out by horrible music that the Union fan edited in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8zrR-yq3Iw

[marty]

[quote sah67]A Union fan was kind enough to put together TV-captured clips of all the goals (both teams + Romano's disallowed one) from last weekend's Union game, including replays on most (especially useful on the Carefoot blindsiding, and Romano's stolen goal).

A bit of precaution: the clips have the TV commentary playing faintly, but drowned out by horrible music that the Union fan edited in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8zrR-yq3Iw[/quote]

If you contend that the goal was stolen, you might argue that the net was dislodged on purpose by Goalie Justin Mrazek.  (I have the video of the entire game.)  The net was off the mooring before the puck made it to the net.  I will look at it again, after watching the almost unwatchable youtube clip this morning.

I think we can all agree on one thing.  We need more rap music ::yark:: playing at the rinks in the league.  Maybe when the Onion dopes cut our band off next year they will turn the volume on their shitty little speakers up a few more notches and play some appropriate rap.

[scoop85]

Thanks for the post. First time I've seen the "no goal."  Very questionable.  Also, the 3rd Union goal was weak, to say the least.

And the "music" -- boy, I am a dinosaur (but I already knew that from hearing the stuff blaring from my daughter's room) :-}

[dbilmes]

After watching the replays, I still don't understand why the fourth Cornell goal was disallowed, but I do understand why Davenport got the start in goal on Saturday night!

[Hillel Hoffmann]

Off-topic:

I cannot stand by and permit y'all to aimlessly carpetbomb hip hop. Repent!

That being said, lame evangelical hip hop like the Grits smegma in that Union student's video clip = poop.

[DeltaOne81]

From the behind-the-net slow-mo angle you see the net bump slightly, but neither of the other two angled seemed to show any movement, and I watched it several times. Which says to me it was very minor. Furthermore, the net seemed to be back in place before the puck actually went in the net. Very weak, it seems. Very unfortunate.

What I further don't understand is the ref called it a goal right off the bat... on what psychic evidence did he change his mind? Did a linesman point it out or what? Did he just take the goalie's word fo rit?

[Jordan 04]

wow, what a horrendous no-goal call.

[sah67]

[quote Hillel Hoffmann]lame evangelical hip hop like the Grits smegma in that Union student's video clip = poop.[/quote]

By that logic, Brown = lame evangelical hip hop

[marty]

[quote Jordan 04]wow, what a horrendous no-goal call.[/quote]

I will try to post a better video clip.  You really can't tell jack from that youtube drek.

[sah67]

[quote scoop85]  Also, the 3rd Union goal was weak, to say the least.



[/quote]

And the first Union goal made McLeod look transparent...we really need Seminoff back.

Topher's pass to Krantz was a thing of beauty though...great to finally see video of that...should go on some sort of season-end highlight reel if someone on here feels like editing some clips together.  Not that I'd really wany to re-live the quality of the All-access footage though

[Jim Hyla]

I can't disagree more. I also watched the replay. He came over to cover up the back door, hit the post with his skate, as you should do, and the net raised up an inch or so and moved back an equivalent amount. Agree it never came off the posts but was dislodged. The last view, after the puck was in, still showed the net off the ice. If we had the rule, did it affect the play or the goal, the answer would be no, and it would be counted. But I believe our rule is, if the net is dislodged, then no goal.

This is my post from the postgame thread. We don't need to start this all over again do we? On the TW TV broadcast the net was off, no question.

[Jordan 04]

[quote marty][quote Jordan 04]wow, what a horrendous no-goal call.[/quote]

I will try to post a better video clip.  You really can't tell jack from that youtube drek.[/quote]

How so?  Seems like you can tell a lot.

[Killer]

[quote marty]If you contend that the goal was stolen, you might argue that the net was dislodged on purpose by Goalie Justin Mrazek.  (I have the video of the entire game.)  The net was off the mooring before the puck made it to the net.  I will look at it again, after watching the almost unwatchable youtube clip this morning.[/quote]

IMHO, we was robbed!  Granted, the quality on YouTube isn't great, but if you look at the sequence starting around 4:50, you'll see 3 different angles on Romano's shot.  In the first, taken from a fixed position at mid-ice, you see Mrazek kick the goal and it moves slightly.  In the second shot, from a hand-held camera, you can't really discern the movement of the goal because the shot is jumpy, but when the puck is in, the goal appears to be dead on the goal line, right where it should be.  And the third shot, from the fixed camera behind the goal, again shows the movement of the goal, but you can also see that it goes right back to where it started.  So, yes it moved, but was it dislodged?  I guess that depends on the definition of "dislodged".  Certainly there was nothing that affected the outcome of the play.

[JasonN95]

That hit on Carefoot that rung his bell was a blatant penalty. Union skater left his feet. You leap, it's a charge.  The boxscore on USCHO only shows goals, not penalties. Was a penalty called?

[Jim Hyla]

[quote Killer][quote marty]If you contend that the goal was stolen, you might argue that the net was dislodged on purpose by Goalie Justin Mrazek.  (I have the video of the entire game.)  The net was off the mooring before the puck made it to the net.  I will look at it again, after watching the almost unwatchable youtube clip this morning.[/quote]

IMHO, we was robbed!  Granted, the quality on YouTube isn't great, but if you look at the sequence starting around 4:50, you'll see 3 different angles on Romano's shot.  In the first, taken from a fixed position at mid-ice, you see Mrazek kick the goal and it moves slightly.  In the second shot, from a hand-held camera, you can't really discern the movement of the goal because the shot is jumpy, but when the puck is in, the goal appears to be dead on the goal line, right where it should be.  And the third shot, from the fixed camera behind the goal, again shows the movement of the goal, but you can also see that it goes right back to where it started.  So, yes it moved, but was it dislodged?  I guess that depends on the definition of "dislodged".  Certainly there was nothing that affected the outcome of the play.[/quote]

As I've said on two occasions now(see my post above) on the TW broadcast their goalie dislodged the net when he moved to that post. The net moved backward and up. It stayed up throughtout the whole time of the shot and was clearly still not back down on the ice when the puck was in the net.


No, the net being off had nothing to do with the goal. But the net was dislodged before, during and after the puck was going in! By my understanding of NCAA rules that makes it a no goal.

Please, there is no conspiracy. The TW broadcast was of excellent quality to see this. End of argument. Let's move on to next week.**]