NC$$ games Saturday 3/28/09

[abmarks]

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

[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.

[abmarks]

[quote reilly83] was this the first stoppage in play since that shot six minutes before?[/quote]

Yes

[Larry72]

Yes, I'm pretty sure that it was the first stoppage

[jtwcornell91]

[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.

[Trotsky]

[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.

[Jacob '06]

[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.

[abmarks]

[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

[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?!

[Jacob '06]

[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.

[Robin]

did any of the VT players act like they had just scored a goal(celebrating) right after it happened?

[Jordan 04]

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?

[JDeafv]

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::

[jtwcornell91]

[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.

[Jordan 04]

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.