NC$$ games Saturday 3/28/09

[Jordan 04]

[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.

[marty]

[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.

[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.

[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.

[marty]

[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.

[ugarte]

[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, except that it wasn't in overtime. There shouldn't be any controversy whatsoever (unless, per Age, it wasn't a goal...)

[KP '06]

[quote DeltaOne81]Just saw the replay on SportsCenter. Sorry, I thought it was in. Not 100% sure, but pretty sure.[/quote]

Here is the video. Looks like a goal to me, but that's a helluva tough call.

[jtwcornell91]

[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?

[upperdeck]

the puck change direction by 5-10 degrees as well it had to hit somehing.

[jtwcornell91]

[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 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 shows it at 14:10.  So they only played a little under two minutes of "fake hockey", not six as we'd originally thought.

[Al DeFlorio]

[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.

[DeltaOne81]

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.

[Al DeFlorio]

[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-]

[redGrinch]

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.

[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.