UNH 6 Cornell 2 postgame

[Al DeFlorio]

I have watched the replay several times, including slo-mo. I would say that it is likely that it went in but not definite.

We were sitting six rows up in the corner to Scrivens's right and it was clear as day the puck went in the goal and through the net.  I was flabbergasted that the ref was behind the net to Scrivens's left and didn't see it.  The UNH players looked at him in disbelief and he signalled nothing.  We just sat there waiting for a stoppage because we knew that it was in and they were going to review it and call for a center ice face-off.

[billhoward]

I have watched the replay several times, including slo-mo. I would say that it is likely that it went in but not definite.

We were sitting six rows up in the corner to Scrivens's right and it was clear as day the puck went in the goal and through the net.  I was flabbergasted that the ref was behind the net to Scrivens's left and didn't see it.  The UNH players looked at him in disbelief and he signalled nothing.  We just sat there waiting for a stoppage because we knew that it was in and they were going to review it and call for a center ice face-off.

Crummy as the energy-saver jumbortron was (multiples rows of bulbs are dark on two sides), the first time it replayed the sequence in slow-mo, the UNH players jumped for joy. They knew.

[Roy 82]

I have watched the replay several times, including slo-mo. I would say that it is likely that it went in but not definite.

We were sitting six rows up in the corner to Scrivens's right and it was clear as day the puck went in the goal and through the net.  I was flabbergasted that the ref was behind the net to Scrivens's left and didn't see it.  The UNH players looked at him in disbelief and he signalled nothing.  We just sat there waiting for a stoppage because we knew that it was in and they were going to review it and call for a center ice face-off.

Crummy as the energy-saver jumbortron was (multiples rows of bulbs are dark on two sides), the first time it replayed the sequence in slow-mo, the UNH players jumped for joy. They knew.

Nonetheless, the long delay ruined our mojo and it is all part of a grander anti-Cornell conspiracy.::bang::

[ChipJ]

Bummer - only worse experience watching us play hockey was the last time I saw us play UNH in 1977 when we went to double overtime to lose 10-9 in the old Boston Garden.

[RatushnyFan]

I have watched the replay several times, including slo-mo. I would say that it is likely that it went in but not definite.

We were sitting six rows up in the corner to Scrivens's right and it was clear as day the puck went in the goal and through the net.  I was flabbergasted that the ref was behind the net to Scrivens's left and didn't see it.  The UNH players looked at him in disbelief and he signalled nothing.  We just sat there waiting for a stoppage because we knew that it was in and they were going to review it and call for a center ice face-off.

Scriven's reaction was very telling - he clearly thought it was a goal.

[Rosey]

Scriven's reaction was very telling - he clearly thought it was a goal.

I would like, for once, for the NCAA's to put high speed cameras in place around the goal so we can finally understand how the puck manages to go through a gap ¼ the size of the edge-on cross section of the puck without tearing the net.  I know the net material stretches, but that much?

[dbilmes]

Bummer - only worse experience watching us play hockey was the last time I saw us play UNH in 1977 when we went to double overtime to lose 10-9 in the old Boston Garden.

I was at that game, too, and it was a terrible feeling when UNH scored the game-winner and the entire Boston Garden erupted (all of the fans of the other schools were cheering against us). But at least that game was exciting and we were competitive. Saturday's game wasn't exciting (there's a big difference when you've got 4,000 fans in the building as compared to 15,000) and we weren't competitive once UNH got rolling in the third period.
It's amazing how we went from being ahead 1-0 and controlling play for most of the second period to falling apart in the final 24 minutes.

[semsox]

Scriven's reaction was very telling - he clearly thought it was a goal.

I would like, for once, for the NCAA's to put high speed cameras in place around the goal so we can finally understand how the puck manages to go through a gap ¼ the size of the edge-on cross section of the puck without tearing the net.  I know the net material stretches, but that much?

I think it makes sense from a physical standpoint.  In this game (and in most other games where this occurs), this behavior occurs on the sides of the net.  In these instances, imagining the holes in the net as a simple square, it's possible for the puck to impact  a single side of the square, thereby using all of its velocity to stretch that single string and squeeze through.  When a puck hits the back of the net, it's impossible for the puck to hit just a single side of the square holes.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

My first instinct on the goal was that it hit the post.  I even turned to Tom Pasniewski and went "clank!"  But then Tom said to me he didn't hear a clank (and come to think of it nor did I).  It never occurred to me that it went through the net until after the review.

[Jacob '06]

My first instinct on the goal was that it hit the post.  I even turned to Tom Pasniewski and went "clank!"  But then Tom said to me he didn't hear a clank (and come to think of it nor did I).  It never occurred to me that it went through the net until after the review.

The thing that still confuses me is the radical change in direction the puck took as it hit the net. You would think if it was going fast/hard enough to squeak through one of the holes in the net it would continue on a straight line path, but it took almost a 90 degree turn. The change in direction made it seem much more like it had gone off the post.

[Robb]

My first instinct on the goal was that it hit the post.  I even turned to Tom Pasniewski and went "clank!"  But then Tom said to me he didn't hear a clank (and come to think of it nor did I).  It never occurred to me that it went through the net until after the review.

The thing that still confuses me is the radical change in direction the puck took as it hit the net. You would think if it was going fast/hard enough to squeak through one of the holes in the net it would continue on a straight line path, but it took almost a 90 degree turn. The change in direction made it seem much more like it had gone off the post.

The replays were very clear to me, possibly because my resolution was so bad.  On the way into the net, the puck was moving too fast to see well at all.  Then, the puck "suddenly" appeared as it slowed down due to passing through the netting, a good 6-8" behind the post.  

The change of direction definitely makes sense to me - think of each strand of netting on the side as a small post - it can't pass "north-south" through the side netting, so it has to squirt out to the side.  Or, if you think like an engineer, the net killed the puck's north-south velocity, so only the component of velocity in the east-west direction remained.

[Greenberg '97]

Or, if you think like an engineer, the net killed the puck's north-south velocity, so only the component of velocity in the east-west direction remained.

North-south velocity wasn't the only thing killed with that shot.

[Roy 82]

Or, if you think like an engineer, the net killed the puck's north-south velocity, so only the component of velocity in the east-west direction remained.

North-south velocity wasn't the only thing killed with that shot.

Exactly. Clearly momentum was not conserved in this event.

[KeithK]

I still think it's a horrible rule to use replay in that situation. If there's no call on the ice by either the ref or the goal judge there isn't a call to confirm or overturn so they should just play on.

This isn't just a case of sour grapes.  We didn't lose because of that goal.  We lost because of how we reacted to it.  Air Force did lose a game in OT a coupe years back and I was just as convinced then.

[Jim Hyla]

I still think it's a horrible rule to use replay in that situation. If there's no call on the ice by either the ref or the goal judge there isn't a call to confirm or overturn so they should just play on.

This isn't just a case of sour grapes.  We didn't lose because of that goal.  We lost because of how we reacted to it.  Air Force did lose a game in OT a coupe years back and I was just as convinced then.

Actually, you can argue that there is always a call. This time the call was no goal, the replay was used to confirm or overturn.

On ice, no goal, play on. Play stops, let's review our call, overturn.

What's wrong with that? It got the correct result and isn't any different than:

goal, play stops, review, no goal, it was kicked in.