Union No-Goal

[KenP]

Avash '05 wrote:

At least it wasn't a disallowed goal in the Frozen Four though. Hope that never happens to us!

Oh.....wait......:-/

Oh, you are sadistic, bringing that back up!  What still bothered me with that call was the 7-8 minutes needed to make the (correct) call.  We had them on the ropes, they got the double benefit of the waived-off goal AND the breather.

[Ben Doyle 03]

That was DEFINITELY a goal! The puck hit the rear cross bar (inside the net) then deflected off the center upright and out. But there's nothing we can do about it now ...:-)

[RedAR]

Yup, that was a goal, which would have changed the complexion of the game.  Damn...

[lenny]

That was a marvelous piece of video work.  We are not worthy...
Maybe you could send THAT to the ECAC.
Lenny

[Cornell Fan]

Can anyone who was there tell me where exactly the puck came out of the net/dropped? In the clip I can follow it from Moulson's stick up to just below the crossbar, but then I never see it again after that. Mayotte's reaction appears to follow it around behind his back, but that could have just been a panic reaction if he had no idea where it went.

[CowbellGuy]

The frame after it's clearly visible hitting the back bar, you can see a black streak heading down and to the left (back out of the net). If I recall correctly it shot back out from behind Mayotte's right side and away from the net.

[RedAR]

I was sitting/standing behind Age, and I can attest that I definitely recall seeing the puck shoot back out to Mayotte's right.  So, with the puck going in over Mayotte's left shoulder, and the puck shooting out so quickly, it is impossible for the puck not to have gone into the net.  If it had bounced off the outer crossbar or post, the puck could not have shot out the way it did.

I guess I am crying over spilled milk, but we know that Mayotte knows that he really didn't have a shut-out, and that it's possible that Union actually might have lost.

Ok, no more crying for me :`(

Edit:
The fact that we can see the puck going towards the net, then it disappears (under the crossbar) from sight is evidence that the puck went in.  If it had hit either the crossbar or the post, we would see the puck ricochet off of it.



Post Edited (02-24-04 17:37)

[marty]

I agree.  I freeze framed the original tape and it looked like it went down and behind Mayotte.  I will try to get a still shot of the puck before and after the crossbar, but this likely won't be tonight.  If you can imagine, I have something else to do!:-P

[Matthew Schultz]

This isn't just another bad call, though. It meant the difference between 2nd place in the ECAC and tied for 3rd. They wouldn't have had the chance for those other 2 EN goals if that had counted. I wasn't at the game, so all I can base this on is the picture, but it looks like a goal. And the refs have been disproportionately bad to Cornell this year, too. I was at the RPI and Colgate games, and have never been angrier at the referees. I think Schaefer has every right to be mad. Did anybody see the replay of the Hynes 5 minute major? The guy didn't even flinch. He barely touched him. It shouldn't have been a 2 minute minor, let alone a major. Hopefully the refs will stop their grudge against the Red in the ECAC tourney.

[Abel Magwitch]

Fellow Cornell Faithful,
I am a resident of the Capital District and am acquainted with Chief Albany Alum Bear.  His trenchent remark to me regarding the photo of the " Union no goal" is worth consideration.  Who can say that at the moment captured on film the puck has not hit the crossbar and bounced back out front beyond the reach of the camera eye?  Since the entire sequence of events occurred in the twinkling of an eye, it's a reasonable hypothesis.  We all realize the rabid hockey-fan mind can't be provoked into logical thought, but the Chief's observation is less of a strain on incredulity than seeing a phantom puck in the photograph.  A more philosophical mind calmly accepts the truth that many hockey games are decided by the inscrutable decrees of chance.  It all washes out in the end.  Chance was on our side the night before in Troy.  Let's Go Red.
Abel M.

[CowbellGuy]

Because I've been doing sports photography for 15 years, I took the shot, and I know it wasn't anywhere outside the frame.

[RedAR]

And because we have the video, which shows the puck flying toward the net on Mayotte's left side, and then disappearing.  Because I was there, and I know that the puck shot out on Mayotte's right.

Objects can't just disappear, and since we all know that the puck didn't go behind the net, the fact that it disappears in the video leads to one conclusion.  It REALLY did go in.

[Killer]

I agree.  I saw it go in live and I saw it go in on the video.

Besides, this was Union we were playing, not RPI.  Maybe those engineers could have rigged up some stealth device to make the puck invisible to Dunn and the goal judge, but not these guys.  You're right, the only disappearing it did was in going behind the pipes.

[marty]

Abel seems to have left out one important fact.  The Red he is referring to in his "Let's Go Red" tagline can only be interpreted as those Cherry and White players whose Puckman mascot graces the morgue in Troy.  We have an intruder in our midst and a very loyal hockey fan and good friend to boot.

And with that I give good Abel a ceremonial boot!

P.S.  Thanks for dropping by!;-)

[Will]

Marty'74 wrote:

Abel seems to have left out one important fact.  The Red he is referring to in his "Let's Go Red" tagline can only be interpreted as those Cherry and White players whose Puckman mascot graces the morgue in Troy.  We have an intruder in our midst and a very loyal hockey fan and good friend to boot.

And with that I give good Abel a ceremonial boot!

P.S.  Thanks for dropping by!;-)

Well, I don't know what his fan affiliation is, but the fact that he feels the need to use the name of a character from Great Expectations is somewhat suspect.