Union No-Goal

[Section A]

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

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

[Will]

RedAR wrote:

Which begs the question, why didn't the goal light go on?  Was the goal judge sleeping?  Was he being a homer and hoping it would be a no-goal?  Did the puck really not go in?

All he probably saw was that the puck hit the crossbar (he probably didn't see it hit the top of the net), bounce downward (where on the ice it touched is anyone's guess), and then bounce right out of the goal.  He either thought it really wasn't a goal or wasn't sure and erred on the side of not getting killed by a flurry of Union annoying mini-cowbells. ::rolleyes::

[Killer]

RedAR wrote:

Which begs the question, why didn't the goal light go on?  Was the goal judge sleeping?  Was he being a homer and hoping it would be a no-goal?  Did the puck really not go in?

I'm not assuming that the goal judge cheated us from a goal, but he really did have the best angle to see what really happened.  Like Mayotte, I bet he won't be spilling his beans either.

Here's my theory:  I don't think the goal judge ever did see it.  The puck was in and out of the net so fast, that he only had an instant to see what had happened.  And since it never went in more than a few inches, from his vantage point (slightly above the goal), it may have been blocked by the curved bars at the back of the goal.  Remember, it went straight in and straight out.  It never dropped inside the goal and then came out.  It was out as fast as it could hit the net and rebound.  BTW, if you look at the enlarged photo, about 4-5 inches behind the crossbar is a strap that holds the net tight at the top.  I think that's what the puck hit, which caused it not to deflect farther into the goal, but back out.

And as for Mayotte, look at the first version of the photo.  He's looking right up there where the puck is behind him and in.  He knows.  Yeah, he knows.

Alas, as much as we kick it around, it's all moot, eh?  We'll never change the outcome.  But maybe the loss will inspire the guys to kick some butts next week and again in the playoffs.

[Killer]

Avash '05 wrote:

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

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

Yeah, that one really sucked.  But I have to admit that watching the tape over and over (including many months later), I have to agree that it was over 4 feet.  I tried to rationalize that one based on camera angles, but it never worked.  Darn that instant replay!

[marty]

Keith K '93 wrote:

[Q]I think you should send that to the ECAC. I am sure Buttafuoco would love to see what a great job his ref's are doing this season.[/Q]Oh come on.  I wasn't at the game but this kind of thing can be a difficult call.  Refs will miss goal calls now and again - that's part of being human.  How the guy calls the game, what infractions he calls or lets go, when he swallows the whistle are much bigger concerns, because those are much more subjective.

I agree.  There will be missed calls and it is impossible to get them all correct.  They have a rough time during the playoffs with the damn cameras rolling.  In fact they can't even tell if the puck is higher than the crossbar in certain parts of New York State.  (Must have been the effect of all the electricity radiating from the falls.)

It's part of the game and since Age doesn't do the video camera thing anymore, we aren't as likely to have definitive proof of a goal in the way Age caught the puck in and out of Maine's net a few years ago.



Post Edited (02-23-04 18:48)

[Larry72]

Age:

  Do you have another frame of the same angle at another time in the game?  (I'm sure you do.)  It would be interesting to see if the shadow in the top right corner is still there or not.  You'll note that on the other side of the net in the top left corner, there is a slight amount of daylight  visible that does not appear on on right side in your shot.  

Larry

[CowbellGuy]

Sure, I'll find one tomorrow.

[Pete]

[Q]You'll note that on the other side of the net in the top left corner, there is a slight amount of daylight visible that does not appear on on right side in your shot.[/Q]

   Which would be fully consistent with a shot from the grassy knoll...

[atb9]

[Q]And as for Mayotte, look at the first version of the photo. He's looking right up there where the puck is behind him and in. He knows. Yeah, he knows.[/Q]

That was always my contention.  He held his pose and stared into the goal as if the uck went in.  I called it a goal on his and Moulson reaction alone.  Both were stunned; Mayotte, staring back in disbelief, and Moulson, slamming his stick on the ice when Dunn waved off the goal.

[Ack]

and the magic spitball from Seinfeld...

[ericho_4511]

What struck me first about the picture is that there appears to be a layer of white vinyl (?) material covering the top of the goal underneath the netting.
 
I don't remember ever seeing anything like that at a hockey game. Do the goals at Lynah have this?

What's the point of the material?  To catch drips from the goalie water bottle?
Why is it there?  It would certainly prevent the goal judge from actually seeing a puck hit the top of the net. If the puck hits it the center part of the netting on top of the goal, you'll see a noticeable bulge. Obviously in this case the net didn't bulge because it hit just behind the crossbar.

Oh well. Water under the bridge...., but if I were Schafer or the league I might look into that vinyl covering.

[Will]

Eric Hoffman wrote:

What struck me first about the picture is that there appears to be a layer of white vinyl (?) material covering the top of the goal underneath the netting.
 
I don't remember ever seeing anything like that at a hockey game. Do the goals at Lynah have this?

I've been to eleven NCAA/ECAC hockey rinks plus the Pepsi Arena in Albany, and the only time I've ever seen anything like this was at Union.  It was strange, though as far as I know, unless it fell or was hanging into the goal, it really shouldn't affect the game that much.

[atb9]

[Q]it really shouldn't affect the game that much[/Q]

Unless it blocks the view of the puck in the net for, say, the ref or the linesman...

[CowbellGuy]

Marty'74 provided me with video he got from local news. I've put some together and cleaned it up a bit. You need Quicktime 6 or better.

http://elynah.com/media/2004/movies/unionnogoal.mov

[CowbellGuy]

Also, you can see from the video that the goal judge is, in fact, Don Zimmer...