UM Overtime Goal - "Indisputable Evidence"
After reading all the articles and hearing commentators talk about how "questionable" the UM OT goal was (as there supposedly was "no visual evidence"), I was hoping to put this topic to bed.
So instead of being like a normal 28 year living in Austin and going out and having fun, I decided to play with the pause button on my DVR. Nevertheless, I provide you with indisputable evidence that it WAS a goal -- there is no doubt that there is a white gap between the puck and the goal line (sorry the pic is so gigantic... helps to prove the point i guess)
Go Blue!!
(Here's a link in case I embedded wrong -- http://s3.postimage.org/6dd2o6mc7/UMGoal.jpg)
March 25th, 2011 at 11:33 PM ^
All I see is a tiny red x inside a box. That being said......GOOOOOOAAALLLLL
March 25th, 2011 at 11:35 PM ^
same here...
March 25th, 2011 at 11:35 PM ^
We won. Who cares at this point.
That being said, we were also owed this at least after last year.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:40 PM ^
I was watching the ESPN analysts sit there and say with a straight face that there was no indisputable evidence and couldn't take it any longer.
So I whipped out my phone and took pictures of the screen frame by frame.
You can see the puck start to poke out from behind his pad and the front of it is easily inside the net for the next few frames before it crosses the line.
Take a look and judge for yourself :)
March 25th, 2011 at 11:49 PM ^
the first time I've said this. But I wish I could +1 you over and over and over again, until you were thoroughly sated. If I were MGoGod I would give you a massive posbang. The OP's picture is good, but yours are better. Pretty easily conclusive.
March 26th, 2011 at 12:23 AM ^
It's pretty simple...ESPN hates Michigan. All the years of the Wings being good, do they give any credit....Nope...Devils yes....Assholes...Yes....Whatever...Barry Melrose can suck it.
March 26th, 2011 at 12:45 AM ^
in all fairness the commentators on ESPNU were all saying it was a good call and definitely a goal during the following game.
March 26th, 2011 at 11:43 AM ^
Well it probably didn't hurt that the guy doing color commentary was former U of M hockey player, Sean Ritchlin. Not calling Sean's objectivity into question here, but if this was a CC blog and you made the above, I'm pretty sure dozens of people would call bullshit.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:40 PM ^
Almost as clear as the rapidly growing nose on Tressel's face.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:41 PM ^
Yep, thank you for posting this. That's exactly how I saw it during the game. I have no idea how neither of the announcers or anyone who have been on the studio show have mentioned this. The absolute key to this angle, and seeing the white, is that the puck is flat on the ice, which means that there is no problem at all that the shot is from an angle. It's embarassing on the part of the NCAA that their "rules editor" who ESPN had on said that the overhead was the definitive view (no way that's possible and it just makes the "controversy" worse since you can't completely see the puck over the line from that view). It's hard to believe that Hradek (a guy who actually does know something about hockey) hasn't taken to this view.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:42 PM ^
But I went to the link, and all I see is light and dark blurs.
<br>
<br>The question isn't "why are you trying to prove the goal was good in Austin on a Friday night?", the question is "why are you finding places to read that say the goal wasn't good and is disputable in Austin on a Friday night?"
March 25th, 2011 at 11:47 PM ^
Nothing like a good box.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:48 PM ^
beat by a minute
March 26th, 2011 at 10:14 AM ^
They showed three angles and I think you can compile indisputable evidence from them. The least shown angle from the right side of the blue line shows clearly that the goalie kicks the puck out with his right pad, which is on the bottom and clearly in the goal. The view from above the goal you can "maybe" start to see the puck in the net but you definitely see it coming out of the net with significant momentum. So from the straight on angle you can see what the poster posted. I think with all three you can determine it was kicked out of the goal by his right blocker which was well in the goal to give it the momentum you see in the overhead view. GOAL!!
p.s. I loved the Michigan fan w/ the hat on watching the refs the whole time and stood up when the refs were talking through the glass to the officials and signaled goal about 2 seconds before the ref did. Kudos to you sir!
March 25th, 2011 at 11:47 PM ^
i thought that angle was pretty conclusive
March 25th, 2011 at 11:49 PM ^
if i read correctly you live in austin, tx? i'm going there for a wedding in two weeks, what is a good bbq spot to visit??
March 25th, 2011 at 11:52 PM ^
They have bbq in Texas? Weird!
March 25th, 2011 at 11:58 PM ^
It's a highly debated topic down here, but here is my take:
BEST BBQ (Overall) = Franklin's BBQ (http://www.franklinbarbecue.com/) - You have to get there by 10:30AM or earlier, as they usually are completely sold out by noon. And it's actually a trailer... best food in Austin comes from trailers though.
BEST BRISKET = Rudy's BBQ (http://www.rudysbbq.com/) - located in a gas station -- who says Texas isn't fancy?
BEST RIBS = Artz Rib House (http://www.artzribhouse.com/) -- FYI, their brisket is horrible, so don't even think of trying it. This is a ribs ONLY place. But they are amazing.
BEST ATMOSPHERE = Salt Lick BBQ (http://www.saltlickbbq.com/) - It's about 25 minutes outside of Austin, but great place. They do have really good BBQ, just not my fave. It's also BYOB which is why the atmosphere gets a boost.
Other good places to eat: Torchy's Tacos (amazing tacos), Moonshine (great comfort food restaurant), Hula Hut (food is OK, although it's on the lake so fun place). Feel free to email me ([email protected]) if you have any more Austin q's. Always up for giving out advice on Austin.
March 26th, 2011 at 12:25 AM ^
Don't forget County Line. Pretty good BBQ and it's on Bull Creek. Also, any small hole in the wall that starts with Taquiera will be very good breakfast tacos. Or you can just go to Juan in a Million and get a heart attack on a plate for breakfast.
At one point Austin had the highest number of restaurants per capita in the world so there is no lack of good food to be found.
March 26th, 2011 at 12:33 AM ^
I haven't made it to Franklin's yet, but Salt Lick is the best BBQ I've had since moving to Texas. It blew Snow's in Lexington (often featured on best of TX lists) out of the water.
Rudy's is my favorite BBQ chain, but I've always found their brisket to be hit or miss. Sometimes it's very good, sometimes only ok.
Also, if you go to the original Salt Lick (not the one north of town) it's a pleasant little drive into the hills.
March 26th, 2011 at 12:40 AM ^
Do not. I repeat, DO NOT go to the Salt Lick in Round Rock. It is not the same as the original at all. Very disapointing because it is so much closer, but I gave it two chances and both times I got sick. No such problems at the original.
I really appreciate it.
March 25th, 2011 at 11:51 PM ^
all pucked up, pucking indisputable
March 26th, 2011 at 12:33 AM ^
EJ Hradek knows absolutely nothing about hockey.
Goal! Obvious. What took them 10 minutes?
March 26th, 2011 at 12:50 AM ^
"EJ Hradek knows absolutely nothing about hockey."
Seriously?
for me!
I've seen the replay on ESPN3 maybe 100 times and I feel like they had the call right.
March 26th, 2011 at 10:09 AM ^
and they are never wrong. Indisputable!
March 26th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^
FWIW, the director of officials that was interviewed during the BC game never said "indisputable." He specifically said "reasonable."
March 26th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
Although one video of the goal wasn't enough, assembling all the views together and it became too hard to deny that it was a goal - indisputably
March 26th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
You should really get HD bro.
March 26th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
I consider myself an honest man. I typically root for what is right over what is best for my team. With that said, I'm fucking tired of the media making a big to do over this.
1) Ummm...Miami last year.
2) Ummm...@ Wisconsin in Camp Randall before that
3) Notre Dame at Yost before that
4) I think it was Ohio State before that
Michigan has a clear track record of getting SCREWED on late game goal calls. We have more then enough karma built up where we should get the goal that is 95% likely to be a goal called in our fucking favor. In fact - I wish Yost Built or somebody would make a nice video replay list of every last minute goal Michigan has gotten screwed on over the last 5 years - I think there are about 7 examples.
And I don't want to hear any more about this indisputable bull shit. The video replays used in hockey and football have NEVER been indisputable. If they were - people wouldn't dispute the instant replay results all the time. Case in point: Chad Henne fumbling on the goal line in 2005 against Notre Dame.
1) The evidence was inconclusive that the fumble occured prior to crossing the goalline
2) The evidence was inconclusive that Michigan didn't recover the ball in the end zone prior to the ball getting stripped and subsequently recovered by Notre Dame.
I don't give a flying fuck if it was obvious that it was a legitimate fumble and Notre Dame recovered. You might convince me 1 was conclusive but 2 sure as fuck wasn't and that thought was never considered by the instant replay officials.
March 26th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^
I just read a story on thewolverine.com in which Lynch says he was "trying to get a read off the fans behind the glass" when the review was going on. If you watch the highlights on the NCAA website (http://www.ncaa.com/video/icehockey-men/2011-03-26/di-mhockey-michigan-uno) at about the 1:32 mark check out the reaction from the Michigan fan behind the glass. I'm sure Lynch got a good read off of him!