THIS PAGE CAN BE USED AS A BLOG! WHY SHOULDN'T IT?
Anyway, I've been in Indiana for about a week helping dad film some shows and make some videos. Got some good footage of him doing his mindreading/hypnosis act for some surprisingly intelligent high-school kids.
Another show in Indianapolis was not so great. First off, all the exits along I-70 are closed. Actually that's not true. The exit we needed to get off on was closed and then all subsequent exits beyond it were closed so as to prevent our turning around.
Eventually an exit appeared and we did turn around and began the long journey back to a patch of highway that had open exits. Then it was just a matter of finding the road we were supposed to exit on, which we did, and it was closed. At this point we consulted our 1995 Atlas to plot a course around the closed road so as to intersect another road on our directions. We did this and went on our way.
Did I mention this was in the middle of the rough & gruff Indianapolis ghetto? Poorly paved streets, BBQ rib joints and pawn shops galore. As we continued along our perfectly plotted course, we came upon a police barricade blocking the street and cop waving his arms in a "GET OUT OF HERE" motion. Clearly something gruesome was happening here and yet another street we needed was closed. Eventually we circumvented this and successfully completed our original circumvention.
Back on the correct street, we were confident that our directions would now lead us to our destination with the greatest of ease. Incorrect. We were told to turn right onto 79th street. There was a 78th and an 80th street. 79th had apparently fallen into a 5th dimension unknown to man. After turning down several roads that seemed like they might be in the correct place, we found the apartments we were looking for. Dad did his show outside in the blazing heat and spontaneously combusted before my eyes. Ok, not really, but I'm sure he was on the verge because I sure was.
In other news, my sex drive is severely fucked up and has been for the past year or so. I suspect its because my self-esteem has hit lows that I can't even postulate descriptions for. Years of being a flightless shit-bird are finally catching up to me.
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Tuesday, May 29 2007 | ||||||||
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Tuesday, May 29 2007 | ||||||
People if our 70's icons keep dying, then soon our 80's icons will be next!!
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Sunday, May 13 2007 | ||||
Happy 81st Birthday to Bea Arthur!  Femmeputer demands to know why there are males celebrating her birthday! OTTER IS SENTENCED TO DEATH BY SNOO-SNOO!!
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Sunday, May 6 2007 | ||
 Congratulations to Buffalo, and thank you Rangers for making hockey fun again!
|
| -- Posted by OtterVomit on Thursday, May 3 2007 |
WHY IT WAS A GOAL, AND WHY THE "NO GOAL" CALL WAS STILL RIGHT As all hockey fans know (that would be the entire population of Canada and roughly 10 Americans), the Rangers/Sabres series has seen some god awful and controversial officiating complete with some god awful and controversial video-replay calls. And so it comes as no surprise that after Tuesday's game 4 in Madison Square(see: cylindrical) Garden that there is yet another controversy that has everyone whining, bitching, talking trash, calling the NHL a bush-league, vowing to never watch another hockey game, threatening to rape the mothers of rival fans, etc.  Never fear, hockey expert Otter is here to ramble on pointlessly about this issue! First I would like to say that although I am a Rangers fan, I would like to see the right calls be made on the ice no matter who is playing. To the left you will see the play in question repeat over and over. This happened at the closing moments of game 4, with the score 2-1 in favor of the Rangers. Sabres player Daniel Briere jammed a puck into the pad of Rangers goalie Heinrick Lundvist, seemingly getting the puck over the goal line. Obviously, if this is counted a goal the game is tied and goes to overtime.Fortunately for the Rangers, neither of the referees called this a goal on the ice which frankly surprised me because the moment I saw the play my heart stopped beating and I saw spots in front of my eyes, because I was very certain a goal had just been scored. After seeing all the replays, I am still 95% sure that puck crossed the line and should have been called a goal. When it went to video review, I was very certain it would be ruled a goal. I think Lundqvist thought this too since he sulked around the crease looking upset during the review.  Then a miracle happened. There was no conclusive frame that showed the puck over the line in the replay. The frame where the puck very likely crossed the line, the pad of Lundqvist totally blocks the view. There was no camera angle that could be produced to show the puck totally over the line. The rule on replays is that this has to be the case to over-rule the on-ice call. Since the on-ice call was no goal and there was no conclusive evidence that the puck was in (other than the 99.999999% chance that it was in under Ludqvist's pad), the rule was that the on-ice call would stand. This was the correct call on the video-replay official's part.However there is another dynamic to this situation. This the frame right before the puck disappears under Lundvist's pads which makes it appear that the puck is on the goal line:  Look at this, it makes it appear like the puck is on the very edge of the goal line. However, 20+ years of watching hockey has taught me a few things, one of which is to always take into account ANGLES. The overhead camera is not placed directly over the goal line because if it were, the crossbar would block the view of the goal line. Thus, its actually placed behind the goal looking at the goal line at an angle. "So the fuck what you halfwit," you say? I set up an example of why this is a factor. Here's a shot of a puck along a goal line (made by yours truly):  Cool, looks like its on the line! No goal! Oh wait, let's make sure. Let's turn the camera to a true 90 degree shot and see how it looks:  Crap! That's a goal! Looking at that replay numerous times, I really feel that a similar optical illusion saved the Rangers in the last frame where the puck is visible. People are griping because the video review did not rule this a goal. What they don't realize is that the video replay cannot overrule an on-ice decision unless there is 100% conclusive evidence that the puck was behind the line. The video judges made the right call as there was no definitive frame- not one -that showed the puck conclusively behind the line. That being the case, the ruling of the on-ice referees could not be overturned. End of story.
|