Thoughts on the men's lacrosse final goal controversy - Todd Carton - Terp Talk

JavaScript Notice!

It appears that you have JavaScript support disabled, this web site's functionality, look, feel and experience suffers greatly when this feature is not enabled on browsers. Therefore, in order for you to get the full experience of this web site, including its many features, you should really consider enabling JavaScript.

Let me set some parameters:

1) I’m a Maryland fan so I admit to some degree of inherent bias.

2) I’m over 60 years old and don’t have the sharpest eyes.

3) The Baltimore Sun’s website has posted a very slow motion view of the video Mark Millon Tweeted that together with Quint “I hated Maryland when I played for Hopkins and still do” Kessinich have fueled this discussion. You can watch it and judge for yourselves.

With that said, I will now venture my opinion about the controversy that arose after the game regarding Michael Keasey’s shot with 22 seconds left in Saturday’s NCAA Men’s Lacrosse Tournament first round game between Maryland and Yale.

First, let’s note that if Yale hadn’t collapsed and given up four fourth quarter goals, including three in under two and a half minutes, there would be no “controversy.” As Yale coach Andy Shay said in his post game press conference, “I thought we made some uncharacteristic mistakes late in the game. It was ours to finish and we had a couple turnovers and missed executions we don’t usually have and that’s going to be the difference between two evenly matched teams.”

Second, I watched the replay on ESPN3 and there was certainly no immediate controversy. By this, I mean that neither Mike Corey nor Matt Ward who were calling the game for ESPN ever intimated at any point that they thought the ball did anything other than hit the post and bounce out. It didn’t come up in their call of the game and it didn’t come up in their post game interview with Maryland coach John Tillman.

Third, the subject still hadn’t arisen 10 or 15 minutes after the game when Tillman and Maryland players Matt Dunn and Bryan Cole came into the interview room because no one asked about it. I note this to emphasize that the notion that the shot was a goal took time to develop and that in real time and at normal speed there was no controversy over the call. Also, Shay said, “I heard the TV guys thought is was a goal,” he could only be referring to remarks that came 15 minutes or more after the game.

Now, let me note what I can see clearly on the video:

The official nearest the play may not be in perfect position to make the call. He looks to be about a yard and a half in front of the goal line and three or four yards left of the post. He is, however, stationary, looking at the spot and significantly closer and with a better angle than any camera view. The official on the far side is wider of the goal than the near side official and is also just inside the goal line. Neither official makes any move to signal the goal is good.

No Yale player reacts as if Keasey’s shot is a goal.

Maryland goalie Kyle Bernlohr is also about a yard in front of the goal line so it is completely plausible that the ball could have hit the ground behind him and still been outside the goal.

Here’s what I can’t see clearly: The ball after it hits the pipe.

Now, since I’m no physicist, let me switch to Bill Belichick mode.

I heard the comments Kessinich made at halftime of the Towson-Notre Dame game. It seemed that a significant part of his “evidence” was that the video showed the black “turf turds” kicking up. I submit that would happen regardless of whether the ball hit the turf in front of the goal line, on the goal line, or behind it. Nothing from either angle I saw clearly showed the ball behind the goal line.

One other point. The ball clearly ends up outside the goal in the crease in front of Bernlohr. As I recall, Newton’s third law of motion states, “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Now, for the ball to move from behind Bernlohr to in front of him would require backspin. That is, the ball would be rotating in the opposite direction from its travel. Stay with me, here.

This means that the ball traveling toward the goal would be rotating away from it. Since the ball would be rotating away from the goal, when it hits the ground any turf it kicks up would have to travel in the opposite direction per Newton’s third law. Thus, the spray of turf Kessinich references as inside the post, could easily and plausibly be inside the post even if the ball had landed just outside the goal line simply because that’s the direction Newton’s law forces them to travel.

When I watch the slow motion video, I can almost see the ball hit the cage. It hits at or near the juncture of the left post and crossbar. Now, again, not professing any great knowledge of physics or geometry, it seems to me that in order to have gone in the goal, the ball would have had to hit the inside of the post and probably the crossbar to go down and land behind the goal line. If it hit the outside of either, I can’t imagine how it could have then essentially reversed the direction the reaction of hitting the bar would naturally take it. It would also had to then pick up enough backspin to come back out of the goal. Physicists and mathematicians please set me straight.

While one might exist, certainly no angle I’ve seen has provided indisputable evidence to overturn the call on the field.

One last spot of controversy – Should Yale have had the ball?

Let me say up front that again this was not a point of question in Corey’s or Ward’s minds when they made the call live. Here’s the situation” with about 40 seconds to play and a shot clock running, Yale’s Conrad Oberbeck heaved a shot that sailed across the crease. Bernlohr and two Yale players sprinted toward the sideline to cover the shot. The official nearest the play clearly signaled Maryland possession (but his back is to the sideline) but Yale was granted a timeout and possession. The announcers immediately called Yale as retaining possession.

Here’s what I saw watching the replay that had only one camera angle and no slow motion replay:

Maryland’s goalie is behind the Yale players up to the point where they reach the football hash marks. From that point and the available camera angle, it looks as though Bernlohr had passed both Elis and had clearly outstretched them when they dove. Now, if the ball crossed the sideline when the players were at or inside the hash marks, Yale possession is correct. If the ball crossed the sideline at any point after the players crossed the hashes, the close official made the correct call and the ball should have belonged to Maryland.

Here’s what I can’t see clearly: The ball.

You watch. You decide.