A few weeks ago I was watching the Pittsburgh Penguins take on the New York Islanders and something happened in the game which gave me the idea for an NHL brain teaser. The brain teaser goes like this: Describe a scenario in which an NHL referee could tell you the score of the game but not who’s winning.

If nobody comes up with the answer I’ll post it in a few weeks.

Mark said, “The referee can not tell you who is winning the fight.” This is a clever interpretation of my question, and I award you points for this guess. I should have been more specific though. Let me rephrase: Describe a scenario in which an NHL referee could tell you the score of the game but not which team is winning. Note: The game is not tied.

Okay, here’s some more detail to make things clearer. Let’s imagine the Penguins are playing the Islanders. There’s ten minutes left to play in the third period. The ref in question has been on the ice during the entire game. Sidney Crosby decides to have a conversation with the ref during a stoppage in play.

Sidney Crosby: Hey ref, what’s the score?
Referee: One of the teams has scored three goals, and the other team has scored two goals.
Sidney Crosby: So, which team is winning? The Penguins or the Islanders?
Referee: I’m not sure.

Melissa said, “One of the goals could be under contention, or in the process of being disallowed.” Melissa, you are the closest so far but don’t quite have the full answer yet. If a goal is being reviewed because it is under contention, then the referee probably wouldn’t know with certainty what the score is until after the tapes have been replayed. In that sense I would argue that the referee can’t tell you the score because he doesn’t know it with full certainty.

In my scenario the referee knows without a doubt that one of the teams has scored three goals and that the other team has scored two goals. He just doesn’t know which team is winning.

Keep thinking about it. You’re getting close.

Melissa said, “Michael, I’m coming up with a lot of horrible answers that revolve around the referee being blind and deaf. I have a question: is this situation particular to hockey, or could you substitute another sport?” Melissa, you are not alone in wondering if the NHL refs are sometimes blind.

To be honest I’m not certain if this could apply to another sport or not because I know NHL hockey much better than I do most other sports. With a little imagination I can think of a way it could happen in the NFL, but it wouldn’t be as clear cut as it is in the NHL.

I’ll give you a big hint. This is possible in the NHL thanks to the help of video replay. This scenario would not be possible in hockey leagues that don’t have access to video replay.

Also, there should be no tricky interpretation of my words when I say “the ref can’t tell you who’s winning.” The ref can’t tell you who’s winning because he honestly doesn’t know who’s winning. In fact, it’s not just the refs who would find themselves in this predicament. A knowledgeable fan watching the game would also be able to tell you the score but not know who’s winning.

Congratulations to Ian who was the first to come up with the correct answer! Steve also did a great job of elaborating on Ian’s answer and coming up with a clear explanation of how this could happen in the NFL.

In the NHL when a goal is scored a red light behind the goal typically turns on, the referee points to the net to acknowledge the goal, play is stopped and the players celebrate.

At least this is what usually happens. However, sometimes a player will shoot the puck so hard into the net that it bounces out so fast that nobody is really sure if it’s a goal or not. In a blur of motion the referees are sometimes tricked into thinking that the puck bounced off a goalpost or perhaps even the goalie’s skate.

This happened a few weeks ago when Tyler Kennedy of the Pittsburgh Penguins appeared to have scored his first NHL goal. After Tyler Kennedy thought he had a goal he put his hands in the air to celebrate, only to watch as the play continued without any red light acknowledgement or referee confirmation. When a questionable “goal” like this occurs the referees will let the play continue until there’s a normal stoppage in play. At the next break in the action the referees will call “upstairs” (which is really a video replay booth in Toronto) to have the goal reviewed.

The problem is this: what if the next break in the play is caused by the other team scoring a goal? In this scenario both Team A and Team B believe they’ve scored a goal. If it turns out that Team A’s goal is illegitimate, then Team B’s goal stands. If, however, the video replay reveals that Team A’s goal is in fact a legal goal then everything that happened after that goal was scored is undone. Team B’s goal wouldn’t count, and the clock would be rolled back to the time the goal was scored.

While the referee is waiting to hear back from the video replay booth he would know that one of the two goals would count, but not know which one. In other words, he would know that the score was about to become 3-2 or 2-3 depending on which team’s goal was valid.

In the past year I’ve become a big fan of congressman Ron Paul, and it’s been a while since I’ve found myself cheering for a Republican. Maybe it’s his consistent support for the U.S. Constitution, his unwavering belief in the importance of civil liberties or perhaps just the fact that he’s originally from Pittsburgh. Whatever the reason, I became inspired tonight to do my share in supporting the man that I hope becomes the next president of the United States of America.

Let me begin by explaining the source of my motivation.

A number of my family members hold views that I feel are consistent with Ron Paul’s, and I became curious to see how they were planning to vote. I recently asked a family member how he felt about Ron Paul, to which he responded, “Who?”

See, unlike most of my family I tend to get the majority of my information via online channels, whereas my family prefers dead trees and Wolf Blitzer. It’s no secret that Ron Paul’s been getting a lot of Internet attention but very little mainstream media attention, at least until late. It bothered me that some of my friends and family members might be Ron Paul supporters if only they knew of the man. I don’t care for whom a person votes so long as the vote is made ignorance-free.

That’s why tonight I created a Facebook group entitled “Ron Paul: Tell Ten”. It’s an initiative to encourage Ron Paul supporters to share information with friends and family who don’t yet know about Ron Paul.

Here’s the group description:

Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s popularity has been gaining huge momentum in the last few months. Once lagging in the polls and in money raised, Ron Paul is now winning polls and raising record amounts of cash. However, time is running out. With less than two months until the primaries begin there are still too many voters who don’t know the values that Ron Paul would bring to the White House.

By joining this group you agree to share your passion for Ron Paul with ten family members and friends who aren’t yet familiar with him. Ron Paul’s popularity has grown virally on the Internet, and it’s important that this viral growth of knowledge continue into the “real world.”

Let’s face it. Nobody is comfortable talking politics with friends or family. It’s a difficult topic to bring up and a potentially touchy topic for many. Fortunately, bringing up a man like Ron Paul in conversation is much easier than most politicians because of the beliefs he holds.

For example, if a friend or family member is passionate about bringing the troops home, explain Ron Paul’s belief in non-intervention.

If a friend or family member feels strongly about civil liberties, explain Ron Paul’s support for privacy and personal liberty.

If somebody you know is a gun enthusiast, teach them about the number of bills that Ron Paul has proposed to protect the second amendment.

Although not everybody will agree with Ron Paul on all issues, his unique views allow more people to relate to him than is the case with most politicians.

For help on how to cater your discussion to your audience, I encourage you to read up on Ron Paul’s views at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

By joining this group you promise to share your passion for Ron Paul with ten new people in the next ten days. Together we can extend Ron Paul’s Internet popularity into the “real world” and give him a fighting chance in the primaries which start as early as December.

If you’re a Ron Paul supporter and you have a Facebook account, I encourage you to join the group at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6306622262.

I’ve been wanting to watch Randy Pausch’s “Last Speech” for the past few weeks, and I finally had the chance this evening during my six hour stay at Dulles International. The speech was incredible. The strangers sitting around me must have wondered what I was watching that would induce fits of laughter one moment and tears the next.

My favorite theme of the speech is the metaphorical brick wall and its true purpose in life. As Randy sees it, obstacles in life exist as filters to separate the mildly interested from the truly passionate. In his words, “…brick walls are there for a reason. The brick walls are not there to keep us out. The brick walls are there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something. Because the brick walls are there to stop the people who don’t want it badly enough. They’re there to stop the other people.”

All software developers, cancer survivors, families of cancer victims, artists, students, professors, dreamers and human beings should watch this video. Set aside an hour and forty five minutes of your time and prepare to be inspired.

Playing mp3 file unforgiven (by RealPlayer Windows LiveWriter WordPress Plugin)