Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

So this is something else that will be reviewable?

It's been reviewable for at least a year or two.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

It's been reviewable for at least a year or two.

Whether or not to call a penalty is not reviewable. And if they're going to start throwing out people for going onto the ice too early, we have bigger problems.

[UncleRay]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

Don't need a 5 foot line on the ice. Seems like the clarification is to get rid of the 20 foot changes that have been happening. 5 feet is not much more than an arm's length.

For me (I'm 5' 10") 5 feet is exactly fingertip-to-fingertip with my arms extended to each side. Not advocating this, but at 5 feet, players should pretty much be able to tag each other before making the switch, a la WWE.

Currently you can't review if something's a penalty; the only thing that can be reviewed is whether a penalty warrants a game misconduct. That being said, I have seen goals called back on account of too many men on the ice, and I do wonder if, through, replay, you can call that penalty, or if the penalty has to be let go and only the goal disallowed.

I believe the video said that everything is reviewable when they review whether or not a goal is valid. So if it is discovered in a goal review that there were 6 men on the ice, it could be addressed.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

For me (I'm 5' 10") 5 feet is exactly fingertip-to-fingertip with my arms extended to each side. Not advocating this, but at 5 feet, players should pretty much be able to tag each other before making the switch, a la WWE.

I believe the video said that everything is reviewable when they review whether or not a goal is valid. So if it is discovered in a goal review that there were 6 men on the ice, it could be addressed.

Yes, everything is reviewable in order to call goal/no-goal, but the question is, very specifically, "Are the officials permitted to either enforce or exonerate the existence of penalty time as a result of the review?" This is not to say they can't use review to determine whether it's a 2 or a 5, which is the ejection rule we've seen in the playoffs for a few years and is now coming to the regular season.

[TheRevengeance]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I've definitely seen a Lowell game where a goal was reviewed for too many men, but I couldn't tell you what the ruling on the goal was or whether there was a penalty issued.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I know it happened with the gophers one or two years ago. Goal was disallowed. I’m not confident, but I don’t recall a penalty being issued.

[ScottK]

Re: Rule Changes: Who got screwed and wants a fix?

I've definitely seen a Lowell game where a goal was reviewed for too many men, but I couldn't tell you what the ruling on the goal was or whether there was a penalty issued.

The 2017 NCAA game against Cornell was the game where Lowell had a goal disallowed for too many men. There was no penalty.

[QUFan]

The 2017 NCAA game against Cornell was the game where Lowell had a goal disallowed for too many men. There was no penalty.

The same happened in a QU game last season. I believe the ruling is that the goal is disallowed, but you cannot asses a penalty on review. You can asses severity (minor/major) but not call a penalty that wasn’t called live.