NCAA Clarifies Notre Dame Non-Goal

[USCHO Newsbot]

INDIANAPOLIS — The Frozen Four may be in the books for another year, but the most controversial play of the tournament, a Notre Dame goal in the third period of the championship game that was overturned by video replay, is still being debated throughout college hockey. They play, which occurred at 4:56 of the third period with Notre Dame trailing, 3-1, would have closed the BC lead to a single ...

Read more at uscho.com ...

[Nick Papagiorgio]

Well, this should put an end to the whining, although we all know it won't.

[Chris_NH]

This article does help considerably. First, the rule book comes out every two years, not every year. Only an interim memo issued in the 'off-year' gave the on-ice officials clarity to make their call on Saturday. Unless you had the language from that memo (seen below), you might have allowed the goal. Good job by the officials in making the right call...evidenced by the eight-plus minutes it took.

“8. Interpretation of a Distinct Kicking Motion. The group had considerable discussion on the difference between directing, deflecting and kicking a puck into the goal. Again, the rules have not changed for 2007-08, but several officials and coaches have different interpretations of how this rule should be adjudicated. To assist with this, the committee approved the following definition of a distinct kicking motion: ‘A distinct kicking motion is defined as the skate moving toward the goal line.’ This interpretation does not alter any wording that is currently in the rules book, but it is the group’s hope that adding this language in the future will assist officials, coaches and players to understand this rule.”

[Eagle 76]

There should be NO controversy. There is absolutely no dispute that the call was the correct one. The Notre Dame player MOVED his right foot towards the goal. The picture in recent USCHO stories clearly evidence the player's movement. The video replay left no doubt that such movement was in the direction of the goal. So, why the uproar? Just refer to the precise wording of the rule and apply it in an unbiased manner.

Rule 6, Section 18 (a): “A goal shall be allowed if the puck has been directed into the goal by an attacking player with the skate, unless a distinct kicking motion is used.” "Distinct kicking motion" is defined as movement towards the goal.

Keep in mind that the rule does not require intent. All that is needed is 1) contact of the puck with a skate, 2) movement of the skate, and 3) such movement towards the goal. All of this could have been accidental.

All 3 existed in this case. There is no question. There is no controversy.

BC National Champions ! BC now dominates ND in both football and hockey.

And this game provides clear and undisputed evidence that resolves that other long standing and nagging controversy - It's now certain - God is firmly on our side !

PS - My congrats to all the ND players who fought like champions and brought their program to the tops in the nation. I look foward to your next visit to the Heights.

[FREDDYBOY]

I saw the kicking motion, but there was no contact as a result of the kicking motion. The puck was already deflected. If your going to count a missed kick as contact, why don't you count the missed whack with the stick as contact. You people are fools. When you grow up watching the crappy refs in the WCHA, you get used to these cover-ups. Bring back Don Adams. He is crappy, but atleast he knows it.

[OldDomer]

According to the NCAA’s associate director of playing rules, whether Lawson was attempting to kick the puck in the net was not completely relevant due to a clarification of “distinct kicking motion”.So let me see if I've got this straight the "clarification" of a "distinct kicking motion" means that whether a player actually attempts kicking the puck is not completely relevant? I fail to see how that is either distinct or clarifying. Saturdays game is long over, but there's trouble ahead with that rule. Good thing Mr. Shepherd was there to "clarify" things and overrule the on-ice official. That bodes really well for the role of officials in hockey.

[CaptainEO]

Ncaa=cya

[Sioux_Me]

Thank heaven for Greg Shepherd -- only he could self-appoint himself as a higher power than the Lord Almighty to make the penultimate choice between favorite sons where God himself could not decide (unless that self-guided puck was divine intervention?)! In either event, only a Shepherd could believe they had that kind of power and might!

You've offered your "explanation" and "clarification" for the masses NCAA -- aside from Eagle Boy, we're not buying. How about scrapping an unworkable rule altogether?

What a way to cast a shadow over a great game.

[vellnueve]

If ND wanted to win the game, perhaps they should not have gone 0-8 on the PP and been down by two goals at that point in the game. BC won. Live with it.

[ByDickieDunn]

Well, now that the Magically-Appearing Rule Interpretation That Doesn’t Appear in the Rulebook has been shared with the masses, only these questions remain:

--If this “clarification” has been in effect all this season, shouldn’t it have come into play previously? Wouldn’t other questionable goals have been waived off, and this become a known and accepted rule?

--If “distinct kicking motion” refers to a moving skate, shouldn’t this ruling have taken about 30 seconds, not eight-plus minutes?

--Why does Mr. Halpin refer to “Greg Shepherd and the entire officiating crew used every possible angle available to determine….” after all previous references indicate that Mr. Shepherd alone made the ruling?

--If this interpretation is the reason for the ruling, why wait till Tuesday afternoon to release it? Why not do it immediately Saturday night?

Sounds like a big ol’ can of CYA to me.

Yikes, I’ve got a headache. Time to go for a skate—er, rather, a distinct kicking motion.

[PCM]

For your consideration.

[davyd83]

Originally Posted by ByDickieDunn

Well, now that the Magically-Appearing Rule Interpretation That Doesn’t Appear in the Rulebook has been shared with the masses, only these questions remain:

1)--If this “clarification” has been in effect all this season, shouldn’t it have come into play previously? Wouldn’t other questionable goals have been waived off, and this become a known and accepted rule?

2--If “distinct kicking motion” refers to a moving skate, shouldn’t this ruling have taken about 30 seconds, not eight-plus minutes?

3--Why does Mr. Halpin refer to “Greg Shepherd and the entire officiating crew used every possible angle available to determine….” after all previous references indicate that Mr. Shepherd alone made the ruling?

4--If this interpretation is the reason for the ruling, why wait till Tuesday afternoon to release it? Why not do it immediately Saturday night?

Sounds like a big ol’ can of CYA to me.

Yikes, I’ve got a headache. Time to go for a skate—er, rather, a distinct kicking motion.

1) Since none of the other games were of the magnitude of the national championship contest, it is entirely possible, even probable that there were several other similar rulings during the course of the season. You just weren't aware of them.

2) They were looking at other aspects of the play, such as the aforementioned possibility of the puck touching his stick.

3) It could be a reference to the entire crew, including those running the video and selecting the angles. Ultimately, Shepherd made the call. However, I don't believe he was responsible for shooting or running the video. Other off ice officials may have been in contact with the procuction truck searching for as many angles as possible.

4) The information was made available in the press box Saturday night during the 3rd period.

If you believe that this rule "magically" appeared, why don't you give Jeff Jackson a call and ask if he got the memorandum prior to the season?

Actually, I'm sure it was a big season long conspiracy plotted to bring the title back each for the first time since '01...

Does anyone here share my theory that if that had been Gerbe instead of an ND player, that the ND fans would be yelling "Darn right he kicked it in..." and the BC faithful would be chirping about the "most ridiculous call ever..."

[hockeybando]

Originally Posted by vellnueve

If ND wanted to win the game, perhaps they should not have gone 0-8 on the PP and been down by two goals at that point in the game. BC won. Live with it.

Oh holy Christ. This isn't about BC winning. It's about the faulty rule in general.

In order to kick the puck into the net with his right skate, wouldn't the puck need to be on the OUTSIDE of his right foot instead of between his feet? That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.

If they're going by their interpretation of the rule, which as the article states:

‘A distinct kicking motion is defined as the skate moving toward the goal line.’

then no goal should ever be allowed. At some point in time, a skate is going to have to move toward the goal line. The rule isn't very well defined and I seriously hope they re-evaluate it during the offseason. The interpretation [clarification] doesn't even say anything about contact with the puck! But OH NO, if the skate moves toward the goal line... too bad, so sad.

Give me a break.

Good job BC for winning, but the rules committee blows.

I'll admit I have a CCHA bias, but I wasn't happy that Notre Dame made it to the final, so my "cheering" for them was half-assed at best. I have no emotional connection to either team whatsoever. From my perspective, this is how I feel about the call.

[RedSquirrel]

There was a BC goal vs. UVM last year where Boyle was skating towards the net, facing the net, his defenseman shot the puck from the point, it went off Boyle's skate and in. That was a goal, and it should have been a goal. But, technically, his skate was moving towards the net when the puck hit his skate and contact between the puck and his skate resulted in the puck going in the net. Would this scenario now be ruled a no goal if carfully reviewed?

[vellnueve]

Originally Posted by hockeybando

In order to kick the puck into the net with his right skate, wouldn't the puck need to be on the OUTSIDE of his right foot instead of between his feet? That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.

Not at all. Kicking with the inside of the foot is common and normal in many sports. No reason you can't kick it with the inside of the foot in hockey (besides the rule against it, obviously)

[hockeybando]

Originally Posted by vellnueve

Not at all. Kicking with the inside of the foot is common and normal in many sports. No reason you can't kick it with the inside of the foot in hockey (besides the rule against it, obviously)

I guess I need to re-explain this. \ represents the left foot, / represents the right foot, . represents the puck, and ] represents the net:

\ . / ]

It's a pretty crude representation but it's the best I can do.

Distinct kicking motion? Sure, but the motion itself didn't cause the puck to go in the net. His foot actually looked to be traveling parallel to the puck instead of kicking the puck into the net.

I'm not saying that the ruling was wrong, [u][given the rule as it stands/U], but that the rule sucks and needs to be far better clarified. As someone else said, if it's such a cut-and-dry rule, why did it take 8-plus minutes to disallow the goal? Clearly there is something wrong.

The bottom line is, the puck wasn't kicked into the net.

[Dogzam]

Can the NCAA provide some of the different angles/shots it looked at to determine this goal? From all the angles shown on TV, it did not look like the right foot touched the puck at all. Distinct kicking motion with the right skate? Sure, but the right skate didn't look like it touched the puck. As the player began moving his right skate, he was pushed out of the play by the D and the puck proceeded in to the net from the left skate.
This is a great hockey debate so I appreciate USCHO dedicating space to it.
For those fed up with the debate, thanks for your patience.

[ElMafu69]

I think this "interpretation" is total crap (all skating is a distinct kicking motion apparently. Besides, the refs messed up the call. It did hit his skate but he made no kicking motion until after the puck was clear of his skates so he did not propel the puck into the net with that motion. In fact, if I remember correctly he made absolutely no motion that could have been interpreted as kicking the puck. If that really is the rule now they should change it because as it states: "A distinct kicking motion is defined as the skate moving toward the goal line" could mean absolutely anything and could be done in many ways that don't involve kicking...

Anyway, the goal should have counted. Not like it would have mattered BC would have most likely won regardless.

[gophers79]

A) I remember watching the North Dakota / MN game that there is a video link to in this thread and literally yelling at my TV as the WCHA refs screwed up that Oshie goal. Skate going toward the net... there is no way in heck that should've counted. IIRC, the refs also missed a play where Barriball was waaay offsides and the gophers scored on the play. Bad referrees.

B) The way I interpreted the Notre Dame play, the skater kicked the puck toward the goal with his LEFT skate and was moving his right skate AWAY from the goal as he tried to direct the puck towards his stick. Obviously, he never tips it with his stick, but his right skate was not moving towards the goal as he directs the puck. If you watch the video, he does kick the puck, but it's not with the skate that ultimately hit the puck into the net. If you propel the puck with your skate to your stick (or your leg or some other appendage) and tip it in without actually propelling it into the net, it would be a goal. This situation should've been exactly the same. Because he redirected the puck with his right skate and kicked it with his left skate, the kick should be void. The Notre Dame skater simply directed a moving puck into the net with a skate that was NOT moving towards the goal line, but away from it. This should've been a goal.

[gophers79]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ks5exnYHQNU

At about 1:10. The skater does move his right skate towards the goal, but only AFTER the puck has been redirected and is on its way to the net. I know during the game they had a better angle of it where you could see the player propel the puck with his left skate and only redirect it with his right skate. This is the best I could find, though.