PDA

View Full Version : RIT Tigers 2017 / 2018. Is time to go out and capture some prey!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43

Downstate_RIT_Fan
02-23-2018, 11:15 PM
Yes, because the way this season has gone for RIT, you do NOT want to give yourselves more chances to lose.

Well then, we need an Army loss and at least an RIT tie tomorrow night . Or If Army ties then RIT needs a win.. An Army win tomorrow night and It doesn’t matter what RIT does. RIT needs to at least finish tied with Army to get the bye as RIT holds the tiebreaker by sweeping Army earlier in the season.. so it comes down to the final regular season game.

Russell Jaslow
02-23-2018, 11:46 PM
Well then, we need an Army loss and at least an RIT tie tomorrow night . Or If Army ties then RIT needs a win.. An Army win tomorrow night and It doesn’t matter what RIT does. RIT needs to at least finish tied with Army to get the bye as RIT holds the tiebreaker by sweeping Army earlier in the season.. so it comes down to the final regular season game.

An Air Force win leapfrogs them into third place, which also solves the problem.

Russell Jaslow
02-23-2018, 11:49 PM
Hate to sound like a broken record, but I did say we're not going anywhere with this goaltending.

Brownie makes an incredible effort to give RIT the lead late and then Short gives up two unacceptable goals in less than a minute. Just not good enough.

To be fair, Brubacher must have thought Jack Riley had a force shield around him, because he didn't get within two feet of Riley the whole time Riley had the puck skating to the front of the net.

This is way I say soft defensive play has been RIT's biggest problem.

jflory81
02-24-2018, 02:00 AM
It wasn't really a whack, what it was, Brown is in the crease and his glove really prevents the goaltender from coming up to make the Save. I don't think Erik meant to he was trying to deflect the puck , but from how the rule been explained to me that's the correct call even if the ref did a poor job of explaining it. If there is any contact that prevents the goaltender from making the Save they are going to wash the goal. I think the rule needs a tweaking, but it is the rule we are living with for now...

Not to mention he is in the blue as the puck comes towards the net, another rule I hate, but...

It was a clear no goal. I don't want to watch a sport where they allow a goal like that. He clearly interfered with the goaltender's ability to make the save inside the crease. Any contact that the goaltender initiated was while Brown was still inside of his crease.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Drackett tomorrow. Short didn't make the saves, and got caught swimming on the GTG.

jflory81
02-24-2018, 02:09 AM
As for tomorrow, a win, Army tie, and Air Force loss still gets RIT a bye and home ice.

An Army loss means the best RIT can do is 5th, and an Army win means RIT will be hosting someone at the Polesseni next weekend, regardless of what RIT does tomorrow.

LtPowers
02-24-2018, 09:26 AM
It was a clear no goal. I don't want to watch a sport where they allow a goal like that. He clearly interfered with the goaltender's ability to make the save inside the crease.

The overhead view doesn't look like Wildung was prevented from anything as far as I can see. It looks to me like he was distracted by pushing Brown out of the way, but I didn't see any other contact until the puck was already on its way by.


Powers &8^]

Ed Trefzger
02-24-2018, 10:30 AM
There's a lot of gray area in this one. They amplified the current rule book on this point. The parts I highlighted are the amplifications they added to the current rules:

Rule 73 - Interference on the Goalkeeper

73.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - The overriding rationale of this rule is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within the goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player. However, an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances, be allowed.

Goals should be disallowed only if an attacking player, either by positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend the goal.

If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player and causes contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with the goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the attacking player and if a goal is scored it shall be disallowed.

Rights of the Goaltender – The rules must protect the goaltender and allow him or her to defend the goal, within the goal crease, without interference from an attacking player. This includes allowing a goaltender to move effectively and efficiently within the crease, as well as being able to see the puck unimpeded by a player who has established a position in the crease.

Rights of the Attacking Player – Attacking players who are outside of the crease have some rights to the space they occupy. In cases where an attacking player makes contact with goaltender’s equipment that extends outside the plane of the crease (e.g., glove, blocker, stick, etc.), provided that the attacking player does not initiate distinct and deliberate actions aimed at impeding the goaltender’s use of their equipment (e.g., slashing the goaltender’s glove), this contact should be considered incidental and goals scored on such plays shall be allowed.

If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, such goals shall be disallowed. For this purpose, a player establishes a significant position within the crease when, in the referee’s judgment, his/her body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Role of the Official – Officials are encouraged to use their discretion in determining the effect of an attacking player making contact with a goaltender or with goaltender equipment. Referees are instructed to give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact. If, in the opinion of the official, the incidental contact had no effect on the goaltender’s ability to defend the goal, a goal may be allowed in such situations.

73.2 Penalty – If, in the opinion of the official, an attacking player initiates contact that physically prevents the goalkeeper from defending the goal, the attacking player may receive a penalty. This penalty may be enforced whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease and whether or not a goal is scored. The referee should give significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper rather than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.
If an attacking player establishes position in the goal crease, and is physically or visually screening the goalkeeper and impairing the ability to defend the goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

73.3 Face-off Location–Whenever the Referee stops play to disallow a goal as a result of contact with the goalkeeper (incidental or otherwise), the resulting face-off shall take place at the nearest neutral zone face-off spot outside the attacking zone of the offending team.

73.4 Rebounds and Loose Pucks - In a rebound situation, or where a goalkeeper and attacking player(s) are simultaneously attempting to play a loose puck, whether inside or outside the crease, incidental contact with the goalkeeper will be permitted, and any goal that is scored as a result will be allowed.

In the event that a goalkeeper has been pushed into the net together with the puck by an attacking player, the goal will be disallowed. If applicable, appropriate penalties will be assessed.

In the event that the puck is under a player in or around the crease area (deliberately or otherwise), a goal cannot be scored by pushing this player together with the puck into the goal. If applicable, the appropriate penalties will be assessed, including a penalty shot if deemed to be covered in the crease deliberately (see Rule 67 – Delaying the Game).

73.5 Overall Philosophy - Officials must use a philosophy of “when in doubt, the goal must count.” Unless the official is certain that a goal was scored through an illegal action (e.g., physically hindering the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely while in the crease and defend the goal), the goal must count. Games that have video replay available may correct egregious errors, but the standard of evidence required to disallow a goal is significant.

Ed Trefzger
02-24-2018, 10:42 AM
This rule was discussed at some length on the rules committee's conference call with broadcasters in October, especially the final paragraph. And the rules committee reinforced that in a memo on February 15.

Schmitty
02-24-2018, 02:02 PM
I was under the impression Short was a senior for some reason. The truth is more unfortunate :(

komey1
02-24-2018, 02:29 PM
I was under the impression Short was a senior for some reason. The truth is more unfortunate :(

Short will hardly be guaranteed significant playing time next year. I expect both Drackett and Adriano to improve from this year now that they should be acclimated to college play.

jflory81
02-24-2018, 03:23 PM
The overhead view doesn't look like Wildung was prevented from anything as far as I can see. It looks to me like he was distracted by pushing Brown out of the way, but I didn't see any other contact until the puck was already on its way by.


Powers &8^]

He absolutely was. Brown's glove knocked Wildung's glove down, and that's where the puck went in. There's no controversy whatsoever on this one, unfortunately.

unscarred76
02-24-2018, 04:22 PM
He absolutely was. Brown's glove knocked Wildung's glove down, and that's where the puck went in. There's no controversy whatsoever on this one, unfortunately.

Completely disagree, Wildung pushes off on Brown first and in no way was he going to make that save his reaction was late anyways. This should absolutely have been allowed. In any event, we dont want to finish 5th and go to Air Force potentially. Forget the first round bye I'd rather see them play at home for a series honestly. 5th place is the complete worst place to finish in my opinion, if they can't finish 4th then 6th would be better. Just my thought!

jflory81
02-24-2018, 04:33 PM
It doesn't matter who initiated the contact, Brown was in the crease, and was not pushed into the crease by the defender. I mean, come on, Brown's glove/elbow/arm clearly pushes Wildung's glove out of the way inside of the crease as the puck is coming in.

Some of you really need to take the home team blinders off. God knows I've been completely willing to criticize officials in the past for bad/non-existent calls, but this one will be waved off 10 times out of 10, as it should be. I would be furious if that call went the other way against RIT if the roles were reversed.

For the record, if the crazy scenario of an RIT/Air Force/Army 3 way tie for 4th happens, RIT would win the tiebreaker on wins in conference (RIT would be 3-3-0 against Army/AF, Army would be 2-2-0 against AF/RIT, and Air Force would be 3-3-0 against Army/RIT, so the first tiebreaker ends in a 3 way tie). Army would then beat Air Force for the 5th seed based on H2H record, so Army would be the team visiting RIT after the bye.

That's the only way the Tigers can get a bye, so Army is the only possible team that would visit the Pollesini in a 2nd round matchup. This scenario is also the only one in which Air Force does not get a bye.

Tom Naeger
02-24-2018, 04:53 PM
Completely disagree, Wildung pushes off on Brown first and in no way was he going to make that save his reaction was late anyways.

The push off is completely irrelevant. It occurred when Brown was in the crease and ended before the shot. Also if he reacted late or not to the shot is not relevant. Lets dig into the rule that Ed posted and break it down.


Goals should be disallowed only if an attacking player, either by positioning or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend the goal.

The contact clearly did not allow the goaltender to extend his glove, if his reaction is late or not is not under consideration. He has the right to freely move within the crease.


If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending player and causes contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.

Brown enter the crease area himself, if anything the contact was pushing him out of the crease and certainly was legal contact


Rights of the Goaltender – The rules must protect the goaltender and allow him or her to defend the goal, within the goal crease, without interference from an attacking player. This includes allowing a goaltender to move effectively and efficiently within the crease, as well as being able to see the puck unimpeded by a player who has established a position in the crease.

This part of the rule pretty much dooms the goal. There is no way you can say that the goaltender was allow to effectively and efficiently move his glove to make the save. He was impeded by Brown in the crease.


Rights of the Attacking Player – Attacking players who are outside of the crease have some rights to the space they occupy. In cases where an attacking player makes contact with goaltender’s equipment that extends outside the plane of the crease (e.g., glove, blocker, stick, etc.), provided that the attacking player does not initiate distinct and deliberate actions aimed at impeding the goaltender’s use of their equipment (e.g., slashing the goaltender’s glove), this contact should be considered incidental and goals scored on such plays shall be allowed.

Brown was in the crease which pretty much ends all exceptions to the goal being disallowed.


If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to defend his goal, and a goal is scored, such goals shall be disallowed. For this purpose, a player establishes a significant position within the crease when, in the referee’s judgment, his/her body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.

Just beating a dead horse, or dead goal at this point, he was there early and through the goal


Role of the Official – Officials are encouraged to use their discretion in determining the effect of an attacking player making contact with a goaltender or with goaltender equipment. Referees are instructed to give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact. If, in the opinion of the official, the incidental contact had no effect on the goaltender’s ability to defend the goal, a goal may be allowed in such situations.

The only hope lays here were you could say maybe the contact didn't effect the ability to defend the goal. Hard argument to make when he was not able to raise his glove up to the area where the shot went.


73.5 Overall Philosophy - Officials must use a philosophy of “when in doubt, the goal must count.” Unless the official is certain that a goal was scored through an illegal action (e.g., physically hindering the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely while in the crease and defend the goal), the goal must count. Games that have video replay available may correct egregious errors, but the standard of evidence required to disallow a goal is significant.

Here where I am sorry Ed, I have to disagree there is no grey on this play. The example they gave of an illegal action "physically hindering the goalkeeper’s ability to move freely while in the crease and defend the goal" fits what happen. I don't see how you can argue that without wearing Orange Sunglasses.

I can understand if you do not like the rule, but that is what we are living with and until it change I have to say the officials made the correct call...

Tom Naeger
02-24-2018, 05:01 PM
To be fair, Brubacher must have thought Jack Riley had a force shield around him, because he didn't get within two feet of Riley the whole time Riley had the puck skating to the front of the net.

This is way I say soft defensive play has been RIT's biggest problem.

I agree that Soft Defensive is a really big problem. But soft goaldtending has been just about the same problem. RIT's team save percentage is a sad .872% and there have been plenty of soft goal. I thought Short was just as soft on Riley's goal as Brubacher was. And that wrap around after Brown's goal was just a killer. The only reason this team has any chance is that they are scoring at a 10.4% shooting advantage and they are out shooting opponents 986 to 884...

Downstate_RIT_Fan
02-24-2018, 05:26 PM
My head hurts from all this talk. I’m going to the Army SHU game in about an hour and hoping SHU can do to Army what they did to RIT during the second game of last week.

Given what is at stake though I think Army will be ready for SHU.

In four or so hours we can reconvene. :). I’m sure we will all have a lot to say. To those going to the RIT game, I’m so jealous. Go Tigers!

Ed Trefzger
02-24-2018, 05:28 PM
I can understand if you do not like the rule, but that is what we are living with and until it change I have to say the officials made the correct call...

Who said anything ... ANYTHING ... about not liking the rule?

jflory81
02-24-2018, 05:44 PM
Ok, here are all the different scenarios on tonight's games: (remember that Army's result also locks in Sacred Heart's result, and Air Force's result also locks in RoMo's result)

RIT win/tie/loss, Army win, Air Force win: RIT finishes 6th, will host Sacred Heart in round 1 and visit Air Force in round 2 if they advance.
RIT win/tie, Army win, Air Force tie/loss: RIT finishes 6th, will host Sacred Heart in round 1 and visit Holy Cross in round 2 if they advance.
RIT win, Army tie/loss, Air Force win: RIT finishes 5th, will visit Holy Cross in round 2.
RIT win, Army tie/loss, Air Force tie: RIT finishes 5th, will visit Air Force in round 2.
RIT win, Army tie, Air Force loss: RIT finishes 4th, will host Army in round 2.
RIT win, Army loss, Air Force loss: RIT finishes 5th, will visit Air Force in round 2.

RIT tie/loss, Army tie, Air Force win: RIT finishes 6th, will host Bentley in round 1, will visit Air Force in round 2 if they advance
RIT tie, Army tie, Air Force tie/loss: RIT finishes 6th, will host Bentley in round 1, will visit Holy Cross in round 2 if they advance
RIT tie, Army loss, Air Force win: RIT finishes 5th, will visit Holy Cross in round 2
RIT tie, Army loss, Air Force tie/loss: RIT finishes 5th, will visit Air Force in round 2

RIT loss, Army win, Air Force tie: RIT finishes 6th, will host Sacred Heart in round 1, will visit Holy Cross in round 2 if they advance
RIT loss, Army win, Air Force loss: RIT finishes 7th, will host Bentley in round 1, will visit either #2 Canisius (if #6 Robert Morris beats #11 Sacred Heart) or #3 Holy Cross if they advance (if SH beats RM)
RIT loss, Army tie, Air Force tie: RIT finishes 6th, will host Bentley in round 1, and will visit Holy Cross in round 2 if they advance
RIT loss, Army tie, Air Force loss: RIT finishes 7th, will host Niagara or Sacred Heart (Niagara if they lose, Sacred Heart if Niagara wins or ties) in round 1, and will visit either #2 Canisius (if #6 Robert Morris beats #11 Bentley) or #3 Holy Cross (if Bentley beats RoMo) if they advance
RIT loss, Army loss, Air Force win: RIT finishes 6th, will host Bentley in round 1, and will visit Air Force in round 2 if they advance
RIT loss, Army loss, Air Force tie: RIT finishes 6th, will host Bentley in round 1, and will visit Holy Cross in round 2 if they advance
RIT loss, Army loss, Air Force loss: RIT finishes 7th, will host Niagara or Sacred Heart (Niagara if they do not win, Sacred Heart if Niagara wins) in round 1, and will visit either #2 Canisius (if #6 Army beats #11 Bentley) or #3 Holy Cross (if Bentley beats Army) if they advance

In case you couldn't tell I'm bored at work on a weekend :laugh:

blazer777
02-24-2018, 05:47 PM
Who said anything ... ANYTHING ... about not liking the rule?

Well, Tom said it was you but then again, it was right after he just beat a dead horse so who knows what his state of mind was at that point

blazer777
02-24-2018, 05:48 PM
Who said anything ... ANYTHING ... about not liking the rule?

Colonel Mustard, with a MAC, on the toilet!