Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

[BlueDevilRadio]

Go here blow it up full screen and watch, I have slowed it down for you.

The facts:

This took place with 44.1 seconds remaining in OT

The referee signaled the goal and the goal light came on when Derek Hanson scored.

The scoreboard never tallied the goal even though signaling took place.

After the arena went nuts with anger, The ref's discussed this for over 10 minutes to finally retract the goal and claim Joel Gaulrapp (#9; the one who was tangled with the goaltender) was in the crease.

The goaltender had time to recover and re-set to his feet before going down again on the shot by Hanson.

The call was man in the crease, not goaltender interference

Things to watch for in the video

Was Kleiman (goalie) & Gaulrapp in the crease at the time of contact?

Did the goaltender pivot his body to trip Gaulrapp intentionally, or did Gaulrapp initiate the contact?

Here is your chance to put on the headphones and watch the replay, you make the call.

Goal or no goal? The fans count on you to make the right call, we all know how valuable NCHA points in this extremely competitive conference.

[DuckPuck]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

I say no goal. The interference definitely hurt the goaltenders chances on making that save as he was unable to square up to the shot.

[Collegeman]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

Stout Player didn`t appear to be aware of where he was at on the rink and simply unintentionally ran into the goalie. Probably a call but bad timing and judgement call. Stout is having a ruff time getting wins. What can you do you gotta move on and get ready for Stevens Pointe. You hope that River Falls will stumble or Norberts will go down

[walktheline]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

looks like a goal. sorry stout. but not sorry.

[NUProf]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

Looks like play should have been stopped when the goalie went down. The stout player appeared to skate into the goalie. Having said that, if the ref chose not to stop play on a call of goal tender interference, the rest of the play was clean, and the goal should have been allowed. No whistle, play goes on.

To me, it looks like a makeup call. The ref(s) didn't call what they decided (after the fact) should have been a call, and then made it up by not allowing a goal.

[Fritz62]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

If you actually watch the video you can see the goalie coming out and on the edge of the crease meaning Gaulrapp is not in the crease. The goalie also moves his leg down and sticks his arm out to clip Gaulrapp which should be tripping. The goalie was also back on his feet and had time to reset. Goal.

[PrezdeJohnson09]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

To me, it looks like a makeup call. The ref(s) didn't call what they decided (after the fact) should have been a call, and then made it up by not allowing a goal.

God help us if that's the way every referee made important decisions

[The Heckler]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

First off Joel number 9 was facing the other way he was not in the crease ever to what I See. That was the call. That is the way it goes though. If we had replay in college hockey it would be a goal. That is the way it goes its over and we will go on to next week and take care of point.

[BlueDevilRadio]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

I watch this and easily see Kleiman trip Gaulrapp. Maybe it's because I'm a former goaltender myself and just see what is happening from my experiences.

Watch the goaltender, not the play. As Gaulrapp comes across Kleiman sticks out his blocker arm in front of Gaulrapp and at the same exact time you'll see his right leg collapse inward as he trips Gaulrapp.

This happened outside the crease so the call they made is null, and even if they tried goaltender interference as the call, Kleiman clearly initiated the contact with Gaulrapp on a blatant trip outside the crease

Am I the only one seeing this? Those who listen to our broadcasts often know I'm not a homer.

A bad call is a bad call.

[NUProf]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

God help us if that's the way every referee made important decisions

Unfortunately, too many of them do exactly that. It's like did I see that? Yes? No? ... no call ... oooops maybe I should have ... well here's a chance... tweet!

Some refs are much more likely to do so than others -- But as I said if there was no call in the first place that's got to be a goal.

[mazile]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

Bad call. Since they did not call the goaltender interference, there was no grounds for in the crease. The player in question was in the opposite face-off circle at the time of the shot.

Here's the NCAA rules for disallowing a goal:

A goal shall not be allowed in any of the following cases:
1. If an attacking player strikes the puck with a stick when the puck is
above the height of the crossbar of the goal frame (4 feet [1.22m]);
2. If the puck has been thrown or batted into the goal;
3. If the attacking team has committed a foul that assisted in the making
of a goal;
4. If the attacking team had too many players on the ice at the time the
goal was scored;
5. If the goal was contributed to by a nonplayer;
6. If the puck hits an official and goes directly into the net (see 6-43);
7. If any member of the attacking team (other than the player in
possession of the puck) was in or skating through the goal crease
when the goal was scored from outside the crease, unless:
i. The goalkeeper was outside the crease when the puck entered the
net; or
ii. An attacking player was in the crease but, in the opinion of the
official, did not prevent the goalkeeper from defending the goal.
8. If the puck entered the net by an attacking player carrying the puck
into the cage upon any part of the body, or kicking the puck into the
cage;
9. If the puck entered the net after an on-ice official (by blowing the
whistle) or timekeeper has signaled play to stop;
10. If an attacking player propels the puck illegally with the stick, and it
deflects off any player into the net;
11. If a linesman reports to a referee any conduct calling for a time
penalty and the referee concurs with the report, any goal scored by
the offending team after the infraction shall not be allowed;
12. If the goal cage has been moved or dislodged. The goal frame is
considered to be displaced if any portion of the goal frame is not in
its proper position (e.g., Frame must be completely flat on the ice
surface, goal posts must be in proper place and affixed securely in
place with its pegs.).
13. If the puck is between the goalkeeper’s pads or lodged in the
equipment and is carried over the goal line by an opponent propelling
the goalkeeper into the cage; and
14. If the puck enters the defending team’s goal during a delayed offside,
the goal is disallowed. The faceoff will be in the neutral zone at the
faceoff spot nearest the attacking zone of the offending team, if the
puck was “carried” offside. The faceoff shall be at spot in the zone
of the origin of the pass, if passed offside.

[Pointerpride]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

This is just further proof that the referees in the NCHA do not know what they are doing. I happened to be at the River/EC game this Saturday and watched the officiating team turn what could have been a great game with teams going back and forth into an anti-climactic finish because they got stuck making make up calls all night. There were a number of times where River Falls had calls against them that were extremely weak as well as the interference call in overtime against EC which was a complete joke (1:40 left in OT). Kovarik and Bauer??? looked completely lost with the calls they were making and were inconsistent all game. I have also watched many Point games get out of hand because of the officiating crew making weak calls and disrupting the flow of a good, fast, physical (typical NCHA) game. Being that the officials are so called professionals at their craft, do they or their games get reviewed by anyone?

[Wormser-PointRC]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

It was a horrible reversal... the call was bad too, but it was made far worse by the way it was handled by the refs. Had Parker come blazing up to the referee who called the goal and talked to him, then the reversal.... well then just a bad call.

[1Dukester]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

It's a goal. In Canada anyways where the game was created.

[MW4Bucky&SNC]

Re: Your Chance To Play Video Replay Judge! Enter Your Verdict

Should have been a goal. It would have been incorrect had they whistled it immediately for a man in the crease and taken the faceoff out of the zone before Stout even had a chance to get off a shot, but at least it would have been a more forgivable error. To watch the goal be scored after everyone had recovered from the inadvertant contact and wave it off well after the fact just looks bad.