Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CC vs UNO goal waved off

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

    Originally posted by alnike View Post
    I agree. IMO, Zombo slightly angled his right skate to redirect it
    That is what I noticed too.
    "My greatest achievement."
    Dirty on getting me suspended from USCHO.

    I'm not an alcoholic! I'm an independent beer taster for Anheuser Busch.

    Happy~Smelling like a warm turd sandwich since 11/15/07.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

      Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
      Based upon the rule kdilks cited, the officials made the correct call in "no goal". There was an obvious follow-through in the player's stride.
      If not for the line about "when in doubt, disallow", I would say it should be a goal. The word "directed" as opposed to "deflected" has always implied intent. The language added about stopping is added to cover for when a player changes the direction of his skates to direct the puck, vs changing direction to stop. The player's skate barely wavers from going in a straight line, which may be to hit the puck, but is also a natural move when you think you are about to be hit by the guy next to you. From other angles, can you tell if the player is looking at the puck when he does this? If not, I would say it should be a goal. The act of following through with a skating stride alone should not be enough to disallow. Not following through with his stride in this case would more likely cause it to be disallowed.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

        Originally posted by Arpod View Post
        What I find most amazing about the whole sequence is that video review CHANGED the call on the ice. I am not aware of a single instance in CCHA play this season where video review reversed a goal/no goal call on the ice. Not one (and if there is an example, I'd love to see it). Not sure how they do it in the WCHA, but in the CCHA the ref making the call on the ice is the ref who reviews the video. Occasionally (maybe 20% of the time) he recruits the second ref. It seems to me that it is unlikely under the best of circomstances that a ref is going to admit to making the wrong call. I guess the same is perhaps more true if the partner that did not make the call is reviewing it (how likely is he to say his buddy messed up?). Given that the frequency of reversal is near zero, why even have the rule? It's a quick game and they don't reverse bad penalty calls, so why should goals be any different?
        Review is good for cases where the right call was made after a missed call, even if it is rare. Remember the NCAA game where the puck went through the net and they only caught it on the review. The 1981 Gophers lost a playoff game where Aaron Broton blasted teh puck through the net from just inside the blue line. From the balcony, it was clear it went through the net, but the refs didn't catch it. Between periods, they found the hole and patched it, but it was too late to reward a goal. Video would have meant the correct decision had been made. A lot of cases, the decision is still tough after review (like this one), but video also allows the blatant missed goals to be caught, and it is worth it for that.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

          Originally posted by Driftryder View Post
          I watched the game last night and figured they would wave off that goal, he didn't blatantly kick at it but it looked like it angled off his skate and in. Tough call
          I watched it last night and figured that it would be called off. I would have done the same. I thought he clearly brought his foot up to deflect the puck. The right foot was moving forward faster than the left. IMO that was the right call. I wanted UNO to score but figured that would get called off.
          Bottom Line: If you deserve to win the national championship then don't worry about who you play, when, and where. Just keep winning.
          Exception: You are right about the refs. They, no doubt, have it in for <insert your team name here>!

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

            Originally posted by Arpod View Post
            What I find most amazing about the whole sequence is that video review CHANGED the call on the ice. I am not aware of a single instance in CCHA play this season where video review reversed a goal/no goal call on the ice. Not one (and if there is an example, I'd love to see it). Not sure how they do it in the WCHA, but in the CCHA the ref making the call on the ice is the ref who reviews the video. Occasionally (maybe 20% of the time) he recruits the second ref. It seems to me that it is unlikely under the best of circomstances that a ref is going to admit to making the wrong call. I guess the same is perhaps more true if the partner that did not make the call is reviewing it (how likely is he to say his buddy messed up?). Given that the frequency of reversal is near zero, why even have the rule? It's a quick game and they don't reverse bad penalty calls, so why should goals be any different?
            Goals have a direct effect on the outcome of the game, while penalties are indirect (even in the cases of penalty shots, the goalie still has a chance to stop the puck). Honestly, it's situations like this where replay is a good thing. You take the time to get the call correct so that the game is fair.

            Originally posted by Koho View Post
            If not for the line about "when in doubt, disallow", I would say it should be a goal. The word "directed" as opposed to "deflected" has always implied intent. The language added about stopping is added to cover for when a player changes the direction of his skates to direct the puck, vs changing direction to stop. The player's skate barely wavers from going in a straight line, which may be to hit the puck, but is also a natural move when you think you are about to be hit by the guy next to you. From other angles, can you tell if the player is looking at the puck when he does this? If not, I would say it should be a goal. The act of following through with a skating stride alone should not be enough to disallow. Not following through with his stride in this case would more likely cause it to be disallowed.
            My reasoning for no goal was the language of the player stopping. The player was not stopping, but instead clearly following through his stride as if he were continuing to go forward. I'm not going to get into an intent argument with you, because there's nothing in the rule book that says anything about intent. If he wasn't following through his stride, then depending upon the change he could be trying to stop, and in that scenario, I would consider the possibility of it being a goal.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

              Originally posted by alnike View Post
              I agree. IMO, Zombo slightly angled his right skate to redirect it
              this is also what I saw. But I also agree with Arpod...it was so slight that I can't see how the ruling (goal) on the ice could be overturned.
              Brandon Pirri: Turk would give it to Jagr. That's awesome! Jagr's untouchable. And he would give it to Jagr.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

                As a CC fan, I obviously have some bias here, but by the *rule* this seems like a pretty easy call. One can argue whether the rule is good, but I don't think there's much argument that this was the correct call according to the rule.
                Colorado College Hockey: Finding new and creative ways to break your heart since 1957.
                -dggoddard

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

                  I think under the rule as quoted it's a goal. When I go through the rule carefully, it says to me that there are two situations where the goal is disallowed: when the puck is kicked in, and when the puck is "directed" in, whether off a skate or any body part. But if it just hits you and goes in, then it's a goal, regardless of which direction you're moving or what part of you (or your equipment) it hits. In order to disallow the goal, the official has to decide that the puck was either "kicked" or "directed" into the goal. Deflections are goals. It does say that when in doubt the goal should be disallowed, but I don't see anything in the video to suggest the player was "directing" the puck. It hit his skate.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

                    Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post

                    My reasoning for no goal was the language of the player stopping. The player was not stopping, but instead clearly following through his stride as if he were continuing to go forward. I'm not going to get into an intent argument with you, because there's nothing in the rule book that says anything about intent. If he wasn't following through his stride, then depending upon the change he could be trying to stop, and in that scenario, I would consider the possibility of it being a goal.
                    Does the rule state that if the puck deflects off a player from the same team , AND THAT PLAYER IS NOT MOVING, then it is a goal, but if the player is actively skating, then it is NOT a goal? NO. Talk to a few refs. While not explicitly stated, using "directed", instead of "deflected" implies intent. So a player who is skating and turns a skate with the intent of directing it towards the net should result in the goal being disallowed. But a player also has to turn his skates to stop, hence the need to clarify goals scored that are deflected off a player's skate who is stopping should be allowed, because the intent of the player was to stop, not to direct the puck. If you have followed hockey for awhile, you should be aware of the evolution of rules here. There was language that forbid "direct kicking motions", but that wasn't precise enough to stop a guy from turning his skate sideways to allow it to change the direction of the puck. The current intent of the language is to essentially say, 'if the puck goes in off any part of a player unintentionally, it is a goal. If it is intentionally directed in with anything besides the stick, it isn't a goal.' That has always been the intent, but the language to make that precise, has not been there. So the question to be asked in this case is, 'did the player intentionally direct it in?' You might not agree, but I think if you ask a number of refs, almost all will tell you the same thing. In the case of this goal, his skate wavers slightly, so I can't tell you for sure what his intent was. I personally would say it didn't look intentional, so I would give him the goal. I would prefer the NFL type approach of 'if there isn't clear evidence in the replay to overturn a call on the field, ruling on the field stands' in which case I would call it a goal. But because the rule says 'if unsure, no goal', I guess I can't say they made a bad call. Either way, I see nothing in the rules that would make me believe your stance that whether a skating player continues to skate has a bearing on a goal. By your interpretation, a guy could be skating through the slot and get hit in the back by a shot he never saw from the point that deflects in, and the refs would have to disallow the goal since he was moving. Do you really believe that is the correct interpretation?
                    Last edited by Koho; 02-18-2012, 11:42 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

                      Pretty tough one. I think I would have allowed it, but I can't really fault them for disallowing, based on the "doubt" factor.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

                        Oh, oh..........

                        Boom goes the dynamite.

                        Coach Blais might suspended, fined, sanctioned, admonished, or something for this:

                        http://www.omaha.com/article/2012021...s-comeback-bid

                        What are the NCAA/WCHA rules about criticizing officiating? This is probably a little over the line. Depends on how you take it, I guess.

                        I'll say this about the events of last night, something I have said, elsewhere. And that is I would never have thought it possible that anything could ever make me wish for CCHA officials or officiating.
                        Last edited by Red Cows; 02-18-2012, 12:26 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

                          Originally posted by Red Cows View Post
                          Oh, oh..........

                          Boom goes the dynamite.

                          Coach Blais might suspended, fined, sanctioned, admonished, or something for this:

                          http://www.omaha.com/article/2012021...s-comeback-bid

                          What are the NCAA/WCHA rules about criticizing officiating? This is probably a little over the line. Depends on how you take it, I guess.

                          I'll say this about the events of last night, something I have said, elsewhere. And that is I would never have thought it possible that anything could ever make me wish for CCHA officials or officiating.
                          Quote form that article:
                          After a review, though, the goal was disallowed as officials ruled it was intentionally kicked.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

                            IS that the official word? It was called a kick? Someone brought to my attention that he was also in the crease. I was so caught up in thinking they were concentrating on the kicking, however, his foot was in the goal crease before the puck. So technically, that would be a violation.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

                              If you back off the fine print and look at the spirit of the law, it's no goal. It was kicked in. Kudos to the refs for taking the time to get it right.
                              Huskies are very intelligent and trainable. Huskies make an excellent jogging companion, as long as it is not too hot. Grooming is minimal; bathing is normally unnecessary.
                              USCHO Fantasy Baseball Champion 2011 2013 2015

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

                                Originally posted by Pants View Post
                                IS that the official word? It was called a kick? Someone brought to my attention that he was also in the crease. I was so caught up in thinking they were concentrating on the kicking, however, his foot was in the goal crease before the puck. So technically, that would be a violation.
                                Crease is only a violation now if there is goalie interference, which there wasn't. I question whether you could call it a "kick" either.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X