PDA

View Full Version : CC vs UNO goal waved off



Pages : [1] 2 3

Pants
02-18-2012, 12:39 AM
Anyone else see this? I would honestly just like other opinions or rule clarifications. This was a play from the CC/UNO game tonight that was called a goal on the ice. Upon video review, the play was overturned and called no goal. The article written says the puck was kicked in. Opinions? For Maverick fans this is sure to bring up memories of NCAA tourny play against Michigan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocSf3LibOOc

*edit

This is also not meant to be inflammatory but to get opinions from multiple people and in a way, bring more attention to issues that could help better the game...even if we can't do that ourselves.

The Rube
02-18-2012, 12:43 AM
MN fan here, and I say goal. Skate doesn't move forward like a kick, and doesn't "angle" the puck in (turn skate to make sure the puck goes in).

GPL users have mentioned that UNO may have been screwed, too. And for what it's worth, MinnesotaNorthStar (Whioux fan) says goal.

UMICH
02-18-2012, 12:50 AM
Anyone else see this? I would honestly just like other opinions or rule clarifications. This was a play fromt he CC/UNO game tonight that was called a goal on the ice. Upon video review, the play was overturned and called no goal. The article written says the puck was kicked in. Opinions? For Maverick fans this is sure to bring up memories of NCAA tourny play against Michigan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocSf3LibOOc

It's just more PROOF that uno has bad karma. Those a-holes deserve it too! It was the correct call. The uno player's foot was indeed moving forward in that instance. The rule doesn't say that it has to be a blatant kicking motion. The uno player attempted to disguise it by just skating through the crease. That brings up another point, he "kicked" the puck in the crease.

See, if those mav-holes in Nebraska actually knew how to play the game they could actually score legitimately (unlike how they were conceived)...

kdilks
02-18-2012, 01:12 AM
"A goal shall not be allowed if the puck has been kicked or directed into the goal off an attacking player’s skate or any body part. When in doubt, the goal shall be disallowed. A goal shall be allowed if a puck deflects off an attacking player who is in the act of stopping. When administering this rule, the puck must initially be legally propelled by a stick. If the puck deflects into the goal from the shot of an attacking player by striking any body part of a player on the same team, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal.

If the puck deflects into the goal from the shot of an attacking player by striking any body part of a player on the same team, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal."

Obviously he's not in the act of stopping. I think the crucial thing is that the skate is moving forward, so it's not just deflecting the puck, it's actively pushing the puck in the direction of the net. No goal looks like the right call under the rules.

The Rube
02-18-2012, 01:16 AM
"A goal shall not be allowed if the puck has been kicked or directed into the goal off an attacking player’s skate or any body part. When in doubt, the goal shall be disallowed. A goal shall be allowed if a puck deflects off an attacking player who is in the act of stopping. When administering this rule, the puck must initially be legally propelled by a stick. If the puck deflects into the goal from the shot of an attacking player by striking any body part of a player on the same team, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal.

If the puck deflects into the goal from the shot of an attacking player by striking any body part of a player on the same team, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal."

Obviously he's not in the act of stopping. I think the crucial thing is that the skate is moving forward, so it's not just deflecting the puck, it's actively pushing the puck in the direction of the net. No goal looks like the right call under the rules.

The when in doubt thing is somewhat clear, then. To my eyes (and apparently the eyes of others) he did nothing more than complete his skating path, unintentionally putting the puck into the goal. So yes, that rule language needs to be more specific.

kdilks
02-18-2012, 01:33 AM
The when in doubt thing is somewhat clear, then. To my eyes (and apparently the eyes of others) he did nothing more than complete his skating path, unintentionally putting the puck into the goal. So yes, that rule language needs to be more specific.

The rule makes no reference to intent. And it's hard to get a clear look from the overhead (always keep in mind, refs make calls based on the video AND what they see on the ice), but I personally think he straightens his leg and moves his skate out to the side in at attempt to make contact with the puck (which is generally what your instincts have you do in that situation).

The Rube
02-18-2012, 08:34 AM
The rule makes no reference to intent. And it's hard to get a clear look from the overhead (always keep in mind, refs make calls based on the video AND what they see on the ice), but I personally think he straightens his leg and moves his skate out to the side in at attempt to make contact with the puck (which is generally what your instincts have you do in that situation).

Exactly. That's why I was looking for a change in the angle of the skate, etc.

Really tough call. I would have allowed it on replay. That's all I'm saying.

Fighting Sioux 23
02-18-2012, 08:42 AM
"A goal shall not be allowed if the puck has been kicked or directed into the goal off an attacking player’s skate or any body part. When in doubt, the goal shall be disallowed. A goal shall be allowed if a puck deflects off an attacking player who is in the act of stopping. When administering this rule, the puck must initially be legally propelled by a stick. If the puck deflects into the goal from the shot of an attacking player by striking any body part of a player on the same team, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal.

If the puck deflects into the goal from the shot of an attacking player by striking any body part of a player on the same team, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal."

Obviously he's not in the act of stopping. I think the crucial thing is that the skate is moving forward, so it's not just deflecting the puck, it's actively pushing the puck in the direction of the net. No goal looks like the right call under the rules.

Watching it, I thought it was going to be a good goal, as there was no kicking motion. Obviously, the rule makes it pretty clear that the right call was made. FWIW, I would be in favor of changing this rule to allow goals like the one that was disallowed last night. As hoven said, there wasn't really any intent by the skater to kick the puck in.

Here's another question...if the same exact facts as what happened last night were in play, but the puck deflects off the players head instead of his skate, is it a goal (assuming the player did not head it in channeling his inner Pele)?

streaker
02-18-2012, 08:47 AM
The rule makes no reference to intent. And it's hard to get a clear look from the overhead (always keep in mind, refs make calls based on the video AND what they see on the ice), but I personally think he straightens his leg and moves his skate out to the side in at attempt to make contact with the puck (which is generally what your instincts have you do in that situation).

Common sense says the intent was not to direct or kick the puck into the net. But, the letter of the law was followed- which is much different than NHL rules which allow goals in those situations. I wish the NCAA would get on the same page as the NHL on this aspect of the rule. I guess they do not want to leave too much interpretation out there. Tough break for the Mavs.

Side note: this is NOT the same thing as what occurred in the NCAA regionals v. Michigan. That was a case where the puck was legally propelled at the net. The question was whether there was clear evidence that the puck crossed the goal line. There is more judgement and discretion given to officials in that case and they determined that the puck went in behind the netminder and past the goal line even though there wasn't clear evidence. Common sense and physics (following the puck path) determined that ruling.

Driftryder
02-18-2012, 08:51 AM
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

FlagDUDE08
02-18-2012, 08:53 AM
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.

Arpod
02-18-2012, 09:06 AM
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?

LincolnMav
02-18-2012, 09:22 AM
It's just more PROOF that uno has bad karma. Those a-holes deserve it too! It was the correct call. The uno player's foot was indeed moving forward in that instance. The rule doesn't say that it has to be a blatant kicking motion. The uno player attempted to disguise it by just skating through the crease. That brings up another point, he "kicked" the puck in the crease.

See, if those mav-holes in Nebraska actually knew how to play the game they could actually score legitimately (unlike how they were conceived)...

Anger issues much? Stay classy weasels!

streaker
02-18-2012, 09:26 AM
Anger issues much? Stay classy weasels!

I guess he'd fit in perfectly at Mavpuck, then.

alnike
02-18-2012, 09:30 AM
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 agree. IMO, Zombo slightly angled his right skate to redirect it

darker98
02-18-2012, 10:16 AM
I agree. IMO, Zombo slightly angled his right skate to redirect it
That is what I noticed too.

Koho
02-18-2012, 10:17 AM
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.

Koho
02-18-2012, 10:22 AM
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.

gopheritall
02-18-2012, 10:58 AM
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.

FlagDUDE08
02-18-2012, 11:11 AM
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.


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.