Video clips of the @Union game

A Union fan was kind enough to put together TV-captured clips of all the goals (both teams + Romano's disallowed one) from last weekend's Union game, including replays on most (especially useful on the Carefoot blindsiding, and Romano's stolen goal).

A bit of precaution: the clips have the TV commentary playing faintly, but drowned out by horrible music that the Union fan edited in.

sah67
A Union fan was kind enough to put together TV-captured clips of all the goals (both teams + Romano's disallowed one) from last weekend's Union game, including replays on most (especially useful on the Carefoot blindsiding, and Romano's stolen goal).

A bit of precaution: the clips have the TV commentary playing faintly, but drowned out by horrible music that the Union fan edited in.

If you contend that the goal was stolen, you might argue that the net was dislodged on purpose by Goalie Justin Mrazek. (I have the video of the entire game.) The net was off the mooring before the puck made it to the net. I will look at it again, after watching the almost unwatchable youtube clip this morning.

I think we can all agree on one thing. We need more rap music playing at the rinks in the league. Maybe when the Onion dopes cut our band off next year they will turn the volume on their shitty little speakers up a few more notches and play some appropriate rap.

Thanks for the post. First time I've seen the "no goal." Very questionable. Also, the 3rd Union goal was weak, to say the least.

And the "music" -- boy, I am a dinosaur (but I already knew that from hearing the stuff blaring from my daughter's room)

After watching the replays, I still don't understand why the fourth Cornell goal was disallowed, but I do understand why Davenport got the start in goal on Saturday night!

Off-topic:

I cannot stand by and permit y'all to aimlessly carpetbomb hip hop. Repent!

That being said, lame evangelical hip hop like the Grits smegma in that Union student's video clip = poop.

From the behind-the-net slow-mo angle you see the net bump slightly, but neither of the other two angled seemed to show any movement, and I watched it several times. Which says to me it was very minor. Furthermore, the net seemed to be back in place before the puck actually went in the net. Very weak, it seems. Very unfortunate.

What I further don't understand is the ref called it a goal right off the bat... on what psychic evidence did he change his mind? Did a linesman point it out or what? Did he just take the goalie's word fo rit?

wow, what a horrendous no-goal call.

Hillel Hoffmann
lame evangelical hip hop like the Grits smegma in that Union student's video clip = poop.

By that logic, Brown = lame evangelical hip hop

Jordan 04
wow, what a horrendous no-goal call.

I will try to post a better video clip. You really can't tell jack from that youtube drek.

scoop85
Also, the 3rd Union goal was weak, to say the least.

And the first Union goal made McLeod look transparent...we really need Seminoff back.

Topher's pass to Krantz was a thing of beauty though...great to finally see video of that...should go on some sort of season-end highlight reel if someone on here feels like editing some clips together. Not that I'd really wany to re-live the quality of the All-access footage though

I can't disagree more. I also watched the replay. He came over to cover up the back door, hit the post with his skate, as you should do, and the net raised up an inch or so and moved back an equivalent amount. Agree it never came off the posts but was dislodged. The last view, after the puck was in, still showed the net off the ice. If we had the rule, did it affect the play or the goal, the answer would be no, and it would be counted. But I believe our rule is, if the net is dislodged, then no goal.

This is my post from the postgame thread. We don't need to start this all over again do we? On the TW TV broadcast the net was off, no question.

marty

Jordan 04
wow, what a horrendous no-goal call.

I will try to post a better video clip. You really can't tell jack from that youtube drek.

How so? Seems like you can tell a lot.

marty
If you contend that the goal was stolen, you might argue that the net was dislodged on purpose by Goalie Justin Mrazek. (I have the video of the entire game.) The net was off the mooring before the puck made it to the net. I will look at it again, after watching the almost unwatchable youtube clip this morning.

IMHO, we was robbed! Granted, the quality on YouTube isn't great, but if you look at the sequence starting around 4:50, you'll see 3 different angles on Romano's shot. In the first, taken from a fixed position at mid-ice, you see Mrazek kick the goal and it moves slightly. In the second shot, from a hand-held camera, you can't really discern the movement of the goal because the shot is jumpy, but when the puck is in, the goal appears to be dead on the goal line, right where it should be. And the third shot, from the fixed camera behind the goal, again shows the movement of the goal, but you can also see that it goes right back to where it started. So, yes it moved, but was it dislodged? I guess that depends on the definition of "dislodged". Certainly there was nothing that affected the outcome of the play.

That hit on Carefoot that rung his bell was a blatant penalty. Union skater left his feet. You leap, it's a charge. The boxscore on USCHO only shows goals, not penalties. Was a penalty called?

Killer

marty
If you contend that the goal was stolen, you might argue that the net was dislodged on purpose by Goalie Justin Mrazek. (I have the video of the entire game.) The net was off the mooring before the puck made it to the net. I will look at it again, after watching the almost unwatchable youtube clip this morning.

IMHO, we was robbed! Granted, the quality on YouTube isn't great, but if you look at the sequence starting around 4:50, you'll see 3 different angles on Romano's shot. In the first, taken from a fixed position at mid-ice, you see Mrazek kick the goal and it moves slightly. In the second shot, from a hand-held camera, you can't really discern the movement of the goal because the shot is jumpy, but when the puck is in, the goal appears to be dead on the goal line, right where it should be. And the third shot, from the fixed camera behind the goal, again shows the movement of the goal, but you can also see that it goes right back to where it started. So, yes it moved, but was it dislodged? I guess that depends on the definition of "dislodged". Certainly there was nothing that affected the outcome of the play.

As I've said on two occasions now(see my post above) on the TW broadcast their goalie dislodged the net when he moved to that post. The net moved backward and up. It stayed up throughtout the whole time of the shot and was clearly still not back down on the ice when the puck was in the net.


No, the net being off had nothing to do with the goal. But the net was dislodged before, during and after the puck was going in! By my understanding of NCAA rules that makes it a no goal.

Please, there is no conspiracy. The TW broadcast was of excellent quality to see this. End of argument. Let's move on to next week.

Jordan 04

marty

Jordan 04
wow, what a horrendous no-goal call.

I will try to post a better video clip. You really can't tell jack from that youtube drek.

How so? Seems like you can tell a lot.

In that clip you couldn't see the net being knocked up an inch or two and then back an inch or two before the goal. Would you like me to post the clip so you can see it?

Jim Hyla
Please, there is no conspiracy. The TW broadcast was of excellent quality to see this. End of argument. Let's move on to next week.

I agree completely with Jim. We both saw the full video (entire game) from Time Warner. Off the mooring - no goal.

marty

Jordan 04

marty

Jordan 04
wow, what a horrendous no-goal call.

I will try to post a better video clip. You really can't tell jack from that youtube drek.

How so? Seems like you can tell a lot.

In that clip you couldn't see the net being knocked up an inch or two and then back an inch or two before the goal. Would you like me to post the clip so you can see it?

Yes. Please.

From looking at the angle around 4:58, seems the net is just barely up on one side when the puck goes in. No players next to the net except for the goalie. Seems to me the Union players/ref must have only noticed that the net was off after the goal, and then used that as basis for calling it off. Still a bad call, in my opinion.

Agree with JasonN95 that a penalty should have been called on the Carefoot hit, but no, there was no penalty.

Jim Hyla
This is my post from the postgame thread. We don't need to start this all over again do we? On the TW TV broadcast the net was off, no question.

It took several viewings and subsequent squintings, but I think I see where it moved? I sure didn't see any movement watching in the arena. Since there were no players other than the goaltender anywhere near the goal, I'm surprised anyone picked that up. I mean, even the NHL looks the other way in the Stanley Cup finals.

The way I see it, there's a problem with the peg system in Achilles. I remember thinking this from years past. If the net is breathed on, it goes sailing off to the boards. If I didn't know better, I would have guessed the goal was resting loose on a shallow slot-shaped depression carved into the ice. The same goes for Meehan. There's no way a tap of a goaltender's skate should dislodge the net. Carefoot's assailant flying into it? OK. But not a tap or brush of a skate.

I don't know...maybe some people make the same argument why MLB grounds crews get to build up and slant the baselines a certain way to favor bunts to go fair or foul. But I think there should be some sort of standard as to how the net is attached to the ice.

I'm going to stop short of saying that the way the rule is worded also needs to be changed, because then you get into the whole grey area of leaving even more things up to referee discretion. If the goaltender deliberately dislodges the net, then the goal stands. I think we can all agree it wasn't deliberate in this case.

ebilmes
Agree with JasonN95 that a penalty should have been called on the Carefoot hit, but no, there was no penalty.

Well, as someone who was parking at the time of the goal, I can tell you that the Union radio guys had speculated that there would've been a penalty called had the goal not counted. Since the goal was scored immediately after the hit, no penalty was assessed. Call it an extremely abbreviated delayed penalty.

Since I have the document open, I found this on page 122:

NCAA rulebook Interpretations Rule 4 Section 9
A.R. 4: Team A is at full strength. Team B has a minor penalty on B1 and is shorthanded. During play, A1 commits an infraction and a delayed whistle is called. During play, Team B scores. What is the on-ice strength? RULING: Team A remains on the power play. Team B’s goal nullifies the penalty to Team A.

Also, FYI, [www.collegehockeystats.net] always list complete box scores, which include penalties.

from my quick viewingof the youtube video... I am not sure where a penatly would be called on the carefoot hit. the elbow was down. it wasn't from behind. it might have been a a charge, but I cannot tell.

The lack of defense from our team? Because Scrivens played pretty well.

Dpperk29
from my quick viewingof the youtube video... I am not sure where a penatly would be called on the carefoot hit. the elbow was down. it wasn't from behind. it might have been a a charge, but I cannot tell.

Yeah, I think the concern was that he left his feet when making the hit. Again on the TW with slo-mo it looks like his left skate was still on the ice at the time of contact. But he was sure doing a jumping motion just prior to the hit. So it's iffy.

Boy what you end up doing when you have a snow day, but can't get to the slopes.

Even so, the ref F. Murphy (who was terrible) did not notice such movement, nobody on the ice had either. The ref then relied on the word of the goalie that just got scored on as sufficient basis for his call and it took like 2 mins of discussion for him to make the no-goal call. It was terrible call period and Murphy was terrible as well.

Omie
The lack of defense from our team? Because Scrivens played pretty well.

The impression I got in person and now on video was that the first goal and especially the third goal were soft.

The first goal he was being screened by one of our guys. The third goal might have been somewhat soft but it was also right after the psychological team breakdown after our own disallowed goal. Even so, to say that goaltending was the problem Friday night is using Scrivens as a scapegoat; he had a 91.2 save percentage and kept us in a game where there was no defense except on PK and the offense was iffy at best.

When you get outshot 34-25 by Union the problem is not the goaltending.

Jim Hyla

Dpperk29
from my quick viewingof the youtube video... I am not sure where a penatly would be called on the carefoot hit. the elbow was down. it wasn't from behind. it might have been a a charge, but I cannot tell.

Yeah, I think the concern was that he left his feet when making the hit. Again on the TW with slo-mo it looks like his left skate was still on the ice at the time of contact. But he was sure doing a jumping motion just prior to the hit. So it's iffy.

Boy what you end up doing when you have a snow day, but can't get to the slopes.

I was thinking more the three steps part of charging not the leaving the feet. it's hard to believe that he caught him withough being in an all out sprint. but yeah, it's a very iffy situation. but because cornell scored, it nullified any potential penalty anyway.

Omie
The first goal he was being screened by one of our guys. The third goal might have been somewhat soft but it was also right after the psychological team breakdown after our own disallowed goal. Even so, to say that goaltending was the problem Friday night is using Scrivens as a scapegoat; he had a 91.2 save percentage and kept us in a game where there was no defense except on PK and the offense was iffy at best.

When you get outshot 34-25 by Union the problem is not the goaltending.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said Scrivens was "the problem." But, in my opinion, he wasn't very good. The shot totals were very misleading. As poorly as we played in our defensive zone, I remember him only facing around 5 quality chances.

The numbers for Union were not inflated as were the ones for RPI. Our defense was basically unexistent Friday. Even if we use your numbers of quality scoring chances we allowed for Union that is way more than what we allow normally. We allowed none on Saturday.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, sorry. My response was more in the general sense of the team having played poorly yet the only getting singled out the majority of the time is Scrivens who played well (not great but well).

Omie
Our defense was basically unexistent

That word is basically unexistent.

Hip hop at its lowest common denominator is like the cash register that calculates the customer's change at McDonald's: It lets even less qualified people work at something.

-- At the entry level, you don't even have to carry a tune (okay, the same could be said about Britney).
-- You just have to be able to talk loud and find a word that rhymes with "Yo!"
-- Physical fitness is not an issue: At 18, if you look like David Crosby at 60, there are jeans that fit with room to grow.
-- And if your lyrics run counter to much of the work of the past generation that affords women more equal standing, too bad.

Hip hop is the reason we're mired in Iraq, have no national values, can't score off the power play, have lost forever-green playing fields to academic buildings, and lust after Crystal and 22-inch rims. The trustees probably caught Jeff Lehman listening and he was history. I have no explanation for Fergie, either.

Definitely OT. Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

On the goal, I'll take the word of the people who said they could see that the net was up still up during the goal, but I've watched the YouTube thing repeatedly and don't see it at all. On the first live shot, the goalie's skate is in the way all along, so you can't see anything. On the first replay, it appears to me that the goalie's skate is away from the post after the shot and before the rebound. So it seems like an awful lot of hangtime for a net, but I dunno. On the 2nd replay from the side, the goalie's skate/leg is clearly not touching the post from before the first shot until after the rebound. And I still personally see no motion on the post.

On the third (last) replay from behind, the net clearly moves, but again the goalie moves away from it well before the rebound shot. Are we saying the net actually came up its moorings? Or just that it was knocked half an inch up momentarily? If the latter, I find it hard to believe it didn't come back down before the puck went in.

If there's better video footage, I'd be interested to see it.


On the hit on Carefoot, I don't know if charge is the right call, but the jerk left his feet for the hit. That's a penalty, and that one was pretty rough. Perhaps the goal nullified the call, I dunno, but that looked dirty.


Oh, and Scrivens was soft. McLeod certainly was at fault on the first goal, but so was Scrivens. He committed poorly and got beat. Second goal, he flat out got beat 5-hole. Now it happens, but, its not good. On the third one he mights been slightly blocked, but he also wasn't well positioned. He wasn't against the post and he got beat post side. It was a nice idea on the shooters part to take such a quick shot, but he just didn't look ready and positioned. Not to say the game was his fault, it wasn't, but each of those there's something he can learn from, none were just a luck or 'hand it to the other team' kinda goal.

billhoward
-- At the entry level, you don't even have to carry a tune (okay, the same could be said about Britney).

Britney's great. Just have to turn off the volume and watch the video...

Omie
Even so, the ref F. Murphy (who was terrible) did not notice such movement, nobody on the ice had either. The ref then relied on the word of the goalie that just got scored on as sufficient basis for his call and it took like 2 mins of discussion for him to make the no-goal call. It was terrible call period and Murphy was terrible as well.

Okay, Omie, you're argument has me lost. I was at the rink. I saw Ref. Murphy talking to the assistant ref.

Mrazek wouldn't even have known that the net was off. How could he? His back was to the net during the play and the net was hardly out of position.

[www.mega-file.net]

As Jim said, what a way to spend a snow day.

marty
As Jim said, what a way to spend a snow day.

Speaking of which, since the university closed the team won't practice. Correct?

Not sure if it is cancelled because the university is closed, but it is in fact cancelled.

Yes, the net came off. No, it did not have any effect whatsoever on the goal. the net was still sitting directly on the goal line about where it should be, and the puck wouldn't have gone in the net anyway. Stupid callback of a goal, especially when the ref immediately signaled it as a goal.

I was at the rink too. And yea Murphy talked to the asst. refs AND Mrazek. Don't ask me how Mrazek decided to complain when he was turned to the goal. Murphy had signaled a goal it took like a min for it to go on the board, it stood on the board for a couple of mins during which Murphy talked to Mrazek and both benches and then to the surprise of everyone on the rink inlcuding some Union fans the goal was taken off of the scoreboard. Murphy also talked to Nash for lil bit after he called him for tripping (a bogus call because it was Nash who had just been tripped). If a ref makes a call what's the point of talking to everyone for several mins to discuss such call? It was bad refereeing.

Omie
I was at the rink too. And yea Murphy talked to the asst. refs AND Mrazek. Don't ask me how Mrazek decided to complain when he was turned to the goal. Murphy had signaled a goal it took like a min for it to go on the board, it stood on the board for a couple of mins during which Murphy talked to Mrazek and both benches and then to the surprise of everyone on the rink inlcuding some Union fans the goal was taken off of the scoreboard. Murphy also talked to Nash for lil bit after he called him for tripping (a bogus call because it was Nash who had just been tripped). If a ref makes a call what's the point of talking to everyone for several mins to discuss such call? It was bad refereeing.

Again from the Union post-game thread

TimV
Can't score into a dislodged net.

Rule 6 Section 18 c (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.).

Edited because link below didnt seem to work.

Check [www.achahockey.org]::

Why are we still arguing this? We now have more posts on this thread than on the post-game. Please anyone who wants to disagree with the call, please read the post-game thread. All the info is there; most of which I've copied on this one. The call was correct, the net was off and the goal by rule can't be counted. Maybe the rule is stupid, but the call was correct.

God I wish I could go skiing.

Omie
If a ref makes a call what's the point of talking to everyone for several mins to discuss such call? It was bad refereeing.

To make sure that the call is correct and within the rules? I actually call that good refereeing. If the NHL officials had done that and upheld their own rules as they were written in the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals, the world would've been spared from years of whining from us Buffalo fans.

The job of the referee is to ensure the call is correct, not to make a call and stick to it regardless of how wrong the original call was (insert joke about a certain branch of government).

Basically, reverse the teams. If Union scored the winning goal with the net partially dislodged, and it was allowed to stand, there would be people screaming bloody murder. While I don't like the wording of the rule, the correct call was made.

The game was broadcast. Did they use an off-ice official to view the video and assist with the call, maybe?

TimV
The game was broadcast. Did they use an off-ice official to view the video and assist with the call, maybe?

No!! In fact, Jason Moy and Dan Fridgen mentioned that they had the luxury of replay when reviewing another (I think the Carefoot) goal during this broadcast.

As Rich said, it's best for the referee to make the right call. If that means talking with other on and off ice officials then so be it. While this can be frustrating to the fan who is watching and not privy to the discussion it's still the right thing to do.

Not to say that we should have five minute huddles everytime the puck approaches the net. When the play and rule is clear make the call and stick with it even if it makes a lot of people unhappy. (Insert a joke here too if you'd like.)

marty

TimV
The game was broadcast. Did they use an off-ice official to view the video and assist with the call, maybe?

No!! In fact, Jason Moy and Dan Fridgen mentioned that they had the luxury of replay when reviewing another (I think the Carefoot) goal during this broadcast.

replay probably wasnt an option. I know cheel is one of the replay test sites for the ECAC, however, I am not sure about out arenas/rinks.

My understanding is that if Cornell is closed any sporting activity, and probably other things, would no longer be covered by Cornell's insurance. Basically any coach could be liable for anything that goes wrong at practice or a game.

What i am not sure of though is if something usually illegal such as sledding on Libe slope would become less enforcable.