Something New
Posted by marty
Something New
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: February 16, 2013 11:09PM
I have never seen a goal like this before tonight. The goal is knocked off significantly before the puck finds the net. It was reviewed and allowed after the on ice ruling waved it off.
RPI Goal?
RPI Goal?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2013 11:24PM by marty.
Re: Something New
Posted by: flyersgolf (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: February 16, 2013 11:19PM
26.2 Net Dislodgement - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in position to shoot) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.
When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team, the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team.
The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal. This rule also applies to other types of net anchoring systems.
Sent from my iPad
Re: Something New
Posted by: cbuckser (---.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net)
Date: February 16, 2013 11:42PM
flyersgolf
26.2 Net Dislodgement - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in position to shoot) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.
When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team, the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team.
The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal. This rule also applies to other types of net anchoring systems.
Sent from my iPad
The NCAA changed the dislodged-net rule last summer.
Re: Something New
Posted by: andyw2100 (64.119.142.---)
Date: February 16, 2013 11:59PM
What's interesting about this is that the player that scored the goal did not yet have the puck at the time the net was being dislodged. So the fact that the refs could interpret the part of the rule about the player being in position to shoot to include a player that didn't even yet have the puck is interesting. I mean at the time the net was being dislodged the player that scored was in a position to receive a pass, not to shoot.
Re: Something New
Posted by: nyc94 (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: February 17, 2013 12:13AM
cbuckser
flyersgolf
26.2 Net Dislodgement - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in position to shoot) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.
When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team, the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team.
The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal. This rule also applies to other types of net anchoring systems.
Sent from my iPad
The NCAA changed the dislodged-net rule last summer.
I think the rule change might have given Michigan State another goal against Union in the regional.
Re: Something New
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: February 17, 2013 07:00AM
nyc94
cbuckser
flyersgolf
26.2 Net Dislodgement - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in position to shoot) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.
When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team, the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team.
The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal. This rule also applies to other types of net anchoring systems.
Sent from my iPad
The NCAA changed the dislodged-net rule last summer.
I think the rule change might have given Michigan State another goal against Union in the regional.
Yes, but no. It was Ferris State and that was one of the reasons.
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
Re: Something New
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: February 17, 2013 07:34AM
andyw2100
What's interesting about this is that the player that scored the goal did not yet have the puck at the time the net was being dislodged. So the fact that the refs could interpret the part of the rule about the player being in position to shoot to include a player that didn't even yet have the puck is interesting. I mean at the time the net was being dislodged the player that scored was in a position to receive a pass, not to shoot.
The committee also adjusted its rules dealing with the goal cage becoming dislodged. The committee essentially moved to the NHL rule in this area, which allows some displacement of the goal as long as the posts remain in contact with the pegs or pins
I agree. I think the goal wasn't a goal based on either criterion. The goal wasn't partially dislodged in the way it was in the Ferris State/Union game (assuming my memory is correct) and the shot didn't occur before the net was off the post.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2013 07:39AM by marty.
Re: Something New
Posted by: billhoward (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: February 17, 2013 08:47AM
You see the RPI replay of the crossing pass and the shot into the middle of the 6x4 plane behind the goaltender and conclude that this is a goal that deserved to counted.
Re: Something New
Posted by: ursusminor (---.washdc.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 17, 2013 10:00AM
It can't count. The refs always rule against us.
Re: Something New
Posted by: nyc94 (---.cable.mindspring.com)
Date: February 17, 2013 11:24AM
Jim Hyla
nyc94
cbuckser
flyersgolf
26.2 Net Dislodgement - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in position to shoot) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.
When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team, the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team.
The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal. This rule also applies to other types of net anchoring systems.
Sent from my iPad
The NCAA changed the dislodged-net rule last summer.
I think the rule change might have given Michigan State another goal against Union in the regional.
Yes, but no. It was Ferris State and that was one of the reasons.
There was definitely an incident in the Union-Michigan State game where there was a disallowed goal and net being dislodged came into play. Not sure if you're saying no, it didn't happen in the Michigan State game or no, the rule change wouldn't have made a difference.
[www.uscho.com]
Re: Something New
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: February 17, 2013 11:26AM
nyc94
Jim Hyla
nyc94
cbuckser
flyersgolf
26.2 Net Dislodgement - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in position to shoot) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.
When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team, the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team.
The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal. This rule also applies to other types of net anchoring systems.
Sent from my iPad
The NCAA changed the dislodged-net rule last summer.
I think the rule change might have given Michigan State another goal against Union in the regional.
Yes, but no. It was Ferris State and that was one of the reasons.
There was definitely an incident in the Union-Michigan State game where there was a disallowed goal and net being dislodged came into play. Not sure if you're saying no, it didn't happen in the Michigan State game or no, the rule change wouldn't have made a difference.
[www.uscho.com]
You're right, I'm wrong.
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
Re: Something New
Posted by: Ben (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: February 17, 2013 01:24PM
That was my thinking as well. It feels like it should be a goal.billhoward
You see the RPI replay of the crossing pass and the shot into the middle of the 6x4 plane behind the goaltender and conclude that this is a goal that deserved to counted.
Re: Something New
Posted by: ursusminor (---.washdc.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 17, 2013 03:52PM
This isn't really relevant as to whether the goal should count, but the nets were repeatedly dislodged during the game. It has been suggested that this was due to a concert at the HFH last Monday causing the ice to be soft. This video
from the concert may be the first video from the HFH ever to go viral. It has over 6,000,000 views as I post this. You can also easily find several unedited videos taken from the crowd on YouTube.
from the concert may be the first video from the HFH ever to go viral. It has over 6,000,000 views as I post this. You can also easily find several unedited videos taken from the crowd on YouTube.
Re: Something New
Posted by: Trotsky (---.hsd1.md.comcast.net)
Date: February 17, 2013 06:47PM
ursusminor
This isn't really relevant as to whether the goal should count, but the nets were repeatedly dislodged during the game. It has been suggested that this was due to a concert at the HFH last Monday causing the ice to be soft. This video
from the concert may be the first video from the HFH ever to go viral. It has over 6,000,000 views as I post this. You can also easily find several unedited videos taken from the crowd on YouTube.
This is the first Harlem Shake video I have seen that was actually creative. Nicely done.
Re: Something New
Posted by: RichH (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: February 17, 2013 09:21PM
Trotsky
This is the first Harlem Shake video I have seen that was actually creative. Nicely done.
I don't see how it's more creative than any of the other several dozen I've become aware of this weekend that for whatever reason is part of this...thing. A thing I'm still trying to understand WTF it is or why it's suddenly white-hot popular. Anyway, just to completely go against my own confusion about this, I will now prolong this meme, but only because this one is the most germaine to this thread:
Because, Puckman.
Re: Something New
Posted by: ursusminor (---.washdc.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 18, 2013 02:57AM
RichH
Because, Puckman.
Also babo in the fur coat next to Puckman.
Re: Something New
Posted by: ursusminor (---.washdc.east.verizon.net)
Date: February 18, 2013 03:42AM
They did a good job catching the play from several angles. In my mind the only question is what is meant by "or the player must be in position to shoot" since the player who scored the goal (Matt Neal #9) did not yet have the puck when the goal cage was dislodged. Neal was indeed in position to shoot when the net came off but without the puck.sandrese
Fresh from RPI TV: [rpitv.org]
Relevant footage starts about 11:40 into Period 1. Freeze around 14:06 for the best chance to see where the puck would've crossed the line.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.