UNH 6 Cornell 2 postgame

Not much to say when it's really the season that's the post-game thread now.

Once we heard that RIT had beaten Denver, it felt as if we had a clear shot into the final four, just do the same thing to UNH as we did in January. We got that first goal and then I thought, okay, maybe we can win a 1-0 game or 2-1. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Once UNH got that first, disputed goal after the loooong replay viewathon by the referees, the floodgates just opened. All that hard work to run up 250 or so minutes of shutout hockey ... poof. Cornell has many talents but multi-goal comebacks is not our forte. I think our fate was sealed when we couldn't get a PPG midway through the third when it still seemed possible.

Probably not going to help Scrivens' chance for the Hobey. Poor Barry Melrose, going out on a limb.

On the upside, there was no 45-minute wait for Cornell will-call tickets the way there was in Syracuse.

Hockey is my favorite sport. But the atmosphere was pretty quiet compared to the Carrier Dome the night before.


I'm rooting for RIT against all odds against UBH. Support upstate hockey.

I thought during the first period we got dominated even though we came out with the only goal. Looked like UNH was out hustling and out hitting us... and we had way too many turnovers in our zone!

We played a lot better during the 2nd period but that disputed goal was the turning point even though it was a tied game. As for the third... well, as Bill said, mutli-goal comebacks are not our forte... ugh.

BTW - any video of the disputed goal? Hard to tell from watching the big screen at the game. Probably not worth it at this point but just wanted to see how close this goal was....

Oh yeah... did anyone else want to punch those UNH fans that were in the "box" seats... right behind the Cornell section? Grrrrrr.....

I can't say that I wanted to punch anyone, but I was pretty annoyed with the Cornell "fans" who were leaving a few minutes before the end of the game, presumably because the game was out of reach. The seniors, who had proudly worn the red and white for four years were about to leave the ice for the last time, and these "fans" weren't going to stick around and applaud their efforts? Pretty annoyed isn't the right term. It made me sick.

andyw2100
I can't say that I wanted to punch anyone, but I was pretty annoyed with the Cornell "fans" who were leaving a few minutes before the end of the game, presumably because the game was out of reach. The seniors, who had proudly worn the red and white for four years were about to leave the ice for the last time, and these "fans" weren't going to stick around and applaud their efforts? Pretty annoyed isn't the right term. It made me sick.

Well put.

kozaczkies
BTW - any video of the disputed goal? Hard to tell from watching the big screen at the game.

Did they show the overhead view? ESPNU had a replay from the overhead camera that clearly showed the puck emerging just behind the post, through the side of the net. I assume the officials saw that replay and that most of the five-minute delay had to do with figuring out how much time to put back on the clock.

Yes, they showed the overhead view at the TU Center but their jumbo- tron was designed during the Jumbo the elephant era of Barnum's and Bailey's circus. It is very dated and made the replay hard to appreciate.

That being said, Atlantic City sucks!

After watching us lose to UNH, I can state that I was fortunate to watch in person our four worst games of the season: the two losses in Florida, the loss at Dartmouth, and the debacle in Albany. On the bright side, Nichols will be able to tell his grandchildren someday that he once scored a goal in an NCAA tournament game.

Yale 1 North Dakota 0 after 1

edit: Ryan Rondeau in goal for Yale. According to the stats on USCHO he only played in four games this season.

nyc94
Yale 1 North Dakota 0 after 1

edit: Ryan Rondeau in goal for Yale. According to the stats on USCHO he only played in four games this season.

Wow. Bold coaching move.

scoop85

nyc94
Yale 1 North Dakota 0 after 1

edit: Ryan Rondeau in goal for Yale. According to the stats on USCHO he only played in four games this season.

Wow. Bold coaching move.

And according to USCHO his last game was in late November.

marty
Yes, they showed the overhead view at the TU Center but their jumbo- tron was designed during the Jumbo the elephant era of Barnum's and Bailey's circus. It is very dated and made the replay hard to appreciate.

It was definitely in. You could tell on the ESPNU replays as soon as they showed the first overhead look. I've been in TUC, and it's impossible to tell these things in that arena (their jumbo-tron really does suck). I was texting several friends that were there, and as much as it pained me, i had to tell them all it was a goal...

On YouTube by "martytoo".

Posting from TU Center so I don't have the link.

marty
On YouTube by "martytoo".

Posting from TU Center so I don't have the link.

Thanks! Found the video: [www.youtube.com]

Flyers1037

marty
Yes, they showed the overhead view at the TU Center but their jumbo- tron was designed during the Jumbo the elephant era of Barnum's and Bailey's circus. It is very dated and made the replay hard to appreciate.

It was definitely in. You could tell on the ESPNU replays as soon as they showed the first overhead look. I've been in TUC, and it's impossible to tell these things in that arena (their jumbo-tron really does suck). I was texting several friends that were there, and as much as it pained me, i had to tell them all it was a goal...

I have watched the replay several times, including slo-mo. I would say that it is likely that it went in but not definite. At first I thought that it was clearly in but then I realized that the overhead view is from slightly behind the goal and that the posts angle inward and backward. The puck seems to be headed straight for the post.

There was no hole in the net (unlike last year) int he Air Force? game). Butler is no Shane Weber and there is no black mark on the net.

In any case, UNH found yet again another way to, not just negate a 1-goal differential, but totally rob us of our momentum.

See what I did here? I am blaming someone else for our loss. I find that to be much more therapeutic.

Roy 82
I have watched the replay several times, including slo-mo. I would say that it is likely that it went in but not definite.

We were sitting six rows up in the corner to Scrivens's right and it was clear as day the puck went in the goal and through the net. I was flabbergasted that the ref was behind the net to Scrivens's left and didn't see it. The UNH players looked at him in disbelief and he signalled nothing. We just sat there waiting for a stoppage because we knew that it was in and they were going to review it and call for a center ice face-off.

Al DeFlorio

Roy 82
I have watched the replay several times, including slo-mo. I would say that it is likely that it went in but not definite.

We were sitting six rows up in the corner to Scrivens's right and it was clear as day the puck went in the goal and through the net. I was flabbergasted that the ref was behind the net to Scrivens's left and didn't see it. The UNH players looked at him in disbelief and he signalled nothing. We just sat there waiting for a stoppage because we knew that it was in and they were going to review it and call for a center ice face-off.

Crummy as the energy-saver jumbortron was (multiples rows of bulbs are dark on two sides), the first time it replayed the sequence in slow-mo, the UNH players jumped for joy. They knew.

billhoward

Al DeFlorio

Roy 82
I have watched the replay several times, including slo-mo. I would say that it is likely that it went in but not definite.

We were sitting six rows up in the corner to Scrivens's right and it was clear as day the puck went in the goal and through the net. I was flabbergasted that the ref was behind the net to Scrivens's left and didn't see it. The UNH players looked at him in disbelief and he signalled nothing. We just sat there waiting for a stoppage because we knew that it was in and they were going to review it and call for a center ice face-off.

Crummy as the energy-saver jumbortron was (multiples rows of bulbs are dark on two sides), the first time it replayed the sequence in slow-mo, the UNH players jumped for joy. They knew.

Nonetheless, the long delay ruined our mojo and it is all part of a grander anti-Cornell conspiracy.

Bummer - only worse experience watching us play hockey was the last time I saw us play UNH in 1977 when we went to double overtime to lose 10-9 in the old Boston Garden.

Al DeFlorio

Roy 82
I have watched the replay several times, including slo-mo. I would say that it is likely that it went in but not definite.

We were sitting six rows up in the corner to Scrivens's right and it was clear as day the puck went in the goal and through the net. I was flabbergasted that the ref was behind the net to Scrivens's left and didn't see it. The UNH players looked at him in disbelief and he signalled nothing. We just sat there waiting for a stoppage because we knew that it was in and they were going to review it and call for a center ice face-off.

Scriven's reaction was very telling - he clearly thought it was a goal.

RatushnyFan
Scriven's reaction was very telling - he clearly thought it was a goal.

I would like, for once, for the NCAA's to put high speed cameras in place around the goal so we can finally understand how the puck manages to go through a gap ¼ the size of the edge-on cross section of the puck without tearing the net. I know the net material stretches, but that much?

ChipJ
Bummer - only worse experience watching us play hockey was the last time I saw us play UNH in 1977 when we went to double overtime to lose 10-9 in the old Boston Garden.

I was at that game, too, and it was a terrible feeling when UNH scored the game-winner and the entire Boston Garden erupted (all of the fans of the other schools were cheering against us). But at least that game was exciting and we were competitive. Saturday's game wasn't exciting (there's a big difference when you've got 4,000 fans in the building as compared to 15,000) and we weren't competitive once UNH got rolling in the third period.
It's amazing how we went from being ahead 1-0 and controlling play for most of the second period to falling apart in the final 24 minutes.

Kyle Rose

RatushnyFan
Scriven's reaction was very telling - he clearly thought it was a goal.

I would like, for once, for the NCAA's to put high speed cameras in place around the goal so we can finally understand how the puck manages to go through a gap ¼ the size of the edge-on cross section of the puck without tearing the net. I know the net material stretches, but that much?

I think it makes sense from a physical standpoint. In this game (and in most other games where this occurs), this behavior occurs on the sides of the net. In these instances, imagining the holes in the net as a simple square, it's possible for the puck to impact a single side of the square, thereby using all of its velocity to stretch that single string and squeeze through. When a puck hits the back of the net, it's impossible for the puck to hit just a single side of the square holes.

My first instinct on the goal was that it hit the post. I even turned to Tom Pasniewski and went "clank!" But then Tom said to me he didn't hear a clank (and come to think of it nor did I). It never occurred to me that it went through the net until after the review.

Jeff Hopkins '82
My first instinct on the goal was that it hit the post. I even turned to Tom Pasniewski and went "clank!" But then Tom said to me he didn't hear a clank (and come to think of it nor did I). It never occurred to me that it went through the net until after the review.

The thing that still confuses me is the radical change in direction the puck took as it hit the net. You would think if it was going fast/hard enough to squeak through one of the holes in the net it would continue on a straight line path, but it took almost a 90 degree turn. The change in direction made it seem much more like it had gone off the post.

Jacob '06

Jeff Hopkins '82
My first instinct on the goal was that it hit the post. I even turned to Tom Pasniewski and went "clank!" But then Tom said to me he didn't hear a clank (and come to think of it nor did I). It never occurred to me that it went through the net until after the review.

The thing that still confuses me is the radical change in direction the puck took as it hit the net. You would think if it was going fast/hard enough to squeak through one of the holes in the net it would continue on a straight line path, but it took almost a 90 degree turn. The change in direction made it seem much more like it had gone off the post.

The replays were very clear to me, possibly because my resolution was so bad. On the way into the net, the puck was moving too fast to see well at all. Then, the puck "suddenly" appeared as it slowed down due to passing through the netting, a good 6-8" behind the post.

The change of direction definitely makes sense to me - think of each strand of netting on the side as a small post - it can't pass "north-south" through the side netting, so it has to squirt out to the side. Or, if you think like an engineer, the net killed the puck's north-south velocity, so only the component of velocity in the east-west direction remained.

Robb
Or, if you think like an engineer, the net killed the puck's north-south velocity, so only the component of velocity in the east-west direction remained.

North-south velocity wasn't the only thing killed with that shot.

Greenberg '97

Robb
Or, if you think like an engineer, the net killed the puck's north-south velocity, so only the component of velocity in the east-west direction remained.

North-south velocity wasn't the only thing killed with that shot.

Exactly. Clearly momentum was not conserved in this event.

I still think it's a horrible rule to use replay in that situation. If there's no call on the ice by either the ref or the goal judge there isn't a call to confirm or overturn so they should just play on.

This isn't just a case of sour grapes. We didn't lose because of that goal. We lost because of how we reacted to it. Air Force did lose a game in OT a coupe years back and I was just as convinced then.

KeithK
I still think it's a horrible rule to use replay in that situation. If there's no call on the ice by either the ref or the goal judge there isn't a call to confirm or overturn so they should just play on.

This isn't just a case of sour grapes. We didn't lose because of that goal. We lost because of how we reacted to it. Air Force did lose a game in OT a coupe years back and I was just as convinced then.

Actually, you can argue that there is always a call. This time the call was no goal, the replay was used to confirm or overturn.

On ice, no goal, play on. Play stops, let's review our call, overturn.

What's wrong with that? It got the correct result and isn't any different than:

goal, play stops, review, no goal, it was kicked in.

With you on this one. I was unhappy to discover that a number of my friends who'd been sitting in another section left before the game ended and were already in a local restaurant, long before we departed the arena. I let them have it when we arrived. It won't impact our friendship, but that pipeline they've always been able to count on for tickets to Lynah East may hinge on a promise to never repeat that behavior.

KeithK
I still think it's a horrible rule to use replay in that situation. If there's no call on the ice by either the ref or the goal judge there isn't a call to confirm or overturn so they should just play on.

This isn't just a case of sour grapes. We didn't lose because of that goal. We lost because of how we reacted to it. Air Force did lose a game in OT a coupe years back and I was just as convinced then.

It's worth reviewing to see if it's a goal. It's NOT worth taking 5 whole minutes to get the clock exactly right. That replay should have taken 30 seconds. I won't say that stopping play hurt us. Stopping play for 5 whole minutes may have.

Jim Hyla

KeithK
I still think it's a horrible rule to use replay in that situation. If there's no call on the ice by either the ref or the goal judge there isn't a call to confirm or overturn so they should just play on.

This isn't just a case of sour grapes. We didn't lose because of that goal. We lost because of how we reacted to it. Air Force did lose a game in OT a coupe years back and I was just as convinced then.

Actually, you can argue that there is always a call. This time the call was no goal, the replay was used to confirm or overturn.

On ice, no goal, play on. Play stops, let's review our call, overturn.

What's wrong with that? It got the correct result and isn't any different than:

goal, play stops, review, no goal, it was kicked in.

There is no call on the ice. IMO a non-call isn't a a call.

It's the fact that play could continue for an arbitrarily long period of time before review that makes the difference. if there's a call on the ice at the moment of controversy then review is minimaly invasive. Play was stopped anyway. What if play had continued for ten minutes without a whistle before the review? What if the next whistle was a goal by the other team? I know what the rule says - the second goal doesn't count and you rewind he clock if the first one did. But this kind of backtracking really rubs me the wrong way.

What if the first whistle is for a penalty, lets say for a vicious boarding that merits five minutes. To be consistent you'd have to say that the penalty never happened if the reviewed goal is allowed. I don't know if this is what the rules say but it doesn't sit well with me either way.

Referees sometimes make mistakes. It happens. This doesn't bother me enough to embrace the use of replay in cases like this. (Although to be honest I'd be perfectly happy without any replay.)

KeithK

Jim Hyla

KeithK
I still think it's a horrible rule to use replay in that situation. If there's no call on the ice by either the ref or the goal judge there isn't a call to confirm or overturn so they should just play on.

This isn't just a case of sour grapes. We didn't lose because of that goal. We lost because of how we reacted to it. Air Force did lose a game in OT a coupe years back and I was just as convinced then.

Actually, you can argue that there is always a call. This time the call was no goal, the replay was used to confirm or overturn.

On ice, no goal, play on. Play stops, let's review our call, overturn.

What's wrong with that? It got the correct result and isn't any different than:

goal, play stops, review, no goal, it was kicked in.

There is no call on the ice. IMO a non-call isn't a a call.

It's the fact that play could continue for an arbitrarily long period of time before review that makes the difference. if there's a call on the ice at the moment of controversy then review is minimaly invasive. Play was stopped anyway. What if play had continued for ten minutes without a whistle before the review? What if the next whistle was a goal by the other team? I know what the rule says - the second goal doesn't count and you rewind he clock if the first one did. But this kind of backtracking really rubs me the wrong way.

What if the first whistle is for a penalty, lets say for a vicious boarding that merits five minutes. To be consistent you'd have to say that the penalty never happened if the reviewed goal is allowed. I don't know if this is what the rules say but it doesn't sit well with me either way.

Referees sometimes make mistakes. It happens. This doesn't bother me enough to embrace the use of replay in cases like this. (Although to be honest I'd be perfectly happy without any replay.)

So, how does an official make a no goal call and let the game continue. If he says no goal, but I'm going to review it, is that right? The officials must have thought there was a possibility, otherwise they wouldn't have reviewed it later. What would you have them do if they thought it could have been a goal? Should they have made a call of a goal and stopped play to review it? Or would you rather they just forget about it and then the opposing team can show they were wrong and everyone can beat up on them? Remember, this was not a judgment call (and before you post, I know that everything is a judgment), it was not was his stick in between his feet long enough to be a trip, it was did the puck cross the goal line.

Like most things that involve some form of authority, I guess we'll have to disagree. I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

Jim Hyla
I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

Keith is concerned about momentum. You are concerned about correctness. I say, why not have both? Change the rules so that if the puck goes through the net, it's not a goal. Problem solved. At least the resolution would be unambiguous.

You know, for that matter, why not make the net and its attachment to the metal much finer so a puck can't possibly fit through, no matter how hard it's fired?

Jim Hyla
Like most things that involve some form of authority, I guess we'll have to disagree. I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

that summarizes a lot of our disagreements on many topics. You are very often convinced that we can "get it right" if we try hard enough. I'm rarely convinced that we can and when you can the cost of "getting it right" frequently exceeds the marginal benefits.

KeithK

Jim Hyla
Like most things that involve some form of authority, I guess we'll have to disagree. I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

that summarizes a lot of our disagreements on many topics. You are very often convinced that we can "get it right" if we try hard enough. I'm rarely convinced that we can and when you can the cost of "getting it right" frequently exceeds the marginal benefits.

So a goal in a 1-0 game is a marginal benefit?

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
Like most things that involve some form of authority, I guess we'll have to disagree. I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

that summarizes a lot of our disagreements on many topics. You are very often convinced that we can "get it right" if we try hard enough. I'm rarely convinced that we can and when you can the cost of "getting it right" frequently exceeds the marginal benefits.

So a goal in a 1-0 game is a marginal benefit?

Marginal as in marginal utility, marginal tax rates, etc.

KeithK

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
Like most things that involve some form of authority, I guess we'll have to disagree. I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

that summarizes a lot of our disagreements on many topics. You are very often convinced that we can "get it right" if we try hard enough. I'm rarely convinced that we can and when you can the cost of "getting it right" frequently exceeds the marginal benefits.

So a goal in a 1-0 game is a marginal benefit?

Marginal as in marginal utility, marginal tax rates, etc.

Gee, I thought this discussion was about hockey?

Kyle Rose

You know, for that matter, why not make the net and its attachment to the metal much finer so a puck can't possibly fit through, no matter how hard it's fired?

I think there's a trade off between a tight mesh to keep the puck in the goal and an open mesh so visibility is good when looking through the goal. If you skate behind the net and want to be able to look at the goalies skates, you want the mesh to be open (as do the the guys in front of the net who want to see the puck). That said, I'm sure some engineer could design something better than a simple net; maybe its used for nostalgic reasons.

BigRedHockeyFan

Kyle Rose

You know, for that matter, why not make the net and its attachment to the metal much finer so a puck can't possibly fit through, no matter how hard it's fired?

I think there's a trade off between a tight mesh to keep the puck in the goal and an open mesh so visibility is good when looking through the goal. If you skate behind the net and want to be able to look at the goalies skates, you want the mesh to be open (as do the the guys in front of the net who want to see the puck). That said, I'm sure some engineer could design something better than a simple net; maybe its used for nostalgic reasons.

Easy. Just make the netting from Kevlar instead of Nylon/polyester or whatever they use now. A Kevlar net would hardly stretch at all when hit with a puck, so the mesh size could be pretty close to the full size of the puck.

Or we could double the size of the puck - and that way, even Yale's goalies would be able to see it coming!

There is an old bar trick of putting a quarter through a hole in a piece of paper that is about 20% smaller in diameter than the quarter. Fold the paper in half through the diameter and bend to create a gap that is larger than the diameter of the quarter. This is what we have here

The real requirement is that the perimeter of the mesh when stressed must be less than the perimeter of the puck taken at a diameter.

If this happened you might see a puck caught in the netting from time to time.

I also suspect that the spin on the puck had a lot to do with the Fri night net episode.

Sorry, my inner nerd got out of the cage for a moment.

Kyle Rose

Jim Hyla
I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

Keith is concerned about momentum. You are concerned about correctness. I say, why not have both? Change the rules so that if the puck goes through the net, it's not a goal. Problem solved. At least the resolution would be unambiguous.

You've taken the situation and come up with the WORST POSSIBLE outcome. Congratulations! The net exists as a means to gather the puck after it has crossed the goal line. If you want to improve net design, there are a lot of things to consider: the weave, as BigRedHockeyFan mentioned, has to be tight enough to stop the puck but loose enough that a skater can see through it. The net has to be taut enough that it doesn't sag but flexible enough that it doesn't fire the puck back out onto the ice. It has to be designed so that a puck won't go through the net more than, say, once every few seasons without tearing. I'm sure that people are working to improve the net all the time (only in America or, perhaps, Canada!) but the marginal utility appears to be pretty low. (Response to Jim: this is about hockey. Just because sometimes a situation will come up in a 1-0 game instead of a Weder game doesn't mean that all remedies are appropriate; the marginal value of a rule of general applicability is a useful concept. KeithK just happens to be very, very wrong about this.)

Dafatone is right; wasting 5 minutes to adjust the clock by two seconds is a bigger problem than taking a minute to confirm a suspicion that a goal was scored, whether by a linesman or a screaming red-faced coach.I can't believe the discussion has gone this far and nobody has mentioned that the same thing happened in Game 5 of the Stanley Cup finals between NYR and Vancouver, and yes, they do wipe out everything that happens after, as they should.

Canucks Central
With the score 3-1 and under two minutes to play, Courtnall appeared to give the Canucks a 4-1 lead, but play continued. With the Canuck players flustered, Anderson found Messier at the side of the net and he converted to make it 3-2 at 19:01. But the Canucks and 16,150 of their towel-waving supporters thought Courtnall had scored, and referee Bill McCreary decided to check upstairs. Sure enough, Courtnall's backhander had hit the back crossbar and bounced out. The goal was counted and the ensuing 34 seconds (which included Messier's goal) was stricken from the record.

See also, this and this.

ugarte

Kyle Rose

Jim Hyla
I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

Keith is concerned about momentum. You are concerned about correctness. I say, why not have both? Change the rules so that if the puck goes through the net, it's not a goal. Problem solved. At least the resolution would be unambiguous.

You've taken the situation and come up with the WORST POSSIBLE outcome. Congratulations! The net exists as a means to gather the puck after it has crossed the goal line. If you want to improve net design, there are a lot of things to consider

You did read my second paragraph, right? Fixing the net so it isn't possible for the puck to go through it is also an acceptable solution. Leaving things they way they are is not.

Kyle Rose
Fixing the net so it isn't possible for the puck to go through it is also an acceptable solution. Leaving things they way they are is not.

Really? Leaving hockey exactly the way it is is not an acceptable solution? Overreact much?

Greenberg '97

Kyle Rose
Fixing the net so it isn't possible for the puck to go through it is also an acceptable solution. Leaving things they way they are is not.

Really? Leaving hockey exactly the way it is is not an acceptable solution? Overreact much?

Yes, not IMO, and no. We're not talking quantum tunneling here: there's an engineering solution to this, so why not fix it? Preserving the flow of the game by avoiding multi-minute reviews when they aren't necessary should be a top priority. I don't see why this is controversial.

Kyle Rose

Greenberg '97

Kyle Rose
Fixing the net so it isn't possible for the puck to go through it is also an acceptable solution. Leaving things they way they are is not.

Really? Leaving hockey exactly the way it is is not an acceptable solution? Overreact much?

Yes, not IMO, and no. We're not talking quantum tunneling here: there's an engineering solution to this, so why not fix it? Preserving the flow of the game by avoiding multi-minute reviews when they aren't necessary should be a top priority. I don't see why this is controversial.

See previous discussion re: marginal utility. Your position isn't "controversial" so much as "bordering on pointless." There are a lot of cases in which "good enough" is actually good enough.

ugarte

Kyle Rose
Yes, not IMO, and no. We're not talking quantum tunneling here: there's an engineering solution to this, so why not fix it? Preserving the flow of the game by avoiding multi-minute reviews when they aren't necessary should be a top priority. I don't see why this is controversial.

See previous discussion re: marginal utility. Your position isn't "controversial" so much as "bordering on pointless." There are a lot of cases in which "good enough" is actually good enough.

If this happened once every 20 years, I'd agree. The fact that it happens far more frequently means it should be addressed.

I'm with Kyle on this one. Just use a smaller mesh on the nets. Problem solved. Cost negligible.

Last year after the Vermont vs. Air Force goal there was also talk concerning whether the net had been treated with resin (plastic) as it should have been. I don't even know if it is supposed to be treated.

Maybe the solution also has to do with suppliers and quality control. No matter it was a five minute PIA.

CowbellGuy
I'm with Kyle on this one. Just use a smaller mesh on the nets. Problem solved. Cost negligible.

I'm with Kyle about fixing the net, but not with Keith to just forget about a possible goal. To me that's still screwy.

Jim Hyla

CowbellGuy
I'm with Kyle on this one. Just use a smaller mesh on the nets. Problem solved. Cost negligible.

I'm with Kyle about fixing the net, but not with Keith to just forget about a possible goal. To me that's still screwy.

Hey, I'm with Kyle about fixing the net; almost all things could stand to be improved. I'm not with Kyle on the hair-pulling and the "unacceptable"ing and the general consternation.

ugarte

Jim Hyla

CowbellGuy
I'm with Kyle on this one. Just use a smaller mesh on the nets. Problem solved. Cost negligible.

I'm with Kyle about fixing the net, but not with Keith to just forget about a possible goal. To me that's still screwy.

Hey, I'm with Kyle about fixing the net; almost all things could stand to be improved. I'm not with Kyle on the hair-pulling and the "unacceptable"ing and the general consternation.

I really can't believe I'm getting involved in this discussion, but...

Age, (smaller mesh) = (problem solved) sounds great, but not necessarily. If you increase the number of ropes, visibility decreases. If you try to offset that by reducing the diameter of the ropes, tensile strength decreases (exponentially, I believe), and you end up with more pucks through the net.

And as a Food Science major who practices medicine, I really have no idea what I'm talking about. As a goalie, however, I can say that visibility is of utmost importance. If it were up to me, we'd lose the net altogether and just use electronic sensors. Think department store security.

Greenberg '97
Age, (smaller mesh) = (problem solved) sounds great, but not necessarily. If you increase the number of ropes, visibility decreases. If you try to offset that by reducing the diameter of the ropes, tensile strength decreases (exponentially, I believe), and you end up with more pucks through the net.

Enough loss of visibility to matter? Other than the goal judge, whose role is largely ceremonial, is anyone really looking through the net? Hell, everyone at the ends of the rink other than those on the glass are already looking through a much finer mesh than what's in the goal itself.

CowbellGuy
Enough loss of visibility to matter? Other than the goal judge, whose role is largely ceremonial, is anyone really looking through the net? Hell, everyone at the ends of the rink other than those on the glass are already looking through a much finer mesh than what's in the goal itself.

I couldn't say how much it would matter (I'm sure there's an equation for it somewhere), but when the puck is behind the net, the goalie has to be able to see the puck. He's already looking through the net at a sharp downward angle, not to mention through his own cage. Yeah, I really think adding more ropes would be noticeable.

Goalies take visibility very seriously. Look at the number of cage designs there are out there.

First off, if it was mandated by the league, then everyone's playing by the same rules. The goalies and everyone else can learn to live with it. Second, I don't think there are many situations where the goalie is looking through the net. They're usually looking around it. You'd pretty much have to get down on all fours to look through it. Except maybe Andy Isles.

CowbellGuy
Second, I don't think there are many situations where the goalie is looking through the net. They're usually looking around it. You'd pretty much have to get down on all fours to look through it. Except maybe Andy Isles.

Great, now I have something to think about during my next game on Thursday... am I looking through the net or around it? I'll get back to you. After I give up 8 or 9 goals in the process.

I don't think there are many situations where the goalie is looking through the net. They're usually looking around it.

It happens. Anytime a player behind the net has the puck you need to look through the net. If you look around the net, you're off balance and you open yourself up to a wrap-around or a quick back-door play at the other post. Also, if you're going post-to-post as the puck is behind the net you're picking up the puck through the net. The height argument is also irrelevant - the stance is a crouch and when you're hugging the post your head is barely above the crossbar. Also if it's a desperation play, you're sliding across on your knees. You can see this from the attached video. The video is a goal so yes the goalie didn't play it perfectly, but wrap-around save doesn't get many hits on youtube.

The question of uniformity is interesting. The current NCAA rule is as simple as can be:

Rule 1-3-c
c. A net shall be attached to each goal frame.

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla

KeithK
I still think it's a horrible rule to use replay in that situation. If there's no call on the ice by either the ref or the goal judge there isn't a call to confirm or overturn so they should just play on.

This isn't just a case of sour grapes. We didn't lose because of that goal. We lost because of how we reacted to it. Air Force did lose a game in OT a coupe years back and I was just as convinced then.

Actually, you can argue that there is always a call. This time the call was no goal, the replay was used to confirm or overturn.

On ice, no goal, play on. Play stops, let's review our call, overturn.

What's wrong with that? It got the correct result and isn't any different than:

goal, play stops, review, no goal, it was kicked in.

There is no call on the ice. IMO a non-call isn't a a call.

It's the fact that play could continue for an arbitrarily long period of time before review that makes the difference. if there's a call on the ice at the moment of controversy then review is minimaly invasive. Play was stopped anyway. What if play had continued for ten minutes without a whistle before the review? What if the next whistle was a goal by the other team? I know what the rule says - the second goal doesn't count and you rewind he clock if the first one did. But this kind of backtracking really rubs me the wrong way.

What if the first whistle is for a penalty, lets say for a vicious boarding that merits five minutes. To be consistent you'd have to say that the penalty never happened if the reviewed goal is allowed. I don't know if this is what the rules say but it doesn't sit well with me either way.

Referees sometimes make mistakes. It happens. This doesn't bother me enough to embrace the use of replay in cases like this. (Although to be honest I'd be perfectly happy without any replay.)

So, how does an official make a no goal call and let the game continue. If he says no goal, but I'm going to review it, is that right? The officials must have thought there was a possibility, otherwise they wouldn't have reviewed it later. What would you have them do if they thought it could have been a goal? Should they have made a call of a goal and stopped play to review it? Or would you rather they just forget about it and then the opposing team can show they were wrong and everyone can beat up on them? Remember, this was not a judgment call (and before you post, I know that everything is a judgment), it was not was his stick in between his feet long enough to be a trip, it was did the puck cross the goal line.

Like most things that involve some form of authority, I guess we'll have to disagree. I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

This is why instant replay does not work well in hockey. For a sport like football or baseball (or cricket), where the game is divided into well-defined, quantized plays, you can review the results of a play as soon as it's over. In hockey, where play just continues until something stops it, you get exactly the sort of problem we're discussing, where you can have whole minutes of the game which retroactively don't count. Not only do you then have to deal with the potential nonsense of a goal scored later on an unrelated play being waved off, but a team protecting a lead may tire itself out for nothing. The only way I could see this being done fairly would be to make it a delayed whistle, so that once the defense controls the puck, they stop play and have the review. (Probably with a provision that if the offensive team pulls the goalie, the whistle is blown immediately.)

Although, I'd really prefer they scrap replay entirely, and let the refs call the game on the ice. That way games with and without TV would be called the same. (We should drop TV timeouts while we're at it, but that's another story...)

I said not many situations, not any. Sure, sometimes you look through the net, but most of the time not. And it's not like a finer mesh would completely obstruct your view. I guess it comes down to how big a problem you think this is. If you're like me and Kyle, you think it's a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, and there's an easy solution to do so. If you're happy with the status quo, then there probably isn't a solution you'd be happy with.

CowbellGuy
I said not many situations, not any. Sure, sometimes you look through the net, but most of the time not. And it's not like a finer mesh would completely obstruct your view. I guess it comes down to how big a problem you think this is. If you're like me and Kyle, you think it's a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, and there's an easy solution to do so. If you're happy with the status quo, then there probably isn't a solution you'd be happy with.

The solution I'd be happy with would be having more actual hockey to talk about, rather than taking part in a silly debate about tensile strengths and rope densities. Clearly, the offseason has begun.

But no, I don't think it's a really serious problem, so that's where we disagree.

CowbellGuy
If you're like me and Kyle,...

That, in itself, is a pretty scary scenario.

Nevertheless, I'm with you that this is a serious enough problem that it should be addressed. Last year's Vermont-Air Force game is a pretty strong argument in its own right. Imagine the outrage if AF had scored a later goal and been declared the winner, only they really weren't.

I've always been in the finer mesh camp, but I'll admit I never really thought about the visibility issue (friggin' goalies want everything, don't they?).

So, come on, you engineers, in the spirit of the off-season, start brainstorming some ideas to fix this problem. And remember that the rules of brainstorming require that during the idea generation phase, all ideas are captured, regardless of how outlandish they may seem. So if you think the puck should be electronically incinerated if it crosses the line, to prevent it coming back into play, go for it. You might want to accompany that one with a suggestion for how to keep player parts intact, should they also cross the line. Engineer on!

(Damn, I really do have to find a job soon)

Killer
friggin' goalies want everything, don't they

We are a bunch of self-important divas, now that you ask.

Greenberg '97
We are a bunch of self-important divas, now that you ask.

Goalies or engineers?

Trotsky

Greenberg '97
We are a bunch of self-important divas, now that you ask.

Goalies or engineers?

for even asking about engineers. Of COURSE we are.

Greenberg '97

CowbellGuy
Second, I don't think there are many situations where the goalie is looking through the net. They're usually looking around it. You'd pretty much have to get down on all fours to look through it. Except maybe Andy Isles.

Great, now I have something to think about during my next game on Thursday... am I looking through the net or around it? I'll get back to you. After I give up 8 or 9 goals in the process.

As promised, here's the follow up... we play a 45-minute game, and I caught myself looking through the net three times, twice on what I would consider critical plays. I may have done it more, but in the rush of things, I only noticed it those three times.

So I couldn't tell you if having denser netting would have affected my view in those few plays, but I can say that you can't take any time to think about where the puck is. You have to see it and know immediately the location, speed, and direction.

Greenberg '97
So I couldn't tell you if having denser netting would have affected my view in those few plays, but I can say that you can't take any time to think about where the puck is. You have to see it and know immediately the location, speed, and direction.

Wait, doesn't the Greenberg Uncertainty Principle say that you can only know 2 of these 3 properties of a puck?

Killer

Greenberg '97
So I couldn't tell you if having denser netting would have affected my view in those few plays, but I can say that you can't take any time to think about where the puck is. You have to see it and know immediately the location, speed, and direction.

Wait, doesn't the Greenberg Uncertainty Principle say that you can only know 2 of these 3 properties of a puck?

You've seen me play goal, haven't you?

Greenberg '97

Great, now I have something to think about during my next game on Thursday... am I looking through the net or around it? I'll get back to you. After I give up 8 or 9 goals in the process.

Maybe that's what happened with Yale.