Gate @ Cornell

flyersgolf
Playing an away game at home this evening. Officiating has been more than suspect.

flyersgolf
Where is Esposito and Gotovets?

jtn27
We're definitely getting some suspensions for that little "incident" after the handshake. I think Miller might be one of them; he delivered a few good punches, plus tackled someone during the game.

jkahn

flyersgolf
Where is Esposito and Gotovets?

In Saturday's post-game interview Ben Syer said "We had some illness here this week" but was not specific.

andyw2100
The post handshake stuff was instigated by their goalie, Mihalik, who was jawing with Iles pre-handshake and then after making his way through the line aggressively pushed/bumped/shoved one of our guys who had completed the handshake line and was waiting near center ice. I couldn't see too much very clearly after that.

flyersgolf
Where is Esposito and Gotovets?

Al DeFlorio

flyersgolf
Where is Esposito and Gotovets?

According to College Hockey News, Espo "had a setback in practice this week."

Al DeFlorio

flyersgolf
Where is Esposito and Gotovets?

According to College Hockey News, Espo "had a setback in practice this week."

redice

Al DeFlorio

flyersgolf
Where is Esposito and Gotovets?

According to College Hockey News, Espo "had a setback in practice this week."

This is what I heard at the game Saturday:
Gotovets: ankle (stepped on a puck in practice)
Espo: Shoulder ("setback" would lead one to think it's his ankle again. I think shoulder is a new problem).

dag14
Broadcast comment on the waved-off goal was that whistle blew so play should have stopped even though puck was still in play [presumably official lost sight of it] so no goal

jtn27

redice

Al DeFlorio

flyersgolf
Where is Esposito and Gotovets?

According to College Hockey News, Espo "had a setback in practice this week."

This is what I heard at the game Saturday:
Gotovets: ankle (stepped on a puck in practice)
Espo: Shoulder ("setback" would lead one to think it's his ankle again. I think shoulder is a new problem).

So to sum up, Esposito either suffered a concussion against Colorado College, or had a "setback in practice" which could either be shoulder injury or an ankle injury, or, as one person (somewhat unfairly) speculated, there are off ice issues. Well, that makes the reason for his absence crystal clear.

CUrafter
Also, who was the 3rd string goalie on the bench without a name on his jersey? Someone they pulled off the club team?

css228

dag14
Broadcast comment on the waved-off goal was that whistle blew so play should have stopped even though puck was still in play [presumably official lost sight of it] so no goal

I hate the goddamn intent rule.

marty

css228

dag14
Broadcast comment on the waved-off goal was that whistle blew so play should have stopped even though puck was still in play [presumably official lost sight of it] so no goal

I hate the goddamn intent rule.

But if the whistle blew then it wasn't intent. The play was dead.

Intent is when the ref tries to blow the whistle and he doesn't blow it. The play its dead in his mind before the toot.

upprdeck
i thought he blew the whistle way after the play. it was after red light came on as well so did he "intent" it that far before it happened? didnt see the replay was the goalie even covering the puck or trying to smother it?

Dafatone
The Colgate announcer seemed to think it was a no-goal because Mihalek was pushed into the net. Or, that the scrum pushed Mihalek into the puck into the net. Or something like that.

CUrafter

jtn27

redice

Al DeFlorio

flyersgolf
Where is Esposito and Gotovets?

According to College Hockey News, Espo "had a setback in practice this week."

This is what I heard at the game Saturday:
Gotovets: ankle (stepped on a puck in practice)
Espo: Shoulder ("setback" would lead one to think it's his ankle again. I think shoulder is a new problem).

So to sum up, Esposito either suffered a concussion against Colorado College, or had a "setback in practice" which could either be shoulder injury or an ankle injury, or, as one person (somewhat unfairly) speculated, there are off ice issues. Well, that makes the reason for his absence crystal clear.

He was hanging out around the ref locker room throughout the game with some other scratched players. Wasn't limping and I doubt they'd be allowed to hang out with the team if they had "off ice" issues. Gotovets wasn't there, maybe he had the sickness? Speculation is fun

Coach Schafer said yesterday that he suffered an injury in practice. Hopes to be back next week. RT @whec_kwilliams: Where is Esposito?

— Brandon Thomas (@BThomasIthaca) November 3, 2012

bnr24

As far as the play being blown dead, the whistle was definitely after the goal was in net, at the point when the team was celebrating, so it had to be intent.

A great effort by Greg Miller set up another Big Red chance right in front of the Colgate net as he made his way to the front of the net and jammed it on goal. Lynah Rink went into a frenzy after Madison Dias put the loose puck in the net, but the officials ruled the whistle had already blown, nullifying the would-be goal.

David Harding

bnr24

As far as the play being blown dead, the whistle was definitely after the goal was in net, at the point when the team was celebrating, so it had to be intent.

CornellBigRed.com

A great effort by Greg Miller set up another Big Red chance right in front of the Colgate net as he made his way to the front of the net and jammed it on goal. Lynah Rink went into a frenzy after Madison Dias put the loose puck in the net, but the officials ruled the whistle had already blown, nullifying the would-be goal.

bnr24
I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net. It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

Kyle Rose

bnr24
I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net. It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

Kyle Rose

bnr24
I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net. It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

bnr24
I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net. It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

The problem is they set themselves up at least slightly behind the net to see it go over the line, but that makes it tough to see where the puck is in front. However, I'd rather have them where they are than in front to see the puck.

bnr24
It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

bnr24
I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net. It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

The problem is they set themselves up at least slightly behind the net to see it go over the line, but that makes it tough to see where the puck is in front. However, I'd rather have them where they are than in front to see the puck.

I have a stupid question. In a 2-ref system, is the rule that the ref in the offensive zone controls the whistle? For example, take the situation that Jim describes where the offensive zone ref is on the goal line extended and the defensive zone ref is (where? at the red line I guess?). The puck Brownian Motions in front so that it is obscured by the scrum from the offensive ref (who blows the whistle) but is completely visible to the defensive zone ref. The play is dead even though the puck has always been visible to at least one ref, correct? However, if the trailing ref loses sight of the puck during the scrum but the offensive zone ref always has it in sight, the trailing ref should not blow the whistle because he does not "control" the play? Also correct? (Shorter: the farther ref defers to the closer one.)

jtn27
When would hear if there were any suspensions resulting from the fights? Is it safe to assume that because none have been announced yet there won't be any, or could they still be forthcoming? I figured any announcements would come today.

sah67

bnr24
It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

There were 0 game misconducts handed out. A 10-minute misconduct is not a game misconduct.

KeithK

jtn27
When would hear if there were any suspensions resulting from the fights? Is it safe to assume that because none have been announced yet there won't be any, or could they still be forthcoming? I figured any announcements would come today.

It needs to be said at least once per season. Misconducts and Game misconducts do not results in suspensions. Disqualifications results in suspensions.

marty

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

bnr24
I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net. It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

The problem is they set themselves up at least slightly behind the net to see it go over the line, but that makes it tough to see where the puck is in front. However, I'd rather have them where they are than in front to see the puck.

I have a stupid question. In a 2-ref system, is the rule that the ref in the offensive zone controls the whistle? For example, take the situation that Jim describes where the offensive zone ref is on the goal line extended and the defensive zone ref is (where? at the red line I guess?). The puck Brownian Motions in front so that it is obscured by the scrum from the offensive ref (who blows the whistle) but is completely visible to the defensive zone ref. The play is dead even though the puck has always been visible to at least one ref, correct? However, if the trailing ref loses sight of the puck during the scrum but the offensive zone ref always has it in sight, the trailing ref should not blow the whistle because he does not "control" the play? Also correct? (Shorter: the farther ref defers to the closer one.)

An obvious case of Schrodinger's puck? = ^ . ^ =

Trotsky

marty

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

bnr24
I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net. It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

The problem is they set themselves up at least slightly behind the net to see it go over the line, but that makes it tough to see where the puck is in front. However, I'd rather have them where they are than in front to see the puck.

I have a stupid question. In a 2-ref system, is the rule that the ref in the offensive zone controls the whistle? For example, take the situation that Jim describes where the offensive zone ref is on the goal line extended and the defensive zone ref is (where? at the red line I guess?). The puck Brownian Motions in front so that it is obscured by the scrum from the offensive ref (who blows the whistle) but is completely visible to the defensive zone ref. The play is dead even though the puck has always been visible to at least one ref, correct? However, if the trailing ref loses sight of the puck during the scrum but the offensive zone ref always has it in sight, the trailing ref should not blow the whistle because he does not "control" the play? Also correct? (Shorter: the farther ref defers to the closer one.)

An obvious case of Schrodinger's puck? = ^ . ^ =

The puck is both a goal and not a goal, until you collapse the wave function by observing it?

(This seems like the opposite, since reality is driven by failing to observe it. )

Josh '99

KeithK

jtn27
When would hear if there were any suspensions resulting from the fights? Is it safe to assume that because none have been announced yet there won't be any, or could they still be forthcoming? I figured any announcements would come today.

It needs to be said at least once per season. Misconducts and Game misconducts do not results in suspensions. Disqualifications results in suspensions.

That's true, but surely the league has leeway to issue a suspension for something that went unpunished during a game if they choose to do so?

marty

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Kyle Rose

bnr24
I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net. It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

The problem is they set themselves up at least slightly behind the net to see it go over the line, but that makes it tough to see where the puck is in front. However, I'd rather have them where they are than in front to see the puck.

I have a stupid question. In a 2-ref system, is the rule that the ref in the offensive zone controls the whistle? For example, take the situation that Jim describes where the offensive zone ref is on the goal line extended and the defensive zone ref is (where? at the red line I guess?). The puck Brownian Motions in front so that it is obscured by the scrum from the offensive ref (who blows the whistle) but is completely visible to the defensive zone ref. The play is dead even though the puck has always been visible to at least one ref, correct? However, if the trailing ref loses sight of the puck during the scrum but the offensive zone ref always has it in sight, the trailing ref should not blow the whistle because he does not "control" the play? Also correct? (Shorter: the farther ref defers to the closer one.)

An obvious case of Schrodinger's puck? = ^ . ^ =

upprdeck
the ref should be working to try and see the puck. just saying well i lost site better blow the whistle doesnt really mean you were doing your job. and the ref with instant replay doesnt need to be stationed as far back since if he doesnt see it go in there is still a pretty good chance the replay will. maybe not Cornell replay but perhaps one that works. with two refs they should be a better job of handling the scrums around the net. some kind of hand signals and perhaps the judge on top moving in closer.. shoot soccer lets one guy handle a field 10x larger and always chasing the play. i could live with guys getting caught a couple times a game down low if it meant better seeing the puck in those situations.

dag14
Those of you criticizing officials for losing sight of the puck. prematurely blowing the whistle, deferring to the official in the offensive end, etc., etc,, etc., have obviously never officiated a hockey game. Let alone a Division I level hockey game. It is frickin' impossible to get it perfect everytime. How does one anticipate where the puck will end up with reference to where the bodies are in the scrum that one is supposed to be positioned to see through? And not get in the way of the play? There is a reason the deep official is often behind the net but to one side or the other -- so he can see the play without being in the middle of it. And by definition, if he is on one side of the play, he may not be able to see through 8-11 bodies to what is happening on the other side of the play so that he can know precisely when the goalie has covered the puck.

Just sayin.

The game ended with some bad blood. Colgate’s Tyson Spink shot the puck at Iles after the final buzzer had sounded to end the game. Naturally, the Big Red weren’t happy about that.

“Sometimes, it’s just the stupidest unspoken myth in hockey that you don’t shoot the puck at the goaltender after the whistle,” Schafer told the Ithaca Journal. “But you don’t, and the kids all know it, so our guys took exception to it. There was some pushing and shoving, but I don’t think there were any disqualifications or anything, which is fortunate for both teams because there were a lot of good players on the ice.”

The hostilities continued after the postgame handshake.

“That was my fault,” Schafer said. “As a coach, you stay out of the handshake line for a reason — because if something happens, as a coach you don’t want to be in the middle of things. And so coming off, something happened and we were in the middle of things. It’s never good when a coach is out there like that, and it got heated.”

Colgate coach Don Vaughan wasn’t happy, either.

“Our kid shot the puck, and I’m not sure if he didn’t hear the whistle or what,” Vaughan said. “But it was a little bit late, and it set things in motion. Back-to-back games, kids are competing hard and emotions are high, anyway ... it happens, unfortunately. The handshake thing was unfortunate, but kids will be kids.”

RichH

Josh '99

KeithK

jtn27
When would hear if there were any suspensions resulting from the fights? Is it safe to assume that because none have been announced yet there won't be any, or could they still be forthcoming? I figured any announcements would come today.

It needs to be said at least once per season. Misconducts and Game misconducts do not results in suspensions. Disqualifications results in suspensions.

That's true, but surely the league has leeway to issue a suspension for something that went unpunished during a game if they choose to do so?

The league office definitely has the power to do that. Last week, the automatic 1-game suspension got 6 more games added to it (see link). I assume a non-DQ incident can also be met with a suspension if a league review deems it to be worth it.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

dag14
Those of you criticizing officials for losing sight of the puck. prematurely blowing the whistle, deferring to the official in the offensive end, etc., etc,, etc., have obviously never officiated a hockey game. Let alone a Division I level hockey game. It is frickin' impossible to get it perfect everytime. How does one anticipate where the puck will end up with reference to where the bodies are in the scrum that one is supposed to be positioned to see through? And not get in the way of the play? There is a reason the deep official is often behind the net but to one side or the other -- so he can see the play without being in the middle of it. And by definition, if he is on one side of the play, he may not be able to see through 8-11 bodies to what is happening on the other side of the play so that he can know precisely when the goalie has covered the puck.

Just sayin.