4 foot rule

Has anyone heard a good explanation for disallowing the goal? The rule states that the puck can't be redirected above 4 feet. How in that replay can you determine the exact height that the puck was tipped? Palahicky is 6'0, 6'3 on skates. The replay shows the puck being deflected about chest high. In my estimation that is right around 4 feet or less. Too close to overrule the decision on the ice!

It could have gone either way. It was probably a goal.

That being said, we had our chances after that. The momentum clearly swung in those 4 mins where the goal was disallowed and UNH got a tally, but we had swung it back by the end of the game.

Damn Ayers' head-save AND the post!!

I always had heard the rule as it was used in the NHL. In the NHL they say the stick needs to be below the crossbar when the puck is touched. This always seemed like a reasonable thing, since it is a lot easier to see if the stick is below the crossbar, and not this 4 foot stuff.

Sure looked like the stick was below the crossbar when he hit it....

The crossbar is four feet off the ice - so the NHL and college rules (at least on the question of height) are one and the same.



Post Edited (04-11-03 13:59)

Bitter Fan,

This is an excerpt from an article on USCHO (the Semifinal notebook), and it seems to be the only official explanation that was released regarding the "no goal" called...

"Cornell fans will find little solace in the official explanation:

Batting the puck above the height of four feet with the stick is prohibited...The play was ruled a goal on the ice. However replays showed conclusively that the puck was directed into the net by a high stick."

Conclusively, eh?

I don't recall how far from the net Palahicky was, but to put it in the net from above four feet would seem to create an almost impossible angle for the puck to enter the four foot high net. Well, I guess that's why I was never any good in math!

Clearly, the stick was below the crossbar - and Palahicky hit the puck with the shaft, not the blade, so the puck was touched well below the crossbar. I want to know what happens to an issue like this - does it just go under the rug? Do people (NCAA, refs, sportscasters, some fans) just make themselves feel better about it because "there were other chances to win?" I think that's crap. The reversal of the call on the ice was an huge mistake that affected the entire game (along with the call on Hynes with 3 minutes left and the call on Moulson for mugging Ayers when actually he was violently cross-checked into the goalie - which resulted in a UNH goal...) Cornell was playing three opponents in that game - UNH, Adams, and the Hockey East official who took 5 minutes to reverse the call on the ice to "no-goal".
I want to know: What is the NCAA is going to do differently in the future to ensure that this doesn't happen to the next poor bunch of players who dare to confront a Hockey East team for all the marbles?

During the Minn-Mich broadcast Bob Norton referred to another, ice-level, angle that they had in the booth that was not available for the ESPN2 broadcast. He said that it took a while before they saw that in the booth, but that immediately after seeing it they made the decision.

Whether or not you believe that to be true is up to you, of course. It sure was a tough call.

Out of curiosity, while I know that officially in the NFL the ruling on the field stands if the tape is inconclusive. What's the official rule on that for NCAA hockey? From the talk it sounds like it is the same, but if someone knows the exact rule...

crodge2k wrote:

Out of curiosity, while I know that officially in the NFL the ruling on the field stands if the tape is inconclusive. What's the official rule on that for NCAA hockey? From the talk it sounds like it is the same, but if someone knows the exact rule...

I don't know what the official rule is, but there are some people who post on USCHO (including myself) who believe this is what the rule should be.

I doubt anyone would agree with you that it was "clear." Everyone on this board has a biased opinion, regardless of what you might think. There is a reason why the refs make the decisions. Get over it, stop blaming the whole game on that one minor decision. You sound like a crybaby, and it makes our fans look bad.

I cannot express how disappointed I am with the outcome of yesterdays game for a myriad of reasons one of which was most definitely not the penalty called on Shane Hynes with approximately three minutes to play in the third period. Yes, about five minutes earlier he was hit from behind into the the bench door while going off for a change and the subsequent interference penalty was called. But that is no excuse for his actions later in the period

In front of Adam and his trailing linesman, Shane took exception to the earlier hit (in front of the UNH bench) and proceeded to essentially punch (with his hands on his stick) UNH's #8 knocking him to the ice and both the linesman and the referee saw it and raised their arms to make the call. If there was one correct call yesterday. . .that was it. Unfortunately for us it couldn't have come at a worse time.

There is no reason to target the officials (except maybe the replay one) for the outcome of yesterdays game. The interference call on Moulson was questionable at best, probably should have been a cross-check on them but you move on and keep playing. The one thing you DO NOT DO is take a stupid penalty in the closing minutes of a game your team is trying to win. I'm sure no one feels worse about this than Shane so let's not dwell on it and move on to next years team. Great seaons guys, you made us all very proud!


BTW. . .GOOOOOOOOOOOo Goph's!!!



Post Edited (04-11-03 19:24)

It's true that they had an ice-level angle up in the replay booth. I could see part of it using my binoculars and, in fact, commented to the fans next to me, wondering why they were looking at that angle (we all assumed they were checking to see if there was a skate in the crease and so we thought the angle they should have used was the "from-above" angle). And it is true that the call downstairs was made after having looked at it (I couldn't be sure if that was the first time they looked at it or not, but that was the image on one of the TVs when the guy called downstairs).

Whether it was conclusive or not, I have no idea. BTW, the replay official was from the WCHA, IIRC.

Well, if there was another angle that was conclusive, then I stand corrected. It certainly appeared from the shots available to the general public that the goal was a good one, or at least questionable enough to go with the call on the ice.

Just want to make one point in regard to the"ice level" angle. If that camera isnt 4 feet high, its hard to call it conclusive since the resulting angle relative to the crossbar will make the relative positions of the stick and the crossbar appear different. For the none engineers or math ppl, think of it this way, if there is a 4 foot kid standing behind a 4 foot tall bookcase, if you were on your knees (Assuming your eyes are at 4 feet) you will not see the kid. now assume you stand up. you see the kid but its hard to judge if the kid is higher than the bookcase.

That said what happened, happened. Im disappointed and wish UNH the best of luck. I also thank the team for playing hard and having a wonderful season.

If anyone saw the end of the Red Wings/Ducks game last night, you can well appreciate the distorated view that a video camera can project. Two dimensioal recording of three dimentional action. It is in fact standard film/video technique to use camera angle to distort "reality". Not sure which "ice level" view was used in Buffalo, but ESPN/NESN often use the corner cameras are shoulder mounted.

But what is up with the NCAA rule (or so I have been told) that does NOT ALLOW replays to be shown on the jumbotron. In Albany, we seemed to get the same replays that the officials were using in their reviews. Very frustrating just sitting in the stands.

[q]But what is up with the NCAA rule (or so I have been told) that does NOT ALLOW replays to be shown on the jumbotron. In Albany, we seemed to get the same replays that the officials were using in their reviews. Very frustrating just sitting in the stands.[/q]

Would it have mattered? The picture quality was not good enough to see the kind of detail necessary to determine anything.

[q]But what is up with the NCAA rule (or so I have been told) that does NOT ALLOW replays to be shown on the jumbotron.[/q]

It's right next to the rule that says they must use the jumbotron to pound into our heads the fact that there are 360,000 NCAA student athletes...

AND THEY REPEATED THEM AT THE HOBEY BAKER AWARDS SHOW!!!

I want to know what happens to an issue like this - does it just go under the rug?

In Olympic figure skating they would give you a second gold medal.

Finally got to watch the game. The goal should not have been reversed. That said, if the ref had called it no goal, that shouldn't have been reversed either. I've seen the play dozens of times now, and I really can't tell whether his stick was too high or not.

Well, if you think we were robbed, you should watch the UM-UM game replay. The no goal on Michigan was as bad as ours, except I think it was called no goal on the ice. The replay shows/sounds the whistle happenning before the puck crossed the line. However the puck was moving toward the line at that time (IMHO). So the puck is going toward the net but the ref blows his whistle before it gets there and the goal is disallowed. Makes for some interesting interpretations, a slap shot is called back in midair because the whistle blows too soon, etc.. And that would have been the winning goal.

Yes, I'm biased, having also gone to UM, but take a look for yourself.

Go to www.ncaa.org.

Navigate to the 2003 Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules.

Read Appendix C, the Video Replay Policies and Procedures.

Answer your own questions.

Jim Hyla '67 wrote: The replay shows/sounds the whistle happenning before the puck crossed the line.

I understand the rule, because it can't be any other way - the whistle has to be a rigid line. But I still think back to Andison's "goal" in the 1990 ECAC semis against RPI and cringe.

Arthur Mintz said[Q]Go to [www.ncaa.org].

Navigate to the 2003 Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules.

Read Appendix C, the Video Replay Policies and Procedures.

Answer your own questions.[/Q]I agree the rules are there, but the interpretation was that it was conclusive, and as I said on another topic I, and many others, can't see the conclusiveness by the TV replays. They could end this by showing the supposed definative replay that they had acess to. However as I also stated, that's like ever hearing Nixon's secret plan to end the war.

BRA said[Q]Jim Hyla '67 wrote: The replay shows/sounds the whistle happenning before the puck crossed the line.
I understand the rule, because it can't be any other way - the whistle has to be a rigid line. But I still think back to Andison's "goal" in the 1990 ECAC semis against RPI and cringe.[/Q]I agree that that is the way it has to be. My point, poorly written, was that looking at it, a UM fan would be pissed at the ref, and that it even had to go to replay.

Sitting with some of the UNH fans who reviewed the goal back in their hotels, I heard the following explanation:

If ANY part of the stick is above '4 when contact is made, it is high-sticking and not a goal. Apparently the blade was "clearly" above '4 feet, even if the shaft was not.

Grr...

Bullshit!!! A few nights ago in the NHL playoffs a guy batted the puck into the net. He hit his stick down against the crossbar, but contacted the puck below the crossbar. The goal stood. Barry Melrose even talked about how it was ok for a part of the stick to be above four feet as long as the part that contacts the puck is below for feet. It was not high sticking for the last time!!!

Stewart Wight wrote:

Sitting with some of the UNH fans who reviewed the goal back in their hotels, I heard the following explanation:

If ANY part of the stick is above '4 when contact is made, it is high-sticking and not a goal. Apparently the blade was "clearly" above '4 feet, even if the shaft was not.

There's been a discussion of this on Hockey-L, but apparently that interpretation is no longer listed in the rulebook. At any rate, it seems bizarre, since that means if Bâby were to hold his stick vertically for some reason and tip a puck at ice level, it would be considered to have been played with a high stick.

[lists.maine.edu]

Jim,

I am pretty sure that Arthur's comment was directed at me (asking, earlier, what the official rule on review of the play is... is it like the NFL where it has to be 100% conclusive?).

I was a bit preoccupied at work Friday and didn't really have time to look it up (or read eLF, for that matter, though I did ). Per Arthur's request, the answer to my question is that yes, the evidence has to be absolutely conclusive to overturn the decision on the ice.

I sure hope that the angle we didn't see on ESPN2 was THAT conclusive; according to Bob Norton (during the second game, I think) the review official saw this phantom angle only at the end of the (very long, but not enough time to show us the same angle) 5-minute break and concluded immediately that the puck was high-sticked in. Maybe they got it from the ref-cam that we saw in the other games but not in the Cornell game. Or perhaps they needed 5 minutes to do a bunch of trigonometry.

When does the Red/White countdown start?

Chris

[www.ncaa.org]

Rule is vague... Look in the index (section 6-18?) to find info on highsticking... it only says a goal shall be disallowed if the puck is played by a stick held over 4 feet... nothing is specified about whether over 4 feet does or does not refer to our specific case...