Where is Esposito and Gotovets?
Playing an away game at home this evening. Officiating has been more than suspect.
Quote from: flyersgolfPlaying an away game at home this evening. Officiating has been more than suspect.
First two Cornell penalties were obvious. Jason called them both immediately. Only questionable non-call I've seen was the Miller non-call. Hitting someone high 15 seconds into the game is not exactly a bright move by a captain to start the game.
Well the refs certainly evened it out in the second, though no goals came of it.
Quote from: flyersgolfWhere is Esposito and Gotovets?
In Saturday's post-game interview Ben Syer said "We had some illness here this week" but was not specific.
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.
All the post game activities started because of the shot taken on Iles well after the buzzer. One of the linesman went after the guy and pushed him up against the glass, presumably to stop anything else from coming of it, but that apparently was not enough.
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.
Quote from: jtn27We'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.
I saw McCarron throwing some shoves to the chest when Colgate guys were still offering him their hands in the line, so I think he might be getting some discipline as well.
From CHN boxscore:
Overtime (5:00)
Timeout - Cornell 4:10.8
CLG-9 Thomas Larkin (2-Roughing) 5:00
CLG-10 Thomas Larkin (10-Misconduct) 5:00
CLG-11 Tyson Spink (2-Shooting after the whistle) 5:00
COR-9 Dustin Mowrey (2-Roughing) 5:00
COR-10 Dustin Mowrey (10-Misconduct) 5:00
End of Game
Looks like only Mowrey was penalized for Cornell, and that there were no disqualifications.
Quote from: jkahnQuote from: flyersgolfWhere is Esposito and Gotovets?
In Saturday's post-game interview Ben Syer said "We had some illness here this week" but was not specific.
I heard that Esposito was hurt in practice last week. Should play next weekend.
Submitted without comment. Cornell is #3 in PWR. Dartmouth is #1 (http://www.uscho.com/rankings/pairwise-rankings/d-i-men/).
Quote from: andyw2100The 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.
Mihalik also fell over on his back as they were leaving the ice. Learn to skate, dude.
I think Syer was shouting at some of their players, and Schafer had words with Vaughan. It would have been great to see those two take their jackets off.
What a GREAT freaking tie. Down 2-0, chippy game, made it back and almost won. Still no losses. Proud of the team tonight.
Quote from: flyersgolfWhere is Esposito and Gotovets?
According to College Hockey News, Espo "had a setback in practice this week."
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: flyersgolfWhere is Esposito and Gotovets?
According to College Hockey News, Espo "had a setback in practice this week."
Concussion vs CC.
Back next week.
::nut::
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: flyersgolfWhere 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).
did anyone actually watch the game to see the deal with the waived off goal? sounded like the whistle blew way after the puck was in the net, it didnt look like the goalie had the puck so why would the whistle be blowing? just wondered what it looked like on video?
Quote from: rediceQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: flyersgolfWhere 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.
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
Quote from: dag14Broadcast 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.
Quote from: jtn27Quote from: rediceQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: flyersgolfWhere 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
Also, who was the 3rd string goalie on the bench without a name on his jersey? Someone they pulled off the club team?
For those of us who weren't there, would anyone care to describe, in full, what happened during the handshakes?
I'm thrilled to be 3-0-1. Iles is putting up some good numbers.
Quote from: CUrafterAlso, who was the 3rd string goalie on the bench without a name on his jersey? Someone they pulled off the club team?
Chris Hogan, call up from the club team. http://www.cornellbigred.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=33585&path=mhockey
Quote from: css228Quote from: dag14Broadcast 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.
Quote from: martyQuote from: css228Quote from: dag14Broadcast 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.
Yes, but if the puck was in the net before the whistle blew (which it appeared to be), he had to have disallowed it on intent.
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?
Quote from: upprdecki 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?
Fortunately we have the definitive source for review. No doubt that the HD Redcast archive will put the issue to rest.::rolleyes::
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.
Quote from: DafatoneThe 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.
Well, then the Colgate announcer didn't listen to Arthur, who relayed (from the ref) that the whistle had blown the play dead.
Quote from: CUrafterQuote from: jtn27Quote from: rediceQuote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: flyersgolfWhere 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
While wandering around Colgate's campus (and when going in and out of Starr), we saw Gotovets and Esposito wandering around, so unless he got sick for Saturday's game or it was some noncontagious form of sickness, I would rule out sickness. Also, re: Esposito, https://twitter.com/BThomasIthaca/status/264876874025533440
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.
Quote from: bnr24As 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 (http://www.cornellbigred.com/news/2012/11/3/MICE_1103120629.aspx?elinkdata=164666)
Quote from: 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.
Quote from: David HardingQuote from: bnr24As 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 (http://www.cornellbigred.com/news/2012/11/3/MICE_1103120629.aspx?elinkdata=164666)
Quote from: 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.
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.
Quote from: bnr24I 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.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: bnr24I 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.
Well said.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: bnr24I 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.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: bnr24I 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.)
Quote from: bnr24It 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.
After being lazy for the past few weeks/games, I actually uploaded the goals against Colgate:
Bardreau (PPG):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WyPSjaYafg
D'Agostino:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ACtEcmXp5I
España (because the España videos get more views than the goals by a wide margin):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwQGwIGaXBY
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: bnr24I 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? = ^ . ^ =
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.
Quote from: jtn27When 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.
Quote from: sah67Quote from: bnr24It 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.
Misconducts issued at 5:00 of overtime are idistinguishable from game misconducts. There's no reason to make the scorekeeper write out the extra four characters when the game is already finished.
I often wondeer what is the purpose of issuing penalties when the game is over. Except to bulk up a players penalty minute stat. DQs that happen at the end I understand but not anything else.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: jtn27When 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?
Quote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: bnr24I 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. :) )
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: bnr24I 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. :) )
The puck is in the goal until you expand the wave function by having both a ref and a non-ref observe it. The "intent to blow the whistle" rule is like a quantum eraser.
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.
Quote from: Josh '99Quote from: KeithKQuote from: jtn27When 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.
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2012/11/01_canisius_forward_suspended.php
Quote from: martyQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: bnr24I 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? = ^ . ^ =
Chris Heisenberg had something to say about it.
Quote from: upprdeckthe 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.
I don't really think there is a much better solution than what we have now. That is unless we have some sort of electronic puck and system that detects when it's over the line. Then the ref can only worry about keeping it in play. Instant replay is not always all that accurate and would we have to stop play and check the replay every time a player said the puck was in? Having eyes on the goal, at least to me, is useful. I don't like the idea of having both refs come down low and I don't think hand signals would work well. You'd have to take your eyes off the puck to see if there was a hand signal. So, I think we have what we have, at least untill someone comes up with a better puck.
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.
Quote from: dag14Those 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.
I think I see where you're going with this. All hockey uniforms should be like this: (http://fullinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/invisibility-cloak2-300x225.jpg)
From Ken Schott's blog: (http://www.dailygazette.com/weblogs/schott/2012/nov/05/college-hockey-slap-schotts-2012-13-week-6-union-d/)
QuoteThe 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."
Quote from: RichHQuote from: Josh '99Quote from: KeithKQuote from: jtn27When 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.
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2012/11/01_canisius_forward_suspended.php
Yes, the league office probably has the power to suspend for something unpunished during the game. But this is pretty uncommon. The presumption should be that there won't be a suspension wihtout an on-ice DQ.
Yes, there may be the occasional situation where we all saw our guy litrally get decapitated by the enemy and Murphy or Pierre looked the other way. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
7 games? That must have been one helluva hit.
Quote from: dag14Those 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.
This is true. I've reffed much, MUCH slower and less competitive hockey than this, and it's still hard not to lose sight of the puck from time to time.
I dont think the issue was losing sight of the puck as much as it was the whistle being blown so far after the puck had clearly gone in the net and that the ref skated so far after the play to then decide to blow it dead.