Did anyone else think that SCSU's potentially tying 3rd goal should have counted?
There are people on the Scores thread saying it was a good call but a stupid rule.
I don't have the video, so I have no idea either way. (Though the UM announcers are such a-holes I would have loved to hear them cry...)
Ok, I wasn't watching/listening, etc - what happened? what rule? and why are they a-holes? :-)
I'm listening to the student station and they said it was in and the crease foul was no where near the action, but that he was in the crease. As was said on USCHO it's a stupid rule which should be dumped, but it is a rule. So, no goal.
Yeah, I brought up the point about the rule, and how it was changed a couple years back in the NHL (at the same time as the crease shortening, IIRC).
The call I guess had to be made, but the crease violation had no bearing on the goal. The puck came from the near post, and the creast violation was at the far post, where no players were (except the violator).
yeah, maybe it was a technically good call. . .but i thought they were way more screwed from the call the ref made that their power play goal was during the 5 on 4 and not the 5 on 3, when it clearly was during the 5 on 3 and the ref took his sweet bloody time blowing the whistle. that cost scsu a momentum filled power play that could have been very helpful.
wasn't the ref the ECACs very own Hansen?
Couldn't watch the game in my hotel in Worcester so I was confined to a choppy audio feed of the SCSU radio feed. The play-by-play guy was mystified as to why they were reviewing the apparent tying goal and stated that it will be a goal and I'm putting it on the scoresheet. Then reality set in, goal waved off, and he had a look at the video monitor and agreed that it was a correct call. But he did make it sound as if the player in the crease wasn't even near where the apparent goal was scored from and was not interfering with the play in any way.
Then there's the misfire by the Hobey Baker candidate on a breakaway that again could have tied the game. Was it as much of a wide open net as it sounded??? Described as deking Blackburn down then sending the shot wide of an open net...
Despite the unpopular, but correct, call it seems like SCSU had their chances.
The net was quite open for Hartigan to deposit the rubber disk into it. The puck rolled off his stick after he got Blackburn down.
He could have/should have made that shot.
The crease call seemed to follow the rule as stated, but the skaters were at the edge of the crease and not interfering with the goalie or his view of what was happening.
I was most bothered that the on-ice officials didn't object to the clearly-biased operation of the clock. SCSU was screwed out of a power play, and time was allowed to run off the clock in other cases. I think the idea of home ice for a team in the NCAAs is very unfair - fighting the fans AND the clock operator is a big disadvantage.
Ken '71
According to posters on the USCHO board, SCSU got another power play right after that. They had their chances, they didn't capatilize. All of this talk reminds me of our game against Hahvahd. Michigan all around played better. Sure, SCSU can complain, but they didn't deserve to win that game and they had plenty of chances.
This coming from someone who didn't see/hear the game, but that seems to be the USCHO consensus.
-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03
The guy on the far side from the shot was clearly in the crease, so it should have been No Goal. The guy out front, who was more in the play, was borderline, and I don't know if he would've been called, but the guy on the far side, who had nothing to do with the play, was so clearly in the crease that they had no choice after looking at the replay.
The officials made the right called based on the rule. But the rule is IMO too strict. The NHL rule that allows the ref discretion to say that the player had no affect on the play is better.