Gate @ Cornell

[ftyuv]

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.    )

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.

[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.

[RichH]

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.

http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2012/11/01_canisius_forward_suspended.php

[Swampy]

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?  = ^ . ^ =

Chris Heisenberg had something to say about it.

[Jim Hyla]

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.

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.

[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.

[ftyuv]

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.

I think I see where you're going with this. All hockey uniforms should be like this:

[Jim Hyla]

From Ken Schott's blog:

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."

[KeithK]

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.

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.

[Trotsky]

7 games?  That must have been one helluva hit.

[Josh '99]

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.

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.

[upprdeck]

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.