Quinny @ CU 02/06/15

[ithacat]

The Q defender clearly pushes him into the goalie. Without the push can he make a play on the rebound? If I was a Q fan I would think it was the correct call.

totally disagree- watch the slow mo
video.   The CU player didn't stop himself in time and hit the goalie on his own.  The QU player only pushed our guy deeper into the goalie after our guy was already there.

No goal. Lucky it wasn't a goalie interference penalty on us.

I did and I have a different interpretation. I think if no goal is involved and a penalty is called it would have been on Q. Considering how many times one sees a goalie bowled over with no call that play was contact by spray. Again, I'm not surprised that a Feola crew over turned an on ice call without any evidence.

[Jim Hyla]

Watching the video, I think the refs ultimately made the correct call. What I mean is, I think if the video had been working and they had gone and looked at it and were able to see what we can see on the video, they would have ruled it a no-goal.

That being said, I thought to use what they saw on the video, there had to be conclusive evidence that the ruling on the ice was incorrect, and if it wasn't conclusive, that the ruling on the ice stood. The ref behind the goal was clearly indicating that it was a goal. So how did they have conclusive evidence to overrule the ruling on the ice if there was no video to review?

The ref called the goal because the puck went in, just like a goal judge used to do. However the other ref and the linesmen are out on the ice and look at what's happening with the rest of the players. They saw the goalie interference, or as they said "man in the crease". That's why they went to 2 refs, so the whole ice could be seen. It's no different than if an offsides was called, but not heard, and play went on to a goal. It would have been disallowed, even if a ref called it in.

[upprdeck]

how do you call man in the crease when the puck is in the crease?

[marty]

how do you call man in the crease when the puck is in the crease?

"Who's on first?"

"I don't know."

""Third base! !""

[RichH]

how do you call man in the crease when the puck is in the crease?

https://twitter.com/BT_unassisted/status/563876793070129153

[marty]

Video of the Saturday QPac at Colgate game is being shown on TW Cable in the Capital District as I type.  It is running from 7:30 to 10:00. I just checked online and see that it is also being shown on TW Cable Ithaca 323.

[andyw2100]

Watching the video, I think the refs ultimately made the correct call. What I mean is, I think if the video had been working and they had gone and looked at it and were able to see what we can see on the video, they would have ruled it a no-goal.

That being said, I thought to use what they saw on the video, there had to be conclusive evidence that the ruling on the ice was incorrect, and if it wasn't conclusive, that the ruling on the ice stood. The ref behind the goal was clearly indicating that it was a goal. So how did they have conclusive evidence to overrule the ruling on the ice if there was no video to review?

The ref called the goal because the puck went in, just like a goal judge used to do. However the other ref and the linesmen are out on the ice and look at what's happening with the rest of the players. They saw the goalie interference, or as they said "man in the crease". That's why they went to 2 refs, so the whole ice could be seen. It's no different than if an offsides was called, but not heard, and play went on to a goal. It would have been disallowed, even if a ref called it in.

Sure.

So you're saying all the officials got together and before attempting to review the video that turned out not to exist, had actually ruled it a no-goal on the ice? That makes sense. (If that happened, I didn't see it, as I wasn't there. My daughter had the lead in a musical. Having failed to sell two of my tickets, and having heard about the lengthy review from my other daughter, I made it to Lynah in time for most of the third period, and, of course, the OT.)

[Jim Hyla]

Watching the video, I think the refs ultimately made the correct call. What I mean is, I think if the video had been working and they had gone and looked at it and were able to see what we can see on the video, they would have ruled it a no-goal.

That being said, I thought to use what they saw on the video, there had to be conclusive evidence that the ruling on the ice was incorrect, and if it wasn't conclusive, that the ruling on the ice stood. The ref behind the goal was clearly indicating that it was a goal. So how did they have conclusive evidence to overrule the ruling on the ice if there was no video to review?

The ref called the goal because the puck went in, just like a goal judge used to do. However the other ref and the linesmen are out on the ice and look at what's happening with the rest of the players. They saw the goalie interference, or as they said "man in the crease". That's why they went to 2 refs, so the whole ice could be seen. It's no different than if an offsides was called, but not heard, and play went on to a goal. It would have been disallowed, even if a ref called it in.

Sure.

So you're saying all the officials got together and before attempting to review the video that turned out not to exist, had actually ruled it a no-goal on the ice? That makes sense. (If that happened, I didn't see it, as I wasn't there. My daughter had the lead in a musical. Having failed to sell two of my tickets, and having heard about the lengthy review from my other daughter, I made it to Lynah in time for most of the third period, and, of course, the OT.)

That's sort of what I'm saying. I have no idea if they ruled it no goal before trying to look at the video. However I am saying that the other officials had a question of what I'd rather call goalie interference and decided to check the video. When that wasn't available, they got together, refs and linesmen, and decided no goal.