SLU

[Chris '03]

The way I saw it, the ref signaled (emphatically) for the penalty shot before the review. The review was to make sure there wasn't a goal before the penalty was called. During the review the puck was at center for the shot and both teams were on the bench.

[French Rage]

Great to see Cornell get a win over a top 20 team!  Record against the current top 20 in the USCHO poll is a more than respectable 1-1-2.

After the game, the Cornell Hockey twitter feed posted a picture of Dwight Schrute jumping in the air and pumping his fist.  I couldn't help but think that if they wanted to illustrate celebrating a Cornell win, they picked the wrong character from "The Office".

He did consider applying once though; I think our role in the development of modern cabbage impressed him.

[RichH]

I couldn't help but think that if they wanted to illustrate celebrating a Cornell win, they picked the wrong character from "The Office".

I think they also posted a video of a "Jim" reaction after the Brown win, so they may just be setting it up for later.

[RichH]

The way I saw it, the ref signaled (emphatically) for the penalty shot before the review. The review was to make sure there wasn't a goal before the penalty was called. During the review the puck was at center for the shot and both teams were on the bench.

I agree with this. I didn't explicitly see the standard signal for a penalty shot (wrists crossed above the head), but the pointing was emphatic and clearly not at the puck.

[andyw2100]

From the radio broadcast it sounded like they had decided to award a penalty shot before going in to look at the video to determine whether a goal had been scored.

The way I saw it, the ref signaled (emphatically) for the penalty shot before the review. The review was to make sure there wasn't a goal before the penalty was called. During the review the puck was at center for the shot and both teams were on the bench.

Interesting, then, that the recap got it wrong.

I saw the ref behind the goal kind of pointing and gesticulating wildly out toward the front of the goal, which confused me. He clearly wasn't indicating a goal, but he also didn't put his hands over his head to indicate a penalty shot. (If he did, I completely missed it, and I'm pretty sure most people at Lynah did as well, because there was no reaction typical of a penalty shot being awarded to the opposing team.)

[sah67]

I saw the ref behind the goal kind of pointing and gesticulating wildly out toward the front of the goal, which confused me. He clearly wasn't indicating a goal, but he also didn't put his hands over his head to indicate a penalty shot. (If he did, I completely missed it, and I'm pretty sure most people at Lynah did as well, because there was no reaction typical of a penalty shot being awarded to the opposing team.)

He was pointing to center ice, not the front of the goal: that's the NHL-style signal for a penalty shot. I think college officials do occasionally skip the crossed-arms signal. It was pretty clear to me that penalty shot was the indication before they even reviewed anything.

[Jim Hyla]

I saw the ref behind the goal kind of pointing and gesticulating wildly out toward the front of the goal, which confused me. He clearly wasn't indicating a goal, but he also didn't put his hands over his head to indicate a penalty shot. (If he did, I completely missed it, and I'm pretty sure most people at Lynah did as well, because there was no reaction typical of a penalty shot being awarded to the opposing team.)

He was pointing to center ice, not the front of the goal: that's the NHL-style signal for a penalty shot. I think college officials do occasionally skip the crossed-arms signal. It was pretty clear to me that penalty shot was the indication before they even reviewed anything.

That's exactly right. He pointed to center ice and then down to the player in the crease.

[andyw2100]

He was pointing to center ice, not the front of the goal: that's the NHL-style signal for a penalty shot. I think college officials do occasionally skip the crossed-arms signal. It was pretty clear to me that penalty shot was the indication before they even reviewed anything.

That's exactly right. He pointed to center ice and then down to the player in the crease.

It's good that so many of you were properly able to interpret what was going on. I was confused by trying to discern the subtle differences (made by a ref standing behind the net) between pointing into the goal, pointing towards center ice, and pointing to the crease. With at least half a dozen players also obstructing my view, it was less than crystal clear what the ref was indicating. I was confused. Apparently quite a few other people at Lynah were also confused, including whomever it was that wrote the recap for the Cornell web site. That recap probably wound up confusing a lot more people, who, like me, then questioned a rule they thought they understood. (I really didn't think refs could look at a replay of a goal to decide goal or no-goal, and then call penalties after the fact, based on something they saw when reviewing the video, but that's exactly what the recap indicated had happened. I assume I am still correct about that.)

What would have eliminated much, if not all of the confusion would have been the very clear and correct hand gesture indicating penalty shot from the ref. For whatever reason he chose not to make it, and it's water under the bridge at this point, but it really would have been a lot clearer than all the pointing.

[Jim Hyla]

He was pointing to center ice, not the front of the goal: that's the NHL-style signal for a penalty shot. I think college officials do occasionally skip the crossed-arms signal. It was pretty clear to me that penalty shot was the indication before they even reviewed anything.

That's exactly right. He pointed to center ice and then down to the player in the crease.

It's good that so many of you were properly able to interpret what was going on. I was confused by trying to discern the subtle differences (made by a ref standing behind the net) between pointing into the goal, pointing towards center ice, and pointing to the crease. With at least half a dozen players also obstructing my view, it was less than crystal clear what the ref was indicating. I was confused. Apparently quite a few other people at Lynah were also confused, including whomever it was that wrote the recap for the Cornell web site. That recap probably wound up confusing a lot more people, who, like me, then questioned a rule they thought they understood. (I really didn't think refs could look at a replay of a goal to decide goal or no-goal, and then call penalties after the fact, based on something they saw when reviewing the video, but that's exactly what the recap indicated had happened. I assume I am still correct about that.)

What would have eliminated much, if not all of the confusion would have been the very clear and correct hand gesture indicating penalty shot from the ref. For whatever reason he chose not to make it, and it's water under the bridge at this point, but it really would have been a lot clearer than all the pointing.

Agree with all of this, it was confusing at the time and a definite penalty shot indication would have made it clearer.

[ugarte]

He was pointing to center ice, not the front of the goal: that's the NHL-style signal for a penalty shot. I think college officials do occasionally skip the crossed-arms signal. It was pretty clear to me that penalty shot was the indication before they even reviewed anything.

That's exactly right. He pointed to center ice and then down to the player in the crease.

It's good that so many of you were properly able to interpret what was going on. I was confused by trying to discern the subtle differences (made by a ref standing behind the net) between pointing into the goal, pointing towards center ice, and pointing to the crease. With at least half a dozen players also obstructing my view, it was less than crystal clear what the ref was indicating. I was confused. Apparently quite a few other people at Lynah were also confused, including whomever it was that wrote the recap for the Cornell web site. That recap probably wound up confusing a lot more people, who, like me, then questioned a rule they thought they understood. (I really didn't think refs could look at a replay of a goal to decide goal or no-goal, and then call penalties after the fact, based on something they saw when reviewing the video, but that's exactly what the recap indicated had happened. I assume I am still correct about that.)

What would have eliminated much, if not all of the confusion would have been the very clear and correct hand gesture indicating penalty shot from the ref. For whatever reason he chose not to make it, and it's water under the bridge at this point, but it really would have been a lot clearer than all the pointing.

Agree with all of this, it was confusing at the time and a definite penalty shot indication would have made it clearer.

Since Schafer's veins stayed inside his neck I assume that it was clearer on the ice.

[BearLover]

St. Lawrence pulled its goalie at least a minute later than it was supposed to.

¿Where is the goal pulling rule found? Are you pulling my leg or....?

Hayton went off with only 36 seconds to go. From the radio it didn't sound like we pinned him in net by controlling the puck either. That's probably 30-60 seconds later than typical I think.

We didn't pin him--the puck was in our end for nearly all of those 30-60 seconds.  

marty: Most teams pull their goalie with over one minute remaining, and studies have shown they should pull their goalies much earlier than that: http://people.stat.sfu.ca/~tim/papers/goalie.pdf

(EDITED back to original post)

[andyw2100]

St. Lawrence pulled its goalie at least a minute later than it was supposed to.

¿Where is the goal pulling rule found? Are you pulling my leg or....?

Hayton went off with only 36 seconds to go. From the radio it didn't sound like we pinned him in net by controlling the puck either. That's probably 30-60 seconds later than typical I think.

We didn't pin him--the puck was in our end for nearly all of those 30-60 seconds.  

marty: Most teams pull their goalie with over one minute remaining, and studies have shown they should pull their goalies much earlier than that: http://people.stat.sfu.ca/~tim/papers/goalie.pdf

Wasn't there a neutral zone faceoff some time during that 30-60 seconds before he was pulled? As I've demonstrated in another thread, apparently my memory sucks, but I don't recall thinking they were pulling him late. My recollection is that they pulled him as soon as they gained control in our end after there was less than a minute to go.

[ugarte]

St. Lawrence pulled its goalie at least a minute later than it was supposed to.

¿Where is the goal pulling rule found? Are you pulling my leg or....?

Hayton went off with only 36 seconds to go. From the radio it didn't sound like we pinned him in net by controlling the puck either. That's probably 30-60 seconds later than typical I think.

We didn't pin him--the puck was in our end for nearly all of those 30-60 seconds.  

marty: Most teams pull their goalie with over one minute remaining, and studies have shown they should pull their goalies much earlier than that: http://people.stat.sfu.ca/~tim/papers/goalie.pdf

Wasn't there a neutral zone faceoff some time during that 30-60 seconds before he was pulled? As I've demonstrated in another thread, apparently my memory sucks, but I don't recall thinking they were pulling him late. My recollection is that they pulled him as soon as they gained control in our end after there was less than a minute to go.

On the radio they seemed surprised that SLU was taking so long to pull the goalie.