Friday Game Thread: Cornell 0 vs. Colgate 2 Final

[HockeyGuy4]

Point well stated, i agree with you 100%, stupidity on Bitz's behalf

[jtwcornell91]

Beav wrote:

Gimme a break, Bitz butt-ended the guy, I was sitting at the top of Section O (not because Im a Colgate fan, but because its the only place I could get tickets) and I saw the butt-end into the gut of the Colgate player.  Whether he punched him or not, dont do that stupid stuff, and especially not right in front of the ref.

Is butt-ending an automatic DQ?  I thought those sorts of egregious fouls were usually 5+a game misconduct.

[Beav]

yes, i think so.  butt ending  is an automatic DQ.  But, Bitz was actually given the penalty for "excessive roughness" I think, which is also an automatic DQ (http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2004/2004_ice_hockey_rules.pdf).

[chris \'06]

i just can't call the officiating fair last. i agree some of the calls against 'gate weren't even really penalties. what that shows me is that these were make up calls. anytime you have to throw make up calls out there you've let the game get out of hand already.

for instance hansen calls a touch penalty on glover in the first. then o'byrne boards some guy and you have to call it. so don't call the little foul in the first place, let the guys play. now cornell is down two men when it should really only have been one.

and some of 'gate's penaties came during cornell penalty kills negating any man advantage, including the last powerplay a whoping 5.7 seconds of a 5 minute major that amounted to the 7th of the 0 for 7

[Josh '99]

Beav wrote:
Gimme a break, Bitz butt-ended the guy, I was sitting at the top of Section O (not because Im a Colgate fan, but because its the only place I could get tickets) and I saw the butt-end into the gut of the Colgate player.  Whether he punched him or not, dont do that stupid stuff, and especially not right in front of the ref.

If it was, as you say, a blatant butt-end in front of Hansen, then why didn't he call it butt-ending?

[Beav]

gee, great point.  maybe the ref saw Bitz being excessively rough instead of butt-ending.  maybe there is a blurry line between excessive roughness and buttending, ya think? it really matters, doesnt it?

[Pete]

[Q] Bitz butt-ended the guy, I was sitting at the top of Section O (not because Im a Colgate fan, but because its the only place I could get tickets) and I saw the butt-end into the gut of the Colgate player. [/Q]

Thanks for the input, I guess a differnent view would have helped.  Time Warner Sports needs one of those 360 degree cameras like they have on monday night football. It's nice to know it was at least a legit call.

[Tub(a)]

[q]gee, great point. maybe the ref saw Bitz being excessively rough instead of butt-ending. maybe there is a blurry line between excessive roughness and buttending, ya think? it really matters, doesnt it?[/q]

there isn't a blurry line at all, in fact it's quite distinct. If it was butt-ending, he should call it that, because "excessive roughness" can cover anything. maybe hansen wanted to impress the NCAA with his knowledge of obscure penalties  ::yark::

perhaps I am reading the rules wrong, but the only penalty listed for excessive roughness is disqualification. Does a DQ automatically include a 5 minute major? if it doesn't, Hansen did not follow the rulebook and should have called a buttending.

[Beav]

yes, a DQ automatically includes a major (pg. 36).  

as far as the excessive roughness vs. butt-ending goes, i think it is completely referee discretion.  I can think of 2 cases where you might call excessive roughness during a butt-end.  1 - Excessive roughness implies an intent to injure, whereas butt-ending doesnt necessarily.  2 - If there is other action in addition to a butt-end, like a punch or something.
There are more cases i'm sure.

The point is, the call was legit.   I dont think Bitz meant to do it, but in any case it wasnt a bad call in my opinon.