Video clips of the @Union game

[marty]

[quote Jordan 04][quote marty][quote Jordan 04]wow, what a horrendous no-goal call.[/quote]

I will try to post a better video clip.  You really can't tell jack from that youtube drek.[/quote]

How so?  Seems like you can tell a lot.[/quote]

In that clip you couldn't see the net being knocked up an inch or two and then back an inch or two before the goal.  Would you like me to post the clip so you can see ::pop:: it?

[marty]

[quote Jim Hyla]
Please, there is no conspiracy. The TW broadcast was of excellent quality to see this. End of argument. Let's move on to next week.**][/quote]

I agree completely with Jim. We both saw the full video (entire game) from Time Warner.  Off the mooring - no goal.

[Beeeej]

[quote marty][quote Jordan 04][quote marty][quote Jordan 04]wow, what a horrendous no-goal call.[/quote]

I will try to post a better video clip.  You really can't tell jack from that youtube drek.[/quote]

How so?  Seems like you can tell a lot.[/quote]

In that clip you couldn't see the net being knocked up an inch or two and then back an inch or two before the goal.  Would you like me to post the clip so you can see ::pop:: it?[/quote]

Yes.  Please.

[ebilmes]

From looking at the angle around 4:58, seems the net is just barely up on one side when the puck goes in. No players next to the net except for the goalie. Seems to me the Union players/ref must have only noticed that the net was off after the goal, and then used that as basis for calling it off. Still a bad call, in my opinion.

Agree with JasonN95 that a penalty should have been called on the Carefoot hit, but no, there was no penalty.

[RichH]

[quote Jim Hyla]This is my post from the postgame thread. We don't need to start this all over again do we? On the TW TV broadcast the net was off, no question.[/quote]

It took several viewings and subsequent squintings, but I think I see where it moved?  I sure didn't see any movement watching in the arena.  Since there were no players other than the goaltender anywhere near the goal, I'm surprised anyone picked that up.  I mean, even the NHL looks the other way in the Stanley Cup finals.

The way I see it, there's a problem with the peg system in Achilles.  I remember thinking this from years past.  If the net is breathed on, it goes sailing off to the boards.  If I didn't know better, I would have guessed the goal was resting loose on a shallow slot-shaped depression carved into the ice.  The same goes for Meehan.   There's no way a tap of a goaltender's skate should dislodge the net.  Carefoot's assailant flying into it?  OK.  But not a tap or brush of a skate.

I don't know...maybe some people make the same argument why MLB grounds crews get to build up and slant the baselines a certain way to favor bunts to go fair or foul.  But I think there should be some sort of standard as to how the net is attached to the ice.

I'm going to stop short of saying that the way the rule is worded also needs to be changed, because then you get into the whole grey area of leaving even more things up to referee discretion.  If the goaltender deliberately dislodges the net, then the goal stands.  I think we can all agree it wasn't deliberate in this case.

[RichH]

[quote ebilmes]Agree with JasonN95 that a penalty should have been called on the Carefoot hit, but no, there was no penalty.[/quote]

Well, as someone who was parking at the time of the goal, I can tell you that the Union radio guys had speculated that there would've been a penalty called had the goal not counted.  Since the goal was scored immediately after the hit, no penalty was assessed.  Call it an extremely abbreviated delayed penalty.

Since I have the document open, I found this on page 122:

[quote NCAA rulebook Interpretations Rule 4 Section 9]A.R. 4: Team A is at full strength. Team B has a minor penalty on B1 and is shorthanded. During play, A1 commits an infraction and a delayed whistle is called. During play, Team B scores. What is the on-ice strength? RULING: Team A remains on the power play. Team B's goal nullifies the penalty to Team A.[/quote]

Also, FYI, http://www.collegehockeystats.net always list complete box scores, which include penalties.

[Dpperk29]

from my quick viewingof the youtube video... I am not sure where a penatly would be called on the carefoot hit. the elbow was down. it wasn't from behind. it might have been a a charge, but I cannot tell.

[Omie]

The lack of defense from our team? Because Scrivens played pretty well.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote Dpperk29]from my quick viewingof the youtube video... I am not sure where a penatly would be called on the carefoot hit. the elbow was down. it wasn't from behind. it might have been a a charge, but I cannot tell.[/quote]Yeah, I think the concern was that he left his feet when making the hit. Again on the TW with slo-mo it looks like his left skate was still on the ice at the time of contact. But he was sure doing a jumping motion just prior to the hit. So it's iffy.

Boy what you end up doing when you have a snow day, but can't get to the slopes.::bang::

[Omie]

Even so, the ref F. Murphy (who was terrible) did not notice such movement, nobody on the ice had either. The ref then relied on the word of the goalie that just got scored on as sufficient basis for his call and it took like 2 mins of discussion for him to make the no-goal call. It was terrible call period and Murphy was terrible as well.

[redhair34]

[quote Omie]The lack of defense from our team? Because Scrivens played pretty well.[/quote]

The impression I got in person and now on video was that the first goal and especially the third goal were soft.

[Omie]

The first goal he was being screened by one of our guys. The third goal might have been somewhat soft but it was also right after the psychological team breakdown after our own disallowed goal. Even so, to say that goaltending was the problem Friday night is using Scrivens as a scapegoat; he had a 91.2 save percentage and kept us in a game where there was no defense except on PK and the offense was iffy at best.

When you get outshot 34-25 by Union the problem is not the goaltending.

[Dpperk29]

[quote Jim Hyla][quote Dpperk29]from my quick viewingof the youtube video... I am not sure where a penatly would be called on the carefoot hit. the elbow was down. it wasn't from behind. it might have been a a charge, but I cannot tell.[/quote]Yeah, I think the concern was that he left his feet when making the hit. Again on the TW with slo-mo it looks like his left skate was still on the ice at the time of contact. But he was sure doing a jumping motion just prior to the hit. So it's iffy.

Boy what you end up doing when you have a snow day, but can't get to the slopes.::bang::[/quote]

I was thinking more the three steps part of charging not the leaving the feet. it's hard to believe that he caught him withough being in an all out sprint. but yeah, it's a very iffy situation. but because cornell scored, it nullified any potential penalty anyway.

[redhair34]

[quote Omie]The first goal he was being screened by one of our guys. The third goal might have been somewhat soft but it was also right after the psychological team breakdown after our own disallowed goal. Even so, to say that goaltending was the problem Friday night is using Scrivens as a scapegoat; he had a 91.2 save percentage and kept us in a game where there was no defense except on PK and the offense was iffy at best.

When you get outshot 34-25 by Union the problem is not the goaltending.[/quote]

You are putting words in my mouth.  I never said Scrivens was "the problem."  But, in my opinion, he wasn't very good.  The shot totals were very misleading.  As poorly as we played in our defensive zone, I remember him only facing around 5 quality chances.

[Omie]

The numbers for Union were not inflated as were the ones for RPI. Our defense was basically unexistent Friday. Even if we use your numbers of quality scoring chances we allowed for Union that is way more than what we allow normally. We allowed none on Saturday.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, sorry. My response was more in the general sense of the team having played poorly yet the only getting singled out the majority of the time is Scrivens who played well (not great but well).