North Dakota Postgame 1/23

[Robb]

Upon further review, I am still not convinced it was a penalty.  The UND player does have his stick in there, but he also appears to get a bit of hip onto Ross.  If it was the hip that sent Ross sprawling, then that's a legal check on the puck carrier.  If it was the stick, then it's hooking.

Either way, it still looks like Ross was caught off guard.  If he'd been paying more attention, he would have realized the guy was coming from behind and either been stronger on his skates or just flipped the puck out of the zone.

[cbuckser]

Upon further review, I am still not convinced it was a penalty.  The UND player does have his stick in there, but he also appears to get a bit of hip onto Ross.  If it was the hip that sent Ross sprawling, then that's a legal check on the puck carrier.  If it was the stick, then it's hooking.

Either way, it still looks like Ross was caught off guard.  If he'd been paying more attention, he would have realized the guy was coming from behind and either been stronger on his skates or just flipped the puck out of the zone.

These days, a forechecker putting his stick in the puck carrier's midsection is a hook regardless of whether it was the stick or a hip that knocked the puck carrier down.

That said, Nick D'Agostino could have passed the puck to his defense partner, who was in position to receive a D-to-D pass.  As long as Mike Schafer forgets which defenseman turned the puck over and thinks that it should have been a penalty, Nick shouldn't lose ice time over it.

[Trotsky]

If you're caught by surprise you're not going to have time to make that pass, even if you have the presence of mind.  I can't fault Nick on this.

[andyw2100]

I may be in the minority here, but what else is new. I'm also not 100% convinced that it was a penalty.

At the time it happened I wasn't sure, but based on the Lynah outrage I figured everyone else was right, and I just missed it. A friend of mine who sits on the other side of the rink asked me about it on the way out, and I said I wasn't sure. He told me he saw it clealry, and there was no doubt in his mind a penalty should have been called.

Watching the replay over and over, pausing it, etc., it looks like there might have been some inadvertent skate to skate contact that resulted in the fall. There's one frame of the video in particular that shows pretty clearly how the fall started. It looks like the Cornell player is losing the edge on his left skate. It's just not clear if that was from incidental contact, or if the UND's player stick was involved, which of course would make all the difference.

[JasonN95]

I was sitting in section H. The UND player didn't hook him, he laid a cross check into Nick's back. Cross check. Hit from behind. One of those should have been called.

[redice]

I have not watched the video.   So, I'll withhold opinion on the penalty.

But, if after the level of video review that has taken place by you all here, it's still inconclusive, wouldn't it seem that the referees absolutely should have called for a video replay during the game?  

To me, therein lies the failure of the on-ice officiating crew.

[Al DeFlorio]

I was sitting in section H. The UND player didn't hook him, he laid a cross check into Nick's back. Cross check. Hit from behind. One of those should have been called.

That's exactly how it looks to me on the video.

[JasonN95]

I have not watched the video.   So, I'll withhold opinion on the penalty.

But, if after the level of video review that has taken place by you all here, it's still inconclusive, wouldn't it seem that the referees absolutely should have called for a video replay during the game?  

To me, therein lies the failure of the on-ice officiating crew.

The officials cannot use video replay to consider calling a penalty. And the officials would not have had this video anyways; my understanding is the video they can look at for reviewing goals is the birds-eye camera set in the rafters directly above the net (although, in this case, the action might have been in that camera's field of view). Part of what is making things inconclusive for people looking at video here is that it is a wide field shot and the net happens to be partially obscuring the camera's view of what the ND player did.

[Jim Hyla]

I have not watched the video.   So, I'll withhold opinion on the penalty.

But, if after the level of video review that has taken place by you all here, it's still inconclusive, wouldn't it seem that the referees absolutely should have called for a video replay during the game?  

To me, therein lies the failure of the on-ice officiating crew.

The officials cannot use video replay to consider calling a penalty. And the officials would not have had this video anyways; my understanding is the video they can look at for reviewing goals is the birds-eye camera set in the rafters directly above the net (although, in this case, the action might have been in that camera's field of view). Part of what is making things inconclusive for people looking at video here is that it is a wide field shot and the net happens to be partially obscuring the camera's view of what the ND player did.

And that is why it's a penalty. The ND player came from behind and knocked him down. There was not room, because the net is there,to come from the side. Regardless of what you want to call, he got hit from behind and lost the puck. I'm in L and screamed when I saw no call. If you allow that around the goal, all hell will break out.