UNH 6 Cornell 2 postgame

[Killer]

With you on this one.  I was unhappy to discover that a number of my friends who'd been sitting in another section left before the game ended and were already in a local restaurant, long before we departed the arena.  I let them have it when we arrived.  It won't impact our friendship, but that pipeline they've always been able to count on for tickets to Lynah East may hinge on a promise to never repeat that behavior.

[Dafatone]

I still think it's a horrible rule to use replay in that situation. If there's no call on the ice by either the ref or the goal judge there isn't a call to confirm or overturn so they should just play on.

This isn't just a case of sour grapes.  We didn't lose because of that goal.  We lost because of how we reacted to it.  Air Force did lose a game in OT a coupe years back and I was just as convinced then.

It's worth reviewing to see if it's a goal.  It's NOT worth taking 5 whole minutes to get the clock exactly right.  That replay should have taken 30 seconds.  I won't say that stopping play hurt us.  Stopping play for 5 whole minutes may have.

[KeithK]

I still think it's a horrible rule to use replay in that situation. If there's no call on the ice by either the ref or the goal judge there isn't a call to confirm or overturn so they should just play on.

This isn't just a case of sour grapes.  We didn't lose because of that goal.  We lost because of how we reacted to it.  Air Force did lose a game in OT a coupe years back and I was just as convinced then.

Actually, you can argue that there is always a call. This time the call was no goal, the replay was used to confirm or overturn.

On ice, no goal, play on. Play stops, let's review our call, overturn.

What's wrong with that? It got the correct result and isn't any different than:

goal, play stops, review, no goal, it was kicked in.

There is no call on the ice. IMO a non-call isn't a a call.

It's the fact that play could continue for an arbitrarily long period of time before review that makes the difference.  if there's a call on the ice at the moment of controversy then review is minimaly invasive.  Play was stopped anyway. What if play had continued for ten minutes without a whistle before the review? What if the next whistle was a goal by the other team? I know what the rule says - the second goal doesn't count and you rewind he clock if the first one did.  But this kind of backtracking really rubs me the wrong way.

What if the first whistle is for a penalty, lets say for a vicious boarding that merits five minutes.  To be consistent you'd have to say that the penalty never happened if the reviewed goal is allowed.  I don't know if this is what the rules say but it doesn't sit well with me either way.

Referees sometimes make mistakes.  It happens.  This doesn't bother me enough to embrace the use of replay in cases like this. (Although to be honest I'd be perfectly happy without any replay.)

[Jim Hyla]

I still think it's a horrible rule to use replay in that situation. If there's no call on the ice by either the ref or the goal judge there isn't a call to confirm or overturn so they should just play on.

This isn't just a case of sour grapes.  We didn't lose because of that goal.  We lost because of how we reacted to it.  Air Force did lose a game in OT a coupe years back and I was just as convinced then.

Actually, you can argue that there is always a call. This time the call was no goal, the replay was used to confirm or overturn.

On ice, no goal, play on. Play stops, let's review our call, overturn.

What's wrong with that? It got the correct result and isn't any different than:

goal, play stops, review, no goal, it was kicked in.

There is no call on the ice. IMO a non-call isn't a a call.

It's the fact that play could continue for an arbitrarily long period of time before review that makes the difference.  if there's a call on the ice at the moment of controversy then review is minimaly invasive.  Play was stopped anyway. What if play had continued for ten minutes without a whistle before the review? What if the next whistle was a goal by the other team? I know what the rule says - the second goal doesn't count and you rewind he clock if the first one did.  But this kind of backtracking really rubs me the wrong way.

What if the first whistle is for a penalty, lets say for a vicious boarding that merits five minutes.  To be consistent you'd have to say that the penalty never happened if the reviewed goal is allowed.  I don't know if this is what the rules say but it doesn't sit well with me either way.

Referees sometimes make mistakes.  It happens.  This doesn't bother me enough to embrace the use of replay in cases like this. (Although to be honest I'd be perfectly happy without any replay.)

So, how does an official make a no goal call and let the game continue. If he says no goal, but I'm going to review it, is that right? The officials must have thought there was a possibility, otherwise they wouldn't have reviewed it later. What would you have them do if they thought it could have been a goal? Should they have made a call of a goal and stopped play to review it? Or would you rather they just forget about it and then the opposing team can show they were wrong and everyone can beat up on them? Remember, this was not a judgment call (and before you post, I know that everything is a judgment), it was not was his stick in between his feet long enough to be a trip, it was did the puck cross the goal line.

Like most things that involve some form of authority, I guess we'll have to disagree. I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

[Rosey]

I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

Keith is concerned about momentum.  You are concerned about correctness.  I say, why not have both?  Change the rules so that if the puck goes through the net, it's not a goal.  Problem solved.  At least the resolution would be unambiguous.

You know, for that matter, why not make the net and its attachment to the metal much finer so a puck can't possibly fit through, no matter how hard it's fired?

[KeithK]

Like most things that involve some form of authority, I guess we'll have to disagree. I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

that summarizes a lot of our disagreements on many topics. You are very often convinced that we can "get it right" if we try hard enough.  I'm rarely convinced that we can and when you can the cost of "getting it right" frequently exceeds the marginal benefits.

[Jim Hyla]

Like most things that involve some form of authority, I guess we'll have to disagree. I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

that summarizes a lot of our disagreements on many topics. You are very often convinced that we can "get it right" if we try hard enough.  I'm rarely convinced that we can and when you can the cost of "getting it right" frequently exceeds the marginal benefits.

So a goal in a 1-0 game is a marginal benefit?::screwy::

[KeithK]

Like most things that involve some form of authority, I guess we'll have to disagree. I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

that summarizes a lot of our disagreements on many topics. You are very often convinced that we can "get it right" if we try hard enough.  I'm rarely convinced that we can and when you can the cost of "getting it right" frequently exceeds the marginal benefits.

So a goal in a 1-0 game is a marginal benefit?::screwy::

Marginal as in marginal utility, marginal tax rates, etc.

[Jim Hyla]

Like most things that involve some form of authority, I guess we'll have to disagree. I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

that summarizes a lot of our disagreements on many topics. You are very often convinced that we can "get it right" if we try hard enough.  I'm rarely convinced that we can and when you can the cost of "getting it right" frequently exceeds the marginal benefits.

So a goal in a 1-0 game is a marginal benefit?::screwy::

Marginal as in marginal utility, marginal tax rates, etc.

Gee, I thought this discussion was about hockey?

[BigRedHockeyFan]

You know, for that matter, why not make the net and its attachment to the metal much finer so a puck can't possibly fit through, no matter how hard it's fired?

I think there's a trade off between a tight mesh to keep the puck in the goal and an open mesh so visibility is good when looking through the goal.  If you skate behind the net and want to be able to look at the goalies skates, you want the mesh to be open (as do the the guys in front of the net who want to see the puck).  That said, I'm sure some engineer could design something better than a simple net; maybe its used for nostalgic reasons.

[Robb]

You know, for that matter, why not make the net and its attachment to the metal much finer so a puck can't possibly fit through, no matter how hard it's fired?

I think there's a trade off between a tight mesh to keep the puck in the goal and an open mesh so visibility is good when looking through the goal.  If you skate behind the net and want to be able to look at the goalies skates, you want the mesh to be open (as do the the guys in front of the net who want to see the puck).  That said, I'm sure some engineer could design something better than a simple net; maybe its used for nostalgic reasons.

Easy.  Just make the netting from Kevlar instead of Nylon/polyester or whatever they use now.  A Kevlar net would hardly stretch at all when hit with a puck, so the mesh size could be pretty close to the full size of the puck.  

Or we could double the size of the puck - and that way, even Yale's goalies would be able to see it coming!  :-P

[Towerroad]

There is an old bar trick of putting a quarter through a hole in a piece of paper that is about 20% smaller in diameter than the quarter. Fold the paper in half through the diameter and bend to create a gap that is larger than the diameter of the quarter. This is what we have here

The real requirement is that the perimeter of the mesh when stressed must be less than the perimeter of the puck taken at a diameter.

If this happened you might see a puck caught in the netting from time to time.

I also suspect that the spin on the puck had a lot to do with the Fri night net episode.

Sorry, my inner nerd got out of the cage for a moment.

[ugarte]

I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

Keith is concerned about momentum.  You are concerned about correctness.  I say, why not have both?  Change the rules so that if the puck goes through the net, it's not a goal.  Problem solved.  At least the resolution would be unambiguous.

You've taken the situation and come up with the WORST POSSIBLE outcome. Congratulations! The net exists as a means to gather the puck after it has crossed the goal line. If you want to improve net design, there are a lot of things to consider: the weave, as BigRedHockeyFan mentioned, has to be tight enough to stop the puck but loose enough that a skater can see through it. The net has to be taut enough that it doesn't sag but flexible enough that it doesn't fire the puck back out onto the ice. It has to be designed so that a puck won't go through the net more than, say, once every few seasons without tearing. I'm sure that people are working to improve the net all the time (only in America or, perhaps, Canada!) but the marginal utility appears to be pretty low. (Response to Jim: this is about hockey. Just because sometimes a situation will come up in a 1-0 game instead of a Weder game doesn't mean that all remedies are appropriate; the marginal value of a rule of general applicability is a useful concept. KeithK just happens to be very, very wrong about this.)

Dafatone is right; wasting 5 minutes to adjust the clock by two seconds is a bigger problem than taking a minute to confirm a suspicion that a goal was scored, whether by a linesman or a screaming red-faced coach.I can't believe the discussion has gone this far and nobody has mentioned that the same thing happened in Game 5 of the Stanley Cup finals between NYR and Vancouver, and yes, they do wipe out everything that happens after, as they should.

With the score 3-1 and under two minutes to play, Courtnall appeared to give the Canucks a 4-1 lead, but play continued.  With the Canuck players flustered, Anderson found Messier at the side of the net and he converted to make it 3-2 at 19:01.  But the Canucks and 16,150 of their towel-waving supporters thought Courtnall had scored, and referee Bill McCreary decided to check upstairs.  Sure enough, Courtnall's backhander had hit the back crossbar and bounced out.  The goal was counted and the ensuing 34 seconds (which included Messier's goal) was stricken from the record.

See also, this and this.

[Rosey]

I prefer to get it right, rather than fast, you prefer fast.

Keith is concerned about momentum.  You are concerned about correctness.  I say, why not have both?  Change the rules so that if the puck goes through the net, it's not a goal.  Problem solved.  At least the resolution would be unambiguous.

You've taken the situation and come up with the WORST POSSIBLE outcome. Congratulations! The net exists as a means to gather the puck after it has crossed the goal line. If you want to improve net design, there are a lot of things to consider

You did read my second paragraph, right?  Fixing the net so it isn't possible for the puck to go through it is also an acceptable solution.  Leaving things they way they are is not.

[Greenberg '97]

Fixing the net so it isn't possible for the puck to go through it is also an acceptable solution.  Leaving things they way they are is not.

Really?  Leaving hockey exactly the way it is is not an acceptable solution?  Overreact much?