UNH 6 Cornell 2 postgame

[Rosey]

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?

Yes, not IMO, and no.  We're not talking quantum tunneling here: there's an engineering solution to this, so why not fix it?  Preserving the flow of the game by avoiding multi-minute reviews when they aren't necessary should be a top priority.  I don't see why this is controversial.

[ugarte]

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?

Yes, not IMO, and no.  We're not talking quantum tunneling here: there's an engineering solution to this, so why not fix it?  Preserving the flow of the game by avoiding multi-minute reviews when they aren't necessary should be a top priority.  I don't see why this is controversial.

See previous discussion re: marginal utility. Your position isn't "controversial" so much as "bordering on pointless." There are a lot of cases in which "good enough" is actually good enough.

[Rosey]

Yes, not IMO, and no.  We're not talking quantum tunneling here: there's an engineering solution to this, so why not fix it?  Preserving the flow of the game by avoiding multi-minute reviews when they aren't necessary should be a top priority.  I don't see why this is controversial.

See previous discussion re: marginal utility. Your position isn't "controversial" so much as "bordering on pointless." There are a lot of cases in which "good enough" is actually good enough.

If this happened once every 20 years, I'd agree.  The fact that it happens far more frequently means it should be addressed.

[CowbellGuy]

I'm with Kyle on this one. Just use a smaller mesh on the nets. Problem solved. Cost negligible.

[marty]

Last year after the Vermont vs. Air Force goal there was also talk concerning whether the net had been treated with resin  (plastic) as it should have been.  I don't even know if it is supposed to be treated.

Maybe the solution also has to do with suppliers and quality control.  No matter it was a five minute PIA.

[Jim Hyla]

I'm with Kyle on this one. Just use a smaller mesh on the nets. Problem solved. Cost negligible.

I'm with Kyle about fixing the net, but not with Keith to just forget about a possible goal. To me that's still screwy.

[ugarte]

I'm with Kyle on this one. Just use a smaller mesh on the nets. Problem solved. Cost negligible.

I'm with Kyle about fixing the net, but not with Keith to just forget about a possible goal. To me that's still screwy.

Hey, I'm with Kyle about fixing the net; almost all things could stand to be improved. I'm not with Kyle on the hair-pulling and the "unacceptable"ing and the general consternation.

[Greenberg '97]

I'm with Kyle on this one. Just use a smaller mesh on the nets. Problem solved. Cost negligible.

I'm with Kyle about fixing the net, but not with Keith to just forget about a possible goal. To me that's still screwy.

Hey, I'm with Kyle about fixing the net; almost all things could stand to be improved. I'm not with Kyle on the hair-pulling and the "unacceptable"ing and the general consternation.

I really can't believe I'm getting involved in this discussion,::deadhorse:: but...

Age, (smaller mesh) = (problem solved) sounds great, but not necessarily.  If you increase the number of ropes, visibility decreases.  If you try to offset that by reducing the diameter of the ropes, tensile strength decreases (exponentially, I believe), and you end up with more pucks through the net.

And as a Food Science major who practices medicine, I really have no idea what I'm talking about.  As a goalie, however, I can say that visibility is of utmost importance.  If it were up to me, we'd lose the net altogether and just use electronic sensors.  Think department store security.

[CowbellGuy]

Age, (smaller mesh) = (problem solved) sounds great, but not necessarily.  If you increase the number of ropes, visibility decreases.  If you try to offset that by reducing the diameter of the ropes, tensile strength decreases (exponentially, I believe), and you end up with more pucks through the net.

Enough loss of visibility to matter? Other than the goal judge, whose role is largely ceremonial, is anyone really looking through the net? Hell, everyone at the ends of the rink other than those on the glass are already looking through a much finer mesh than what's in the goal itself.

[Greenberg '97]

Enough loss of visibility to matter? Other than the goal judge, whose role is largely ceremonial, is anyone really looking through the net? Hell, everyone at the ends of the rink other than those on the glass are already looking through a much finer mesh than what's in the goal itself.

I couldn't say how much it would matter (I'm sure there's an equation for it somewhere), but when the puck is behind the net, the goalie has to be able to see the puck.  He's already looking through the net at a sharp downward angle, not to mention through his own cage.  Yeah, I really think adding more ropes would be noticeable.

Goalies take visibility very seriously.  Look at the number of cage designs there are out there.

[CowbellGuy]

First off, if it was mandated by the league, then everyone's playing by the same rules. The goalies and everyone else can learn to live with it. Second, I don't think there are many situations where the goalie is looking through the net. They're usually looking around it. You'd pretty much have to get down on all fours to look through it. Except maybe Andy Isles.

[Greenberg '97]

Second, I don't think there are many situations where the goalie is looking through the net. They're usually looking around it. You'd pretty much have to get down on all fours to look through it. Except maybe Andy Isles.

Great, now I have something to think about during my next game on Thursday... am I looking through the net or around it?  I'll get back to you.  After I give up 8 or 9 goals in the process.

[tretiak]

It happens. Anytime a player behind the net has the puck you need to look through the net. If you look around the net, you're off balance and you open yourself up to a wrap-around or a quick back-door play at the other post. Also, if you're going post-to-post as the puck is behind the net you're picking up the puck through the net. The height argument is also irrelevant - the stance is a crouch and when you're hugging the post your head is barely above the crossbar. Also if it's a desperation play, you're sliding across on your knees. You can see this from the attached video. The video is a goal so yes the goalie didn't play it perfectly, but wrap-around save doesn't get many hits on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ic-oKpuaY4

[David Harding]

The question of uniformity is interesting.  The current NCAA rule is as simple as can be:

c. A net shall be attached to each goal frame.

[jtwcornell91]

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.

This is why instant replay does not work well in hockey.  For a sport like football or baseball (or cricket), where the game is divided into well-defined, quantized plays, you can review the results of a play as soon as it's over.  In hockey, where play just continues until something stops it, you get exactly the sort of problem we're discussing, where you can have whole minutes of the game which retroactively don't count.  Not only do you then have to deal with the potential nonsense of a goal scored later on an unrelated play being waved off, but a team protecting a lead may tire itself out for nothing.  The only way I could see this being done fairly would be to make it a delayed whistle, so that once the defense controls the puck, they stop play and have the review.  (Probably with a provision that if the offensive team pulls the goalie, the whistle is blown immediately.)

Although, I'd really prefer they scrap replay entirely, and let the refs call the game on the ice.  That way games with and without TV would be called the same.  (We should drop TV timeouts while we're at it, but that's another story...)