Not a goal?

[Jim Hyla]

The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

Well, the jumbotron didn't have speakers and it's still the referees' human error to assume that it was a dead puck when it was not.

The ref is supposed to blow the play dead when he loses sight of the puck. Nobody knew where it was. He blew it dead like he is supposed to. There are plenty of decisions from the officials to bitch about tonight. This isn't one.
Cornell had a ton of chances amd couldn't convert. It's a tough loss. Would love to see BU again in March or April.

I understand there is no point in debating this right now, but I remain unconviced. Just because the official lost sight of the puck and blew it dead, does not mean it can't be overturned as a goal. The question here is not whether the official blew it dead or not, the question is when did he do it.
Now, if there is conclusive evidence for those of you watching at home that the whistle blew before the puck crossed the goal line, then this wouldn't matter. However, I doubt the review video had sound and I'm pretty sure most of us at MSG heard the whistle well after BU's goalie reacted to the puck, which means it would've been in by that point. What the refs "intended" shouldn't matter in this instance unless they actually blew the whistle beforehand.

Look to all who continue to say if the whistle blew before the puck went in, the overhead camera, which does have sound associated with it, conclusively showed that the whistle blew as the puck hit his shoulder and before it crossed the line. Unless there was something wrong with the replay, it happened that way, end of story, no further debate on that point needed.

Now whether he should have blown it (the whistle) or did blow it (the call) can be discussed, but not when it happened.

The other non-goal was also shown to be correct, it never crossed.

[marty]

Check channel Martytoo.  I am having trouble renaming it while uploading.  You can look for VTS_01_1.VOB if I can't rename it. I am on my way to church and thus won't get to this again until this afternoon.

[hugel]

I was sitting in section 203 which was in the corner by the net where the play occurred. We clearly heard the whistle well before the puck ended up in the net, but would also say that there was no way the puck hit the netting either. Sucks that it didn't count but all things considered we shouldn't be relying on a fluke (non)goal that took a one in a million deflection off the boards to end up in the net to win games.

[Weder]

For those who aren't clear about the "intent" thing, this is from the NCAA rulebook:

"As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the referee may intend for the play to be stopped slightly before the whistle actually being blown. For example, the fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line before the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the referee determined that the play had stopped."

[imafrshmn]

For those who aren't clear about the "intent" thing, this is from the NCAA rulebook:

"As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the referee may intend for the play to be stopped slightly before the whistle actually being blown. For example, the fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line before the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the referee determined that the play had stopped."

Thanks for the clarification

[andyw2100]

Watched the game on TV. I was very impressed with the quality of the broadcast. I guess I'm just used to watching lousy internet feeds of away games.

The quality of the broadcast made it very clear, as others have said, that neither of the reviewed goals were actually goals. The first hit the post and never crossed the goal line. The second was whistled dead a fraction of a second before it hit Milan. One point that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that the ref who blew the second one dead immediately pointed up, seeming to indicate that he thought the puck had hit the netting. Whether it did or not is a bit of a moot point: if the ref thought it did, then it did. He blew the whistle, and that's that.

And considering that our goal was also at least a bit of a fluke--it went in off a BU skate, and would have passed harmlessly through the crease otherwise--we probably can't complain too much.

As for the calls and non-calls, the three I thought were the worst were the call on Birch that led to the 5-3 and the first BU goal, the embellishment call which was just ridiculous, and a no-call on a pretty obvious trip on, I believe, Jillson mid-way through the third.

We didn't lose the game because of the refs, but it's still frustrating. Like many of us, I am very optimistic about this team's future. They've lost three games this year, all by a goal, and easily could have won all three. That's impressive.

[Jim Hyla]

Watched the game on TV. I was very impressed with the quality of the broadcast. I guess I'm just used to watching lousy internet feeds of away games.

The quality of the broadcast made it very clear, as others have said, that neither of the reviewed goals were actually goals. The first hit the post and never crossed the goal line. The second was whistled dead a fraction of a second before it hit Milan. One point that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that the ref who blew the second one dead immediately pointed up, seeming to indicate that he thought the puck had hit the netting. Whether it did or not is a bit of a moot point: if the ref thought it did, then it did. He blew the whistle, and that's that.

And considering that our goal was also at least a bit of a fluke--it went in off a BU skate, and would have passed harmlessly through the crease otherwise--we probably can't complain too much.

As for the calls and non-calls, the three I thought were the worst were the call on Birch that led to the 5-3 and the first BU goal, the embellishment call which was just ridiculous, and a no-call on a pretty obvious trip on, I believe, Jillson mid-way through the third.

We didn't lose the game because of the refs, but it's still frustrating. Like many of us, I am very optimistic about this team's future. They've lost three games this year, all by a goal, and easily could have won all three. That's impressive.

I agree with everything. I thought the pointing also meant he thought it hit the netting. However, if that were true, there would not have been any review. If he saw it do that, the play was over, regardless of where the puck went afterwards. Suffice it to say the refs had no clue what happened on that play. The only thing that hasn't been mentioned was what about the up ice official. Did he ever see the puck? We'll probably never know.

I also yelled at the TV when Jillson was tripped.

And yes, I agree this team is impressive, so far.

[Greenberg '97]

I agree with everything. I thought the pointing also meant he thought it hit the netting. However, if that were true, there would not have been any review. If he saw it do that, the play was over, regardless of where the puck went afterwards. Suffice it to say the refs had no clue what happened on that play. The only thing that hasn't been mentioned was what about the up ice official. Did he ever see the puck? We'll probably never know.

I think the goal-line official pointed up because he originally thought or assumed the puck hit the netting.  I'm almost certain that he pointed up, waved no goal, then pointed outside the zone (will check my DVR later), as if to say that since Cornell was the last team to touch the puck, the faceoff was to come outside.

After all the discussion, the faceoff was moved back inside the zone (Jack Parker was shown arguing this).  The consensus must have been that the puck never touched the netting.  Maybe someone saw it, or maybe they figured that the puck wouldn't have bounced outward 11+ feet from the netting to hit Millan's shoulder.

There are two ways to interpret this: The referee lost sight of the puck, blew the play dead, and correctly placed the faceoff inside the zone, OR the referee blew the play dead because he thought the puck hit the netting, was found to be wrong following review, then placed the faceoff inside the zone because that was closest to where the play ended.  Very minor distinction, but if the latter is true, you can KINDA blame the ref for being wrong about the netting and blowing the whistle prematurely.  I think it's a combination of the two... he blew the whistle because he lost sight of it, then pointed upward because he assumed it must have hit the netting.  Damn, I've been thinking about this too much.  Bottom line is that the officials followed the rulebook perfectly on this one.

And yeah, watching the replays on TV, the whistle definitely preceded the puck crossing the line.  Even if the goal was otherwise legit (which I think it was), there's no way they could have allowed it.

[Rosey]

Also, the explanation from the announcer was that it wasn't even relevant exactly when the whistle was heard, because the ref had already had "intent" to call it dead.

QFT. This is the way the rule works. Sucks for us this time, but the refs are a human part of the game: if they intend to blow the play dead early, that's simply not reviewable. Oh, well.

[marty]

Short Version

The long version

[css228]

Short Version

The long version

So I guess that was the proper call, but the refs still clearly blew the call by losing sight of a live puck.

[ugarte]

Hockey should have a rule more like the new rule on fumbles in the NFL. If the whistle blows, incorrectly ruling a fumble "down by contact," if it is clear that the defense jumped on the ball first in the natural flow of the game, they will call it a fumble, change of possession. There is no way that the BU goalie "reacted" to the whistle so the freak bounce should (by rule, not yesterday) count as a goal.

[Jordan 04]

Hockey should have a rule more like the new rule on fumbles in the NFL. If the whistle blows, incorrectly ruling a fumble "down by contact," if it is clear that the defense jumped on the ball first in the natural flow of the game, they will call it a fumble, change of possession. There is no way that the BU goalie "reacted" to the whistle so the freak bounce should (by rule, not yesterday) count as a goal.

Except here the whistle doesn't incorrectly denote anything. It correctly denotes that the referee has lost sight of the puck.

[ugarte]

Hockey should have a rule more like the new rule on fumbles in the NFL. If the whistle blows, incorrectly ruling a fumble "down by contact," if it is clear that the defense jumped on the ball first in the natural flow of the game, they will call it a fumble, change of possession. There is no way that the BU goalie "reacted" to the whistle so the freak bounce should (by rule, not yesterday) count as a goal.

Except here the whistle doesn't incorrectly denote anything. It correctly denotes that the referee has lost sight of the puck.

Well, sure, but "I lost sight of the puck" is supposed to be a proxy for something other than "WHOOPS! MY BAD!!!"

[Roy 82]

...and that was so not a high stick in the UNH FF game back in 2003.