Gate @ Cornell

[bnr24]

Where is Esposito and Gotovets?

According to College Hockey News, Espo "had a setback in practice this week."

This is what I heard at the game Saturday:
Gotovets: ankle (stepped on a puck in practice)
Espo:  Shoulder ("setback" would lead one to think it's his ankle again. I think shoulder is a new problem).

So to sum up, Esposito either suffered a concussion against Colorado College, or had a "setback in practice" which could either be shoulder injury or an ankle injury, or, as one person (somewhat unfairly) speculated, there are off ice issues. Well, that makes the reason for his absence crystal clear.

He was hanging out around the ref locker room throughout the game with some other scratched players.  Wasn't limping and I doubt they'd be allowed to hang out with the team if they had "off ice" issues.  Gotovets wasn't there, maybe he had the sickness? Speculation is fun

While wandering around Colgate's campus (and when going in and out of Starr), we saw Gotovets and Esposito wandering around, so unless he got sick for Saturday's game or it was some noncontagious form of sickness, I would rule out sickness.  Also, re: Esposito, https://twitter.com/BThomasIthaca/status/264876874025533440

As far as the play being blown dead, the whistle was definitely after the goal was in net, at the point when the team was celebrating, so it had to be intent.

[David Harding]

As far as the play being blown dead, the whistle was definitely after the goal was in net, at the point when the team was celebrating, so it had to be intent.

CornellBigRed.com

[bnr24]

As far as the play being blown dead, the whistle was definitely after the goal was in net, at the point when the team was celebrating, so it had to be intent.

CornellBigRed.com

I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net.  It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

[Rosey]

I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net.  It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

[Trotsky]

I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net.  It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

Well said.

[Jim Hyla]

I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net.  It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

The problem is they set themselves up at least slightly behind the net to see it go over the line, but that makes it tough to see where the puck is in front. However, I'd rather have them where they are than in front to see the puck.

[Trotsky]

I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net.  It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

The problem is they set themselves up at least slightly behind the net to see it go over the line, but that makes it tough to see where the puck is in front. However, I'd rather have them where they are than in front to see the puck.

I have a stupid question.  In a 2-ref system, is the rule that the ref in the offensive zone controls the whistle?  For example, take the situation that Jim describes where the offensive zone ref is on the goal line extended and the defensive zone ref is (where?  at the red line I guess?).  The puck Brownian Motions in front so that it is obscured by the scrum from the offensive ref (who blows the whistle) but is completely visible to the defensive zone ref.  The play is dead even though the puck has always been visible to at least one ref, correct?  However, if the trailing ref loses sight of the puck during the scrum but the offensive zone ref always has it in sight, the trailing ref should not blow the whistle because he does not "control" the play?  Also correct?  (Shorter: the farther ref defers to the closer one.)

[sah67]

It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

There were 0 game misconducts handed out. A 10-minute misconduct is not a game misconduct.

[TheMatrix]

After being lazy for the past few weeks/games, I actually uploaded the goals against Colgate:

Bardreau (PPG):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WyPSjaYafg

D'Agostino:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ACtEcmXp5I

España (because the España videos get more views than the goals by a wide margin):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwQGwIGaXBY

[marty]

I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net.  It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

The problem is they set themselves up at least slightly behind the net to see it go over the line, but that makes it tough to see where the puck is in front. However, I'd rather have them where they are than in front to see the puck.

I have a stupid question.  In a 2-ref system, is the rule that the ref in the offensive zone controls the whistle?  For example, take the situation that Jim describes where the offensive zone ref is on the goal line extended and the defensive zone ref is (where?  at the red line I guess?).  The puck Brownian Motions in front so that it is obscured by the scrum from the offensive ref (who blows the whistle) but is completely visible to the defensive zone ref.  The play is dead even though the puck has always been visible to at least one ref, correct?  However, if the trailing ref loses sight of the puck during the scrum but the offensive zone ref always has it in sight, the trailing ref should not blow the whistle because he does not "control" the play?  Also correct?  (Shorter: the farther ref defers to the closer one.)

An obvious case of Schrodinger's puck?  = ^ . ^ =

[jtn27]

When would hear if there were any suspensions resulting from the fights? Is it safe to assume that because none have been announced yet there won't be any, or could they still be forthcoming? I figured any announcements would come today.

[KeithK]

When would hear if there were any suspensions resulting from the fights? Is it safe to assume that because none have been announced yet there won't be any, or could they still be forthcoming? I figured any announcements would come today.

It needs to be said at least once per season. Misconducts and Game misconducts do not results in suspensions.  Disqualifications results in suspensions.

[KeithK]

It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

There were 0 game misconducts handed out. A 10-minute misconduct is not a game misconduct.

Misconducts issued at 5:00 of overtime are idistinguishable from game misconducts.  There's no reason to make the scorekeeper write out the extra four characters when the game is already finished.

I often wondeer what is the purpose of issuing penalties when the game is over.  Except to bulk up a players penalty minute stat. DQs that happen at the end I understand but not anything else.

[Josh '99]

When would hear if there were any suspensions resulting from the fights? Is it safe to assume that because none have been announced yet there won't be any, or could they still be forthcoming? I figured any announcements would come today.

It needs to be said at least once per season. Misconducts and Game misconducts do not results in suspensions.  Disqualifications results in suspensions.

That's true, but surely the league has leeway to issue a suspension for something that went unpunished during a game if they choose to do so?

[Trotsky]

I read that, but listening to the whistle in person, it definitely happened after the goal was in net.  It wouldn't be the first odd call all night, with 4 game misconducts awarded, some of which I still don't know what happened.

So here's the issue: even if the goal occurred before the whistle was blown, the ref has no way of knowing that if he didn't see it. Once the ref decides to blow the play dead because he can't see the puck, anything that he didn't already see happen before that point is nullified. There's no other way to handle this situation fairly without making the goal judges officials and giving them final say in the matter.

IMO, the lesson for the refs is to make sure they're in a position to see past scrums around the net, because in such a situation a goal is pretty likely.

The problem is they set themselves up at least slightly behind the net to see it go over the line, but that makes it tough to see where the puck is in front. However, I'd rather have them where they are than in front to see the puck.

I have a stupid question.  In a 2-ref system, is the rule that the ref in the offensive zone controls the whistle?  For example, take the situation that Jim describes where the offensive zone ref is on the goal line extended and the defensive zone ref is (where?  at the red line I guess?).  The puck Brownian Motions in front so that it is obscured by the scrum from the offensive ref (who blows the whistle) but is completely visible to the defensive zone ref.  The play is dead even though the puck has always been visible to at least one ref, correct?  However, if the trailing ref loses sight of the puck during the scrum but the offensive zone ref always has it in sight, the trailing ref should not blow the whistle because he does not "control" the play?  Also correct?  (Shorter: the farther ref defers to the closer one.)

An obvious case of Schrodinger's puck?  = ^ . ^ =

The puck is both a goal and not a goal, until you collapse the wave function by observing it?

(This seems like the opposite, since reality is driven by failing to observe it.    )