Cornell Women - Olympic Hockey

[Jim Hyla]

SPOILER DISCUSSION CONTINUES. ACTUALLY, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU FEAR SPOILERS.

What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.

I can't get mad at a bad call undoing a terrible whistle.

I don't disagree with that. I'm not saying Canada didn't "deserve" that goal.

But once the ref blew the whistle, there was nothing to review.

Seriously. From experience, when the whistle is blown, I stop playing immediately. I stand up and relax. Respecting the whistle as the final arbiter of "is the play dead?" is necessary to maintaining control of the game, IMO: otherwise, you encourage players to continue playing after the whistle in case the whistle is retconned away through review.

Don't jump, but I agree with you.::scared::

[billhoward]

This looked like a defender's against goal, tapping the puck back to the goalie, except it slid under/behind the goalie, and the puck was 2-3-4-5-6" on the no-goal side of the goal, with momentum that carried it in, when the whistle blew. That's what I saw. No one was close enough to stop or tap in the puck from either side in the fraction of a second before it went in. Here two wrongs made a right.

[Jim Hyla]

This looked like a defender's against goal, tapping the puck back to the goalie, except it slid under/behind the goalie, and the puck was 2-3-4-5-6" on the no-goal side of the goal, with momentum that carried it in, when the whistle blew. That's what I saw. No one was close enough to stop or tap in the puck from either side in the fraction of a second before it went in. Here two wrongs made a right.

But is it reviewable? If not, then making up new rules as you go is very questionable. Put that with the 2 missed too many men on Canada, and that they could have/should have called another penalty against Canada on the last US PP, and the officiating is /was suspect. Hopefully it makes the US mad enough to win it all.

[scoop85]

This looked like a defender's against goal, tapping the puck back to the goalie, except it slid under/behind the goalie, and the puck was 2-3-4-5-6" on the no-goal side of the goal, with momentum that carried it in, when the whistle blew. That's what I saw. No one was close enough to stop or tap in the puck from either side in the fraction of a second before it went in. Here two wrongs made a right.

But is it reviewable? If not, then making up new rules as you go is very questionable. Put that with the 2 missed too many men on Canada, and that they could have/should have called another penalty against Canada on the last US PP, and the officiating is /was suspect. Hopefully it makes the US mad enough to win it all.

Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

[Trotsky]

Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

[Larry72]

Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

+1 Most Definitely!

[cbuckser]

Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

+1 Most Definitely!

My loyalties are divided.

[MattS]

Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

+1 Most Definitely!

My loyalties are divided.

I won't be too sad if Canada wins but I'm American so...Go USA!!

[ACM]

1. On the question of whether a play on which the referee blows the whistle because he/she loses sight of the puck should be reviewable: of course it should. "I know I lost sight of the puck, but I'm not certain whether the puck crossed the goal line before or after I lost sight of it." [I would really like to see the sport of hockey change the standard for blowing the whistle from "an official losing sight of the puck" to "an official being certain the puck has been covered/withheld from play". Especially with video review capability becoming standard. A late whistle that should have been blown earlier can easily be remedied ("no goal, the puck had been covered, reset the clock to " ). A premature whistle that should not have been blown and that denies a team a legitimately-scored goal cannot be remedied.]

2. On the alleged "too many men" situations: a player may be legitimately substituted for when he/she is within five feet of the bench. The player coming on the ice may participate in the play immediately; as long as the player being substituted for goes directly to the bench and does not participate in play, both players can be on the ice at the same time without penalty. Note that the benches at the Olympics extend halfway into the defensive zone, unlike most rinks where the bench ends at the blue line, or at most a few feet inside the zone. So the so-called "too many men" infractions aren't as obvious as they seem to be.

3. I've already had enough of overrated blowhards like Bode Miller and Shaun White, who are promoted as the greatest athletes in world in their sport until they actually have to perform. I want the Cornell players to do well. I want the US women to do well. Let's play the games, and see what happens.

[ugarte]

First of all, ACM - agreed on the rule stuff. BUT!

3. I've already had enough of overrated blowhards like Bode Miller and Shaun White, who are promoted as the greatest athletes in world in their sport until they actually have to perform.

Bode Miller has competed in 5 Olympics and has 5 Olympic medals, including 1 gold. He has 2 overall World cup titles, 6 season titles in various disciplines and 5 medals in world championships including 4 gold.

Shaun White has two Olympic gold medals and 15 X Games gold medals among other medals and is widely regarded as the best snowboarder of all time.

You can dislike them all you want but it is some kind of bullshit to say that they haven't performed in competition or have been overrated. They weren't even particularly braggy coming into this Olympic games. Any expectations that they would win were built on the foundation of actually performing better than their peers in the past generally, and on the Sochi courses in particular prior to their events. They didn't win this year, but they are competing against the best in the world. Shit happens.

[RichH]

This looked like a defender's against goal, tapping the puck back to the goalie, except it slid under/behind the goalie, and the puck was 2-3-4-5-6" on the no-goal side of the goal, with momentum that carried it in, when the whistle blew. That's what I saw. No one was close enough to stop or tap in the puck from either side in the fraction of a second before it went in. Here two wrongs made a right.

But is it reviewable? If not, then making up new rules as you go is very questionable. Put that with the 2 missed too many men on Canada, and that they could have/should have called another penalty against Canada on the last US PP, and the officiating is /was suspect. Hopefully it makes the US mad enough to win it all.

Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Even without Cornell connections, I know of more than a few people in the Greater Hartford area who are cheering on Canada simply for Whaler legend Kevin Dineen. Although honestly, I'm not sure how big a factor he is, given both how late in the process he was brought in and how long some of these players have played together.

[Swampy]

Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

I'm interested in good hockey. Screw jingoism. The presence of Cornelians on the Canadian team makes it somewhat of a sentimental favorite for me.

[Jim Hyla]

1. On the question of whether a play on which the referee blows the whistle because he/she loses sight of the puck should be reviewable: of course it should. "I know I lost sight of the puck, but I'm not certain whether the puck crossed the goal line before or after I lost sight of it." [I would really like to see the sport of hockey change the standard for blowing the whistle from "an official losing sight of the puck" to "an official being certain the puck has been covered/withheld from play". Especially with video review capability becoming standard. A late whistle that should have been blown earlier can easily be remedied ("no goal, the puck had been covered, reset the clock to " ). A premature whistle that should not have been blown and that denies a team a legitimately-scored goal cannot be remedied.]

2. On the alleged "too many men" situations: a player may be legitimately substituted for when he/she is within five feet of the bench. The player coming on the ice may participate in the play immediately; as long as the player being substituted for goes directly to the bench and does not participate in play, both players can be on the ice at the same time without penalty. Note that the benches at the Olympics extend halfway into the defensive zone, unlike most rinks where the bench ends at the blue line, or at most a few feet inside the zone. So the so-called "too many men" infractions aren't as obvious as they seem to be.

3. I've already had enough of overrated blowhards like Bode Miller and Shaun White, who are promoted as the greatest athletes in world in their sport until they actually have to perform. I want the Cornell players to do well. I want the US women to do well. Let's play the games, and see what happens.

My question was not whether it should be reviewable, but whether under current rules it is reviewable.  I don't know the Olympic rules, but if blowing the whistle is not reviewable, then I don't know what happened.  If it is reviewable, then they made the right call.

I'd have to go back and rewatch the game about the too many men questions, but certainly the announcers were concerned.

I completely agree with ugarte in regards to the athletes.

[BMac]

Is this even a question? We have four players on Team Canada, and Sucks has 4 players and the coach on Team USA.

And if I wasn't supposed to cheer for Canada, why did Lynah teach me their anthem?

[Rosey]

Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

I'm interested in good hockey. Screw jingoism.

+1. I want to see the best athletes compete at the highest level. Which is, of course, why I am not watching NBC's lousy coverage.