Quinny @ CU 02/06/15

[Trotsky]

tough loss.. played well most of the night.. the only thing quin has is better team speed.  bad played by the goalie cost them the game

The other thing Quinnipiac has is an actual ability to finish scoring chances

Once

[Johnny 5]

Due to a brief psychotic episode I missed the OT goal scenario.
You say that it was the result of a misplay by Gillam?

And, just curious....when did attempting to thread passes replace skating the puck out of our end as an offensive strategy?
The 3rd frame of Quinny 2 looked at lot like 'Gate 2.

::bang::

[upprdeck]

you can be in the crease if the puck is in the crease which it was, it then came out, so a crease violation is the wrong call.

[upprdeck]

if replayed didnt exist cornell would be far better off in the standings thats for sure

[upprdeck]

all the harder to take the call when there was no review and it was called a goal.  only one ref is close says its good and its turned over after a talk much later by 3 officials out of position.. no wonder they called in the crease, they had no idea where it really took place..

[BearLover]

tough loss.. played well most of the night.. the only thing quin has is better team speed.  bad played by the goalie cost them the game

The other thing Quinnipiac has is an actual ability to finish scoring chances

Once

No, this is something I've noticed every time I've seen them play Cornell.  The teams are generally equal except Q is MUCH better at finishing chances.  They are great at tip and one-timer placement, for instance.  Sometimes they're just clearly better and badly outshoot us, but quite a few times shots have been even and they've better-capitalized on their opportunities.

[Jim Hyla]

Here's the No Goal. [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70BRwz98FY&feature=youtu.be[/video]

Man in the crease, no. Goalie interference, maybe.

[Dafatone]

Here's the No Goal. [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70BRwz98FY&feature=youtu.be[/video]

Man in the crease, no. Goalie interference, maybe.

Seems like a good no goal to me, as much as it pains me to admit.  Hilbrich makes contact with the goalie before the defender pushes him in there, and while the defender's still shoving him, his presence keeps the goalie from having a play on the puck.

[ithacat]

The Q defender clearly pushes him into the goalie. Without the push can he make a play on the rebound? If I was a Q fan I would think it was the correct call.

In the Journal it was reported that the replay equipment didn't work. We've now had ice issues, Zamboni issues, scoreboard issues, and replay issues (which I don't think is the first time). At least our tickets are cheap.

[Dafatone]

Wait, so the no goal was ruled WITHOUT a review, after it was called a goal on the ice?

To put it delicately, wtf is that?

[Iceberg]

Murky and inconsistent officiating standards would seem appropriate.

[upprdeck]

the refs talked then went in and talked then came out and talked then changed the call.  what i dont get is why the one ref closest called it a goal and its his call.. how often does the center ice ref rule on plays in the crease?

the goalie had the puck on his pads and lst control.  does that mean no contact by the offense is allowed going after the puck?? but he can go into the crease to get the puck.  goalie interference i could see called.  but how often is it called when the goal is called good and the ref closest doesnt call it?

did a linesman make the call?

2 games against the same team decided by the same play. one never gets reviewed and should have. the other gets changed but never reviewed..

[abmarks]

The Q defender clearly pushes him into the goalie. Without the push can he make a play on the rebound? If I was a Q fan I would think it was the correct call.

totally disagree- watch the slow mo video.   The CU player didn't stop himself in time and hit the goalie on his own.  The QU player only pushed our guy deeper into the goalie after our guy was already there.

No goal. Lucky it wasn't a goalie interference penalty on us.

[andyw2100]

Watching the video, I think the refs ultimately made the correct call. What I mean is, I think if the video had been working and they had gone and looked at it and were able to see what we can see on the video, they would have ruled it a no-goal.

That being said, I thought to use what they saw on the video, there had to be conclusive evidence that the ruling on the ice was incorrect, and if it wasn't conclusive, that the ruling on the ice stood. The ref behind the goal was clearly indicating that it was a goal. So how did they have conclusive evidence to overrule the ruling on the ice if there was no video to review?

[upprdeck]

I think they got to talking and someone said hey the Q goalie might have gotten shoved.  someone else said well  did see him in the net after it was all over. and someone else said 2 Q players ended up in the net too but its not possible they caused any of that chaos. Well maybe a Cornell player did it.  Did anyone see  the tallest player on the ice near the goalie when it started?  Nope/nope/nope.   Well thats good enough for me.  lets talk some more in the replay room and then come out and go back in and talk some more to make it look like we are doing our job..