ECAC 2015-16

[upprdeck]

i thought the rule said if tv replay was available they could use it not that it had to be used.

The NCAA rule book goes into detail on how a review using replay is to be conducted, under what cicumstatnces, how the off-ice video replay official interacts with the referee, and so forth.  The current rule book is completely silent on what constitutes a minimal or ideal video camera configuration, who provides it, how it is operated, or anything else about acquiring images.  I can't fnd anything that looks like league rules on the ECACHL web site except for the tournament seeding rules.

The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel approved several changes to the criteria for allowing video replay in men's and women's ice hockey, effective for the 2014-15 season.

It was clarified that the video used for replays may come from any source that is available to the game officials. Previously, the video used was required to come from a television broadcast.

[billhoward]

Fascinating that RPI TV if not the officials had the replay and it appears - more than appears - the shot by Brown went in. This could have been a chance for RPI to have its own Fifth Down Game moment of honor.

[upprdeck]

the ECAC should be asking why the refs never tried to see the TV replay when its an RPI game and everyone knows TV replay is available.,

[Trotsky]

the ECAC should be asking why the refs never tried to see the TV replay when its an RPI game and everyone knows TV replay is available.,

I'm not going to put that on the refs unless they ignored a protocol that already exists.  The rules should specifically spell out the order of precedence for replays, and where they're allowed to stop (i.e., let's say the rink replay exists but so does a better TV replay -- are they permitted to view the TV replay or does the rink replay availability mean full stop?).  The refs should only be charged with execution, not policy.

It's clear that Brown scored and that the refs blew the call, but bad calls abound.  This was not a procedural issue like the 5th down.  That would be something like the clock not running for a couple extra minutes in overtime and not being corrected.  In that case, were I the beneficiary, I would petition to have the result changed.  But this is just a really awful judgment call mistake.  It happens -- ask Armando Galarraga.

[Jim Hyla]

the ECAC should be asking why the refs never tried to see the TV replay when its an RPI game and everyone knows TV replay is available.,

I'm not going to put that on the refs unless they ignored a protocol that already exists.  The rules should specifically spell out the order of precedence for replays, and where they're allowed to stop (i.e., let's say the rink replay exists but so does a better TV replay -- are they permitted to view the TV replay or does the rink replay availability mean full stop?).  The refs should only be charged with execution, not policy.

It's clear that Brown scored and that the refs blew the call, but bad calls abound.  This was not a procedural issue like the 5th down.  That would be something like the clock not running for a couple extra minutes in overtime and not being corrected.  In that case, were I the beneficiary, I would petition to have the result changed.  But this is just a really awful judgment call mistake.  It happens -- ask Armando Galarraga.

It was procedural in the the replay didn't work. Once it was seen, there was a goal. So RPI should concede. I don't see the difference from a fifth down. We're not talking about the blown call, but the replay not working.

[upprdeck]

the procedure says use any replay available. first question every game should be, what replays does this rink have and how do we access it.  every place in the ECAC has to provide a replay assistant to the ref's. they all have it in a room for the ref's for the most part, but rpi knows the system they have and they know RPI has tv replay available so they should make it clear to the refs before the game starts.  every place has issues , but if you have more than one system available you should plan on being able to access both if needed.

[Trotsky]

It was procedural in the the replay didn't work. Once it was seen, there was a goal. So RPI should concede. I don't see the difference from a fifth down. We're not talking about the blown call, but the replay not working.

I don't agree, as it is still a judgment call.  However I would say RPI would get 100x more out of conceding the game than it ever will get from the win.  With the sports networks and hot takes going 24/7 they would become the symbol of Genuinely Nice Planet for a generation of sports fans.

Even better is if they offered the concession and Brown declined.

[marty]

Neither OT goals at RPI made the cut here but it appears that Colgate has entered the ancient nine if you listen to the announcer.  Number four for the week for a freshman is nice but so is the number one goal which seems to have had at least three assists.::whistle::

           Here is the week's top 5

[drs48]

The NoDak goal is a thing of beauty....

[Scersk '97]

The NoDak goal is a thing of beauty....

Wow!!!

[scoop85]

The NoDak goal is a thing of beauty....

one of the best scoring plays I've seen at any level of hockey

[ugarte]

The NoDak goal is a thing of beauty....

one of the best scoring plays I've seen at any level of hockey

If I were watching that live I might start crying like Catholics do when they meet the Pope.

[Dafatone]

The NoDak goal is a thing of beauty....

one of the best scoring plays I've seen at any level of hockey

If I were watching that live I might start crying like Catholics do when they meet the Pope.

Yeah, the first four goals were relatively ho-hum (nice finish by Angello, put his shot exactly where he wanted it, but not like it was anything that spectacular) and then holy crap.

[RichH]

The NoDak goal is a thing of beauty....

one of the best scoring plays I've seen at any level of hockey

If I were watching that live I might start crying like Catholics do when they meet the Pope.

Yeah, the first four goals were relatively ho-hum (nice finish by Angello, put his shot exactly where he wanted it, but not like it was anything that spectacular) and then holy crap.

Jaw dropping. Easiest #1 choice in recent memory.

Of course if any of those passes happened to be broken up or mishandled, there's the chorus of "why didn't he just SHOOOT?" and complaints that they were trying to be too fancy.

[Trotsky]

Here it is isolated.