Opponents News

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Princeton had 1,304 attendance for their last game.  Capacity is 2,092.  I suspect there will be seats available.

I'm counting on it.

[Trotsky]

RPI G Chase Perry with 41 saves in the shutout of Harvard tonight.  Also, their other G (and Cornell decommit) Cam Hackett has been indefinitely suspended by RPI for Unspecified Naughtiness.

[ursusminor]

RPI G Chase Perry with 41 saves in the shutout of Harvard tonight.  Also, their other G (and Cornell decommit) Cam Hackett has been indefinitely suspended by RPI for Unspecified Naughtiness.

Seth Appert did say that whatever Hackett did, it was not illegal.

[marty]

RPI G Chase Perry with 41 saves in the shutout of Harvard tonight.  Also, their other G (and Cornell decommit) Cam Hackett has been indefinitely suspended by RPI for Unspecified Naughtiness.

It was a fun game to watch.  A shorty goal with 0.6 sec left in the first and a ppg with 1.2 seconds left in the second were notable.  Perry looked like he was stopping beach balls all night. Sucks switched sieves after two. Madsen certainly had a rough go.

You can watch Harvard skate circles around RPI in the second (for free) at RPITV.ORG. it may be a few days before the game is available for replay.

[CowbellGuy]

It's only no goal if there was intent to kick in.

There is no provision for this whatsoever. Intentional or not, if it's a kicking motion, it's not a good goal. The only provision is if the player is stopping and that's not what happened here.

[Trotsky]

It's only no goal if there was intent to kick in.

There is no provision for this whatsoever. Intentional or not, if it's a kicking motion, it's not a good goal. The only provision is if the player is stopping and that's not what happened here.

Is there a clip?

I couldn't tell from the replay what part of Jeff it went in off.  I thought it might have hit him around the waist, but the announcers speculated first the skate and then later a glove.  In the event it looked like he was braking as he moved toward the goal and the puck surprised him and just went in off his body.  Not only did it not look like intent, it didn't even look as if he realized what had happened.

I wouldn't have been surprised either way so I naturally assumed the call would go against us. **]

Edit: Christ, never mind.  I'm talking about Kubiak's no goal, not the Harvard goal.  Wrong thread, wrong event, I really am getting old.

[abmarks]

It's only no goal if there was intent to kick in.

There is no provision for this whatsoever. Intentional or not, if it's a kicking motion, it's not a good goal. The only provision is if the player is stopping and that's not what happened here.

You are part right and part wrong.  I should not have used the word intent, you are correct there.  The requirement is "a distinct kicking motion".  However, you are wrong about the only provision being a player stopping; it is simply one clarifying example cited in the rules (IMO because it is not an uncommon occurrence for a player to be stopping in the crease after charging the net)



Per the rulebook (which I posted earlier in this thread)

NCAA RULES
83.4 Goals Scored Off of Skates - A puck that is directed into the net by an
attacking player's skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct
kicking motion is evident.


It says only that it cannot be a distinct kicking motion.  The player can be spinning in circles like a figure skater and it would be a good goal.  Or, as in the gola discussed in the thread, the player was clearly getting his balance and moved his foot to a natural balance point. It wasn't a kicking motion at all.  


A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player
who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or
official. A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player's skate who
does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal.


The following should clarify deflections following a puck kicked by an
attacking player that enters the goal:
• A kicked puck that deflects off the body of any player of either team
(including the goalkeeper) shall be ruled no goal. The body refers to
anything other than a player's stick.
• A kicked puck that deflects off the stick of any player (excluding the
goalkeeper's stick) shall be ruled a good goal.
• A goal will be allowed when an attacking player kicks the puck and the
puck deflects off his own stick and then into the net.
A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks any equipment
(stick, glove, helmet, etc.) at the puck, including kicking the blade of his own
stick, causing the puck to cross the goal line. A puck that is batted into the net
by a hand or foot or deliberately batted with any part of the attacking player's
body is not a legal goal.
A goal shall be allowed if a puck deflects off an attacking player who is in
the act of stopping.

OK, there is the stopping example.  But it's a clarification, not an entire listing.  An example not cited is this:  PLayer A is stopped motionless just above the crease. PLayer B shoots the puck at PLayer A and it banks in off his skate.  That's a good goal.

[marty]

It's only no goal if there was intent to kick in.

There is no provision for this whatsoever. Intentional or not, if it's a kicking motion, it's not a good goal. The only provision is if the player is stopping and that's not what happened here.

Is there a clip?

Even though I realize that Trotsky was talking about a different goal, here is the Harvard score for those that missed it. There is some comedy value as Pecknold is tossed for complaining to the refs who then review the goal after his ejection.

[Trotsky]

Harvard blows leads of 2-0 and 4-3 to lose at Dartmouth 4-7.

[Jim Hyla]

Harvard blows leads of 2-0 and 4-3 to lose at Dartmouth 4-7.

Wait till it's over 8-4

[Chris '03]

Harvard blows leads of 2-0 and 4-3 to lose at Dartmouth 4-7.

Wait till it's over 8-4

I'm confused. It's not a Monday in February yet.

[scoop85]

And Harvard's loss drops them to 12 and moves us to 11th in PWR. Would've been unfathomable just a few days ago that we would now be ahead of them in Pairwise

[RichH]

And Harvard's loss drops them to 12 and moves us to 11th in PWR. Would've been unfathomable just a few days ago that we would now be ahead of them in Pairwise

Wasn't it UNO who was sitting at #2 in PWR at the break last year and failed to make the tournament?

[Iceberg]

Dartmouth has got to be the most inconsistent team ever. It seems to be the same thing with them every year--middle through the regular season and get an unexpected victory here or there.

[Trotsky]

And Harvard's loss drops them to 12 and moves us to 11th in PWR. Would've been unfathomable just a few days ago that we would now be ahead of them in Pairwise

I guess there is still a lot of volatility, particularly for Ivies with only 16 games or so.

2 to 12 in two weeks is bad, but I wonder what happened to us over the end of January, early February last year?