cu- lowell

[upprdeck]

is there some part of that review that makes any sense?  stick contact way below the shoulder.  or do the announcers have the rule confused?

[Al DeFlorio]

is there some part of that review that makes any sense?  stick contact way below the shoulder.  or do the announcers have the rule confused?

Deja vu 2003

[Dafatone]

I'm wondering if the rule is based on where the puck makes contact or simply how high the stick is in total.  Cause the contact was further up the shaft and definitely below the shoulders, but the blade came up that high at some point in the play.

[MattShaf]

Yup....Although we were outplayed the rest of the period by UML, the response was better than against UNH in '03.

[upprdeck]

its where the contact occurs not where the stick is.  

i was trying to find the most recent rule about it.  all the older rules i found makes it sound like it should have counted like the announcers though..  it was easily below the shoulder but maybe its really the net?

[LGR14]

The rule, at least in the NHL, is that the point of contact cannot be above the crossbar. At least to me, I thought it looked like the point of contact WAS above the crossbar.

My problem is that I'm not sure why it was reviewable. If the puck had gone in off the high-stick, fine. But now what's the line? If the puck is played with a potential high-stick, waived off, then three minutes later the team scores, is that too tenuous?

[andyw2100]

It was ruled a goal on the ice. There was not, in my opinion, irrefutable evidence that the puck was played with a high-stick. It was an incredibly close call. If it's that close, the refs should allow the call on the ice to stand.

I definitely feel like the refs are looking at the replays, and simply making a call based on what they see, with no regard for what was called on the ice. It's as if they are starting from scratch. Bullshit!

[LGR14]

It was ruled a goal on the ice. There was not, in my opinion, irrefutable evidence that the puck was played with a high-stick. It was an incredibly close call. If it's that close, the refs should allow the call on the ice to stand.

I definitely feel like the refs are looking at the replays, and simply making a call based on what they see, with no regard for what was called on the ice. It's as if they are starting from scratch. Bullshit!

I do agree with this point - and that seemed to be what was going on in a couple of yesterday's games, too. Also have to be mindful of how the angles can be misleading, especially when it comes to the height of a stick and whether the puck has crossed the line.

[Dafatone]

The rule, at least in the NHL, is that the point of contact cannot be above the crossbar. At least to me, I thought it looked like the point of contact WAS above the crossbar.

My problem is that I'm not sure why it was reviewable. If the puck had gone in off the high-stick, fine. But now what's the line? If the puck is played with a potential high-stick, waived off, then three minutes later the team scores, is that too tenuous?

My understanding is that they can and will review everything from the puck entering the zone to the goal.

[upprdeck]

found this on one site

Here is a tricky situation. What happens if the player has his stick pointing above his head, but the puck hits a spot on the portion of his stick that is below his shoulders?

The answer is that this would not be considered a high stick.  Even though the stick was high up in the air, the actual puck contacting the stick was below the shoulders; therefore play shall be allowed to continue.  If the puck happens to enter the net after such a play, the goal would count.

its also the normal height  of the shoulder.. so as he was crouching its actually a big higher..

[imafrshmn]

It's gonna be real hard to get back into this game down 2-0. UML looks like they're turning the screws the way Harvard did to us last week.

[upprdeck]

would have been nice to get that slash call on the yates attempt..  when we have had a chance to forecheck we have created chances, they are just a bit quicker to recover and limit the chances with the puck

[snert1288]

Good call waving off UML short handed goal. Looks like at least 5 (probably 6) men on ice

[Tcl123]

Need to handle the puck alot better. Connecting on a pass seems like a rarity. Turnover after turnover.

[BMac]

The neutral zone turnovers are brutal. The beginning of the first period we looked awesome, like our game against union. Now we look overmatched and slow.