ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)

[osorojo]

Looks like Cornell played a good game - but they lost. The chief result of excuses is to justify losing. I would prefer to read specific suggestions as to how Cornell could play better hockey as a team?

[CU2007]

Video of the goal, with a look at the possible offsides:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1109656661143126019

Why was anyone saying they didn't see the offside? That's clearly offside. Wow

[BearLover]

Also, McGrath was clearly not on his game in the OT. Which might be expected due to the circumstances, but Galajda probably poke checks the puck out of the crease rather than falling over backwards.

[imafrshmn]

Video of the goal, with a look at the possible offsides:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1109656661143126019

Why was anyone saying they didn't see the offside? That's clearly offside. Wow

I don't know why it took me so long to realize this was offsides. It sucks.

[Iceberg]

Also, McGrath was clearly not on his game in the OT. Which might be expected due to the circumstances, but Galajda probably poke checks the puck out of the crease rather than falling over backwards.

Yeah, that's what I thought too. He definitely could've stopped the pass across. But he was basically thrown into the fire yesterday. Tough luck

[jy3]

The crease rules have changed over the last 15 years multiple times in college hockey. Here is the current iteration. I initially thought the goal was scored with a kicking motion on first look. That does not seem to be the case. Being in the crease does not invalidate the goal. It appears to me by the definition below the goal is good.



Rule 73 - Interference on the Goalkeeper
73.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - The overriding rationale of this rule
is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within the
goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player.
However, an attacking player's position, whether inside or outside the
crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed
or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are
standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances, be allowed.
Goals should be disallowed only if an attacking player, either by positioning
or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal.
Section 9 / Other Fouls 61
If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending
player and causes contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed
contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the
attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking
player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with the
goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking
player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the
attacking player and if a goal is scored it shall be disallowed.
Rights of the Goaltender – The rules must protect the goaltender and allow
him or her to defend the goal, within the goal crease, without interference
from an attacking player. This includes allowing a goaltender to move
effectively and efficiently within the crease, as well as being able to see the
puck unimpeded by a player who has established a position in the crease.
Rights of the Attacking Player – Attacking players who are outside of the
crease have some rights to the space they occupy. In cases where an attacking
player makes contact with goaltender's equipment that extends outside the
plane of the crease (e.g., glove, blocker, stick, etc.), provided that the attacking
player does not initiate distinct and deliberate actions aimed at impeding the
goaltender's use of their equipment (e.g., slashing the goaltender's glove), this
contact should be considered incidental and goals scored on such plays shall
be allowed.
If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal
crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper's vision and impair his ability to
defend his goal, and a goal is scored, such goals shall be disallowed. For this
purpose, a player establishes a significant position within the crease when, in
the referee's judgment, his/her body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within
the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.
Role of the Official – Officials are encouraged to use their


video review rules have changed over the years as well. There was a point in the NHL that play would resume while the review was happening and you could seriously play minutes while the review was going on and then have to replay if the original play was overturned by the review. This was insane and this rule was quickly changed.

Under 93.4, it is correct that the initial off-sides is not reviewable because the puck left the Clarkson attacking zone.
12. To determine if a goal was scored as a result of an offside play or as
the result of an undetected too many men on the ice infraction by
the attacking team. The opportunity for review exists during the time
the puck entered the attacking zone illegally as a result of the offside
infraction and until the puck either:
a) Leaves the offending team's attacking zone;
b) A stoppage of play occurs and a faceoff is conducted; or
c) The defending team gains possession and control of the puck

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH20.pdf

Those are the rules.  The crease/goal tender interference rule is a tough one because you have to balance safety with fairness for the attacker.  The review rule likely was determined as you have to cut off how far back you can review.  So it looks like the offsides was missed but the goal was legal.

[ursusminor]

Yeah, I don't see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate "should have been offsides" comment

To be fair, the RPI play-by-play guy said something like "should be offsides, but they play on..." All skaters clearly touched up and were onside.

I didn't realize the play-by-play guy was the same bozo who claimed in the game at RPI a few months ago that Malott was faking an injury when he stayed down on the ice after getting pushed head-first into the boards.

Don't forget to blame RPI for ref C. J. Hanafin (RPI '05) :-P

[marty]

Yeah, I don't see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate "should have been offsides" comment

To be fair, the RPI play-by-play guy said something like "should be offsides, but they play on..." All skaters clearly touched up and were onside.

I didn't realize the play-by-play guy was the same bozo who claimed in the game at RPI a few months ago that Malott was faking an injury when he stayed down on the ice after getting pushed head-first into the boards.

As mediocre as their play by play crew is,  their video production is tops.  I saw a black RPI TV tshirt during Friday's game.  I'm assuming that the ECAC got the full RPI.

Tute each his own.

[coz]

As mediocre as their play by play crew is,  their video production is tops.  I saw a black RPI TV tshirt during Friday's game.  I'm assuming that the ECAC got the full RPI.

Tute each his own.

I thought Perry was okay though he did make a few mistakes. It was clearly not the RPI guys on the main camera. Whoever it was had no idea where the puck was at least half the time.

[BigRedHockeyFan]

it is interesting how they often ignore guys in the crease and other times dont.. is it more about interfering with the goalie that they care about?

I'm guessing the crease violation looked minor to refs and because there was no contact between Austin and Klack, they didn't call it.  

Still, planting his skate in the crease gave Klack an advantage in scoring the goal.  In my opinion, no goal.

The player has to be "substantially occupying" the crease.  The skate in the crease didn't inhibit McGrath from making a play on the puck.  There were a ton of egregious calls in this game, and horrible reffing in general (e.g., Donaldson high stick, not being in position on the clears, Galajda net, etc.), but eh.

I just read the rule LGR14.  It looks like I was wrong.  I don't like the rule though.

[BigRedHockeyFan]

The crease rules have changed over the last 15 years multiple times in college hockey. Here is the current iteration. I initially thought the goal was scored with a kicking motion on first look. That does not seem to be the case. Being in the crease does not invalidate the goal. It appears to me by the definition below the goal is good.


Those are the rules.  The crease/goal tender interference rule is a tough one because you have to balance safety with fairness for the attacker.  

Thank you for the information about the crease rules.

[redice]

I thought Perry was okay though he did make a few mistakes.

I know that this won't be well received here, but my wife & I felt that Topher sounded like a Clarkson cheerleader on Saturday.  I expect that he didn't want to sound like a Cornell fan (which he probably is), and he over conpensated.   It was difficult to hear all game long.

[Jim Hyla]

So after being home for a couple of hours, I'm less angry. However I realize that I'd pretty much be okay if the ECAC would come out and admit that the officials missed the offsides call and that they should have blown the play dead when it became obvious that Galajda could not get unencumbered from the net. Even if there is no specific rule, in the interest of player safety it seems it could have been blown dead.

I don't expect that the ECAC will say anything, but I can always hope.

It also would have been nice if the Clarkson write-up had mentioned any of the questions or injuries. They made no mention of Malott's game ending injury on his penalty and with Galajda's, here's the quote:

"as the net never totally came off its moorings but did seem to somewhat incapacitate starting goaltender Matthew Galajda."

Of course no mention of the missed offside.

If teams, leagues, fans just admit when something like that happens, it's a lot easier to take a loss.

Interestingly as I looked back on the goal net play, when they finally blew the whistle they faced-off at center ice. Was that whistle eventually blown because of the net? I completely forgot about that until watching again.

[RatushnyFan]

Couple of tough breaks for sure.  But I thought that Cornell played excellent hockey for much of the game.  Curious if the officials have a more difficult time transitioning to the Olympic sheet?  Despite the big ice they were in the way more often than what I normally see.  They have a tough job.  Apologizing would be nice, if they do that though I imagine it would be to Cornell's coaching staff.

Re. Topher, I liked his commentary.  He's probably close with Casey Jones.  He was very complimentary of Clarkson but they're a pretty skilled team and would be easy to like aside from the fact that they're.........Clarkson.  I'll take impartiality (or even overcompensating) over Jack Edwards any day of the week!

[upprdeck]

there is no rule needed when it comes to player safety..  same with every sport.