4 foot rule

[Jordan 04]

[q]But what is up with the NCAA rule (or so I have been told) that does NOT ALLOW replays to be shown on the jumbotron. In Albany, we seemed to get the same replays that the officials were using in their reviews. Very frustrating just sitting in the stands.[/q]

Would it have mattered?  The picture quality was not good enough to see the kind of detail necessary to determine anything.

[kingpin248]

[q]But what is up with the NCAA rule (or so I have been told) that does NOT ALLOW replays to be shown on the jumbotron.[/q]

It's right next to the rule that says they must use the jumbotron to pound into our heads the fact that there are 360,000 NCAA student athletes...:-(

[Tub(a)]

AND THEY REPEATED THEM AT THE HOBEY BAKER AWARDS SHOW!!! ::demented::

[Scott Kominkiewicz \'84]

I want to know what happens to an issue like this - does it just go under the rug?

In Olympic figure skating they would give you a second gold medal.   ::nut::

[ugarte]

Finally got to watch the game.  The goal should not have been reversed.  That said, if the ref had called it no goal, that shouldn't have been reversed either.  I've seen the play dozens of times now, and I really can't tell whether his stick was too high or not.

[Jim Hyla]

Well, if you think we were robbed, you should watch the UM-UM game replay. The no goal on Michigan was as bad as ours, except I think it was called no goal on the ice. The replay shows/sounds the whistle happenning before the puck crossed the line. However the puck was moving toward the line at that time (IMHO). So the puck is going toward the net but the ref blows his whistle before it gets there and the goal is disallowed. Makes for some interesting interpretations, a slap shot is called back in midair because the whistle blows too soon, etc.. And that would have been the winning goal.

Yes, I'm biased, having also gone to UM, but take a look for yourself.

[ACM]

Go to www.ncaa.org.

Navigate to the 2003 Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules.

Read Appendix C, the Video Replay Policies and Procedures.

Answer your own questions.

[ugarte]

Jim Hyla '67 wrote: The replay shows/sounds the whistle happenning before the puck crossed the line.

I understand the rule, because it can't be any other way - the whistle has to be a rigid line.  But I still think back to Andison's "goal" in the 1990 ECAC semis against RPI and cringe.

[Jim Hyla]

Arthur Mintz said[Q]Go to http://www.ncaa.org.

Navigate to the 2003 Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules.

Read Appendix C, the Video Replay Policies and Procedures.

Answer your own questions.[/Q]I agree the rules are there, but the interpretation was that it was conclusive, and as I said on another topic I, and many others, can't see the conclusiveness by the TV replays. They could end this by showing the supposed definative replay that they had acess to. However as I also stated, that's like ever hearing Nixon's secret plan to end the war.::rolleyes::

[Jim Hyla]

BRA said[Q]Jim Hyla '67 wrote: The replay shows/sounds the whistle happenning before the puck crossed the line.
I understand the rule, because it can't be any other way - the whistle has to be a rigid line. But I still think back to Andison's "goal" in the 1990 ECAC semis against RPI and cringe.[/Q]I agree that that is the way it has to be. My point, poorly written, was that looking at it, a UM fan would be pissed at the ref, and that it even had to go to replay.

[Stewart Wight]

Sitting with some of the UNH fans who reviewed the goal back in their hotels, I heard the following explanation:

If ANY part of the stick is above '4 when contact is made, it is high-sticking and not a goal. Apparently the blade was "clearly" above '4 feet, even if the shaft was not.

Grr...

[Adam 04]

Bullshit!!! A few nights ago in the NHL playoffs a guy batted the puck into the net. He hit his stick down against the crossbar, but contacted the puck below the crossbar. The goal stood. Barry Melrose even talked about how it was ok for a part of the stick to be above four feet as long as the part that contacts the puck is below for feet. It was not high sticking for the last time!!!

[jtwcornell91]

Stewart Wight wrote:

Sitting with some of the UNH fans who reviewed the goal back in their hotels, I heard the following explanation:

If ANY part of the stick is above '4 when contact is made, it is high-sticking and not a goal. Apparently the blade was "clearly" above '4 feet, even if the shaft was not.

There's been a discussion of this on Hockey-L, but apparently that interpretation is no longer listed in the rulebook.  At any rate, it seems bizarre, since that means if Baby were to hold his stick vertically for some reason and tip a puck at ice level, it would be considered to have been played with a high stick.

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind0304&L=hockey-l&D=0&F=P&O=D&P=9871&F=

[crodger1]

Jim,

I am pretty sure that Arthur's comment was directed at me (asking, earlier, what the official rule on review of the play is... is it like the NFL where it has to be 100% conclusive?).

I was a bit preoccupied at work Friday and didn't really have time to look it up (or read eLF, for that matter, though I did :-) ).  Per Arthur's request, the answer to my question is that yes, the evidence has to be absolutely conclusive to overturn the decision on the ice.

I sure hope that the angle we didn't see on ESPN2 was THAT conclusive; according to Bob Norton (during the second game, I think) the review official saw this phantom angle only at the end of the (very long, but not enough time to show us the same angle) 5-minute break and concluded immediately that the puck was high-sticked in.  Maybe they got it from the ref-cam that we saw in the other games but not in the Cornell game.  Or perhaps they needed 5 minutes to do a bunch of trigonometry.

When does the Red/White countdown start?

Chris

[Stewart Wight]

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2003/ice_hockey_rules.pdf

Rule is vague... Look in the index (section 6-18?) to find info on highsticking... it only says a goal shall be disallowed if the puck is played by a stick held over 4 feet... nothing is specified about whether over 4 feet does or does not refer to our specific case...

  ::screwy::