PDA

View Full Version : Maine - BU = Pretty Sad



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11

Tater
02-15-2013, 11:14 PM
Right now, Maine + BU = Pretty Sad.

BU2K
02-16-2013, 12:37 AM
um player out of the crease before the shot, goalie sticks hits lomberg skate.....4-3 maine win.

His left pad glances off left skate while it is still in the crease while O'Connor is moving across. Looked like Matt saw him in the blue and made sure he made contact hoping the interference would negate whatever happened. The real question is why he was even in the crease? He could have stayed a little further back, gave a good screen and been right in front to bury the likely juicy rebound.

Still a really bad call.

This officiating crew is a joke. One thing both sides can agree on.

defkit
02-16-2013, 07:16 AM
Well Maine did have an extra guy for the better part of the second... Gotta cut down on the penalties. Hard to gauge effort when you are gassed from being on the PK half the night.

Yeah, BU seemed to be shorthanded for almost the entire second period. Some penalties were bad. Kurker's hook in the offensive zone, right ini front of the ref for example. Megan's looked really dumb, but in a way, I'm not as upset with his. Megan was clearly frustrated with the lack of a call on Diamond for coming in and taking him out. Combined with the way Diamond is such an agitator, the game had turned, the season has turned, I understand why he blew his lid for a second.

Jacques Joubert
02-16-2013, 07:36 AM
Poorly officiated game and the "no-goal" call was not great. I guess by the letter of the law it was interference but it was weak. Perhaps because it came off a bad call against Noonan? Did anybody notice that O'Connor was again dropping into the butterfly way too early and Maine was shooting it right over his shoulder? The Maine GWG that was disallowed is emblematic of his issues. Hold the puck, he drops, shoot the puck over his shoulder. Easy.

The Kurker hook was downright dumb. In front of the ref and 200 feet away from his own goal.

The reason Maine came back to play so well was 100% my fault. BU played really well for the first 15 mins or so and I noticed how Maine was not forechecking BU in their own zone.

This is when I actually said aloud, "Geez, Maine is sitting back and letting BU walk it to center ice. Haven't they watched the recent game tapes? A good forecheck gives BU all kinds of trouble."

My Bad.

rude1979us
02-16-2013, 08:28 AM
Watching the replay of the disallowed goal (at the one minute mark of the video below) I don't see goaltender interference at all. What am I missing?


http://youtu.be/AbUU789X65o

KnowItAll
02-16-2013, 08:41 AM
Watching the replay of the disallowed goal (at the one minute mark of the video below) I don't see goaltender interference at all. What am I missing?


http://youtu.be/AbUU789X65o

according to the NCAA rulebook...

If any member of the attacking team (other than the player in possession of the puck) was in or skating through the goal crease when the goal was scored from outside the crease, unless:


i. The goalkeeper was outside the crease when the puck entered the net; or
An attacking player was in the crease but, in the opinion of the official, was not physically or visually preventing the goalkeeper from defending the goal.

Lomberg was in the crease and not in poses session of the puck, right?
O'Connor (the goalie) was in the crease right?
Lomberg, in the opinion of the ref prevented O'Connor from defending the goal, visually

that looked like it should have been waved off to me...

Hamilton was not screening Chevrie or whoever was in net for Denver when he was "in the crease", but Lomberg was standing directly in front to O'Connor

KnowItAll
02-16-2013, 08:44 AM
His left pad glances off left skate while it is still in the crease while O'Connor is moving across. Looked like Matt saw him in the blue and made sure he made contact hoping the interference would negate whatever happened. The real question is why he was even in the crease? He could have stayed a little further back, gave a good screen and been right in front to bury the likely juicy rebound.

Still a really bad call.

This officiating crew is a joke. One thing both sides can agree on.

why was it a joke?
you are adding that there must be contact with the goalie for a proper "no goal" call.
they got it right.

The Rube
02-16-2013, 08:45 AM
IMO he was out of the crease when the puck entered the crease, which should result in a goal.

KnowItAll
02-16-2013, 08:59 AM
IMO he was out of the crease when the puck entered the crease, which should result in a goal.

the video linked in this thread does not show Lomberg in the crease as well as the overhead view that was shown during the telecast.
he had both feet in the paint, not by much, but in the crease when the puck entered the crease and the net.

The Rube
02-16-2013, 09:02 AM
the video linked in this thread does not show Lomberg in the crease as well as the overhead view that was shown during the telecast.
he had both feet in the paint, not by much, but in the crease when the puck entered the crease and the net.

He was in the crease before the puck entered the crease, that's clear. However, he had exited the crease before the puck entered the crease. I have zero dog in this fight, by the way. I watched it a few times on tv, and that's what I saw.

chickod
02-16-2013, 09:08 AM
IMO he was out of the crease when the puck entered the crease, which should result in a goal.

BUT, he wasn't "out of the crease" during the whole time O'Connor was trying to see the puck, including after it was shot. Just because he moved his skate outside the blue area one millionth of a second before the puck got there doesn't mean he didn't impair O'Connor's vision and thus, his ability to REACT TO and make a PLAY on the puck. And if you want to say that players screen the goalie all the time - yes they do, but from OUTSIDE the crease.

It's like if you faceguard a wide receiver (hold your hands directly in front of his face) and then pull them away at the last second. You can't expect someone to react when he has been unable to see until the last microsecond. Maybe it was "weak," but it was the right call. And you have to make these calls in a vacuum...you can't be influenced by something that may or may not have happened earlier (as some have alluded to).

rude1979us
02-16-2013, 09:16 AM
the video linked in this thread does not show Lomberg in the crease as well as the overhead view that was shown during the telecast.
he had both feet in the paint, not by much, but in the crease when the puck entered the crease and the net.

That was the only video I could find (so far) and the 1:02 mark of the video it shows Lomberg skate through the crease, exit the crease before the puck leaves the shooters stick and is definitely 100% out of the crease before the puck crosses the goal line.

And in this interview with the BU goalie he said he thought the ref was sick of players being in the crease "all night". If you are disallowing a goal for instances of being in the crease on other plays, that is horrible officiating.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQXEQIp-tuM

Hockeyman99
02-16-2013, 09:31 AM
After reading several posts I can't help wonder when it became an infraction to screen the goaltender? Come on for crying out loud, it's hockey. Let the players determine the outcome not the ref's. Jackie's skill at manipulating the officials shouldn't be a factor in the outcome and shame on the officials for even being part of the story. Where was Tim when his players were getting hosed yet again?

Hockeyman99
02-16-2013, 09:38 AM
After reading several posts I can't help wonder when it became an infraction to screen the goaltender? Come on for crying out loud, it's hockey. Let the players determine the outcome not the ref's. Jackie's skill at manipulating the officials shouldn't be a factor in the outcome and shame on the officials for even being part of the story. Where was Tim when his players were getting hosed yet again?

Priceless
02-16-2013, 09:42 AM
A good indication that there was no goaltender interference on the play was that O'Connor didn't say a word to the referee after the goal. If there is even the slightest hint of something the goaltender will usually run screaming to the referee about interference or a high stick or something. Look at O'Connor's body language after the goal. He knew it was a good goal.

Jacques Joubert
02-16-2013, 09:49 AM
After reading several posts I can't help wonder when it became an infraction to screen the goaltender? Come on for crying out loud, it's hockey. Let the players determine the outcome not the ref's. Jackie's skill at manipulating the officials shouldn't be a factor in the outcome and shame on the officials for even being part of the story. Where was Tim when his players were getting hosed yet again?

Don't think it was Parker at all. I just think the refs did a bad job. Bad calls both ways for sure. This no-goal call was really egregious though.

DaveStPaul
02-16-2013, 09:53 AM
I wanna know why we spend so much to bribe the refs, and Parker controls everything from the league officials on down, and we're still losing? :mad:

That being said: Holy freaking cow that Diamond goal was a SNIPE.

rude1979us
02-16-2013, 09:59 AM
On a different note, why was BU's third goal not reviewed? I was sitting right behind the Maine bench and from there it looked like Oksanen might have used a high stick to redirect it in. I'm not saying it was definitely a high stick, but they used video review two or three other times, why not then?

Priceless
02-16-2013, 10:13 AM
I wanna know why we spend so much to bribe the refs, and Parker controls everything from the league officials on down, and we're still losing? :mad:

That being said: Holy freaking cow that Diamond goal was a SNIPE.

The referees can only do much. They tried real hard to give you the Crockpot semifinal against Northeastern but finally just gave up when BU refused to capitalize time and time again.

chickod
02-16-2013, 10:28 AM
On a different note, why was BU's third goal not reviewed? I was sitting right behind the Maine bench and from there it looked like Oksanen might have used a high stick to redirect it in. I'm not saying it was definitely a high stick, but they used video review two or three other times, why not then?

I know...let's review EVERY play! That way the concessions people can make more money and we can spend five hours at the game! They already ruined football, so why not hockey too? Doesn't it just do your heart good to see them review a play 617 times and STILL get it wrong? I love the way everyone crucifies the referees. As if the players NEVER make a mistake. I've had always maintained this - if you put yourself in a position where one bad call can beat you, then you DESERVE to lose. Period.

Enough of this already!!!