PDA

View Full Version : UNH - BU Home and Home



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

slurpees
11-21-2010, 03:15 PM
We were in row G in the section on Rollheiser's right and clearly saw the puck in the net before Rollheiser lifted his right post off its mooring. I was certain that the refs spent the time they did in review looking at something else, such as a possible high stick or a hooking penalty on BU, but we were still surprised when the goal was waived off with no penalty. About a minute later when UNH scored again all the BU fans around us wanted that goal waived off also. :)

This is wrong. I sit directly on the goal line of that net on the side of the post that came off. It was absolutely off its mooring when the puck went in. The ref was pointing directly at the post off the net when he called the goal. There was no doubt, the post was off before the puck went in, hence why the review was pretty quick for a waived off goal.

WildShawn
11-21-2010, 06:59 PM
Post came off the mooring. Or, if you're a UNH fan, the refs suck and Jack has them all in his pocket. :)

so why was it not a delay of game penalty?

Scarlet
11-21-2010, 07:53 PM
so why was it not a delay of game penalty?

Why would it be a delay of game? It wasn't intentional. We weren't playing Maine. Sheesh. ;)

WildShawn
11-21-2010, 08:02 PM
It wasn't intentional.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight :p

I raised the question in the UNH thread, but I'll ask here. why is the defending team rewarded like that for knocking the net off? I didn't see last night's, just had the UNH radio broadcast, so I don't know how much time elapsed from the net coming off (did it come off, or pop up, like Friday night's seemed to?) and the puck going in? Did the net coming off/up have any bearing on the goal itself? I know things like that have been adjusted in the NHL so if its clear the net is coming off doesn't aid in the goal, it counts.
Rules is rules and if it was called correctly, there's not much of an argument really (though you can't tell me BU doesn't have a history of 'accidentally' knocking the net off at convenient times :p)

Bomber
11-21-2010, 08:50 PM
I like BU's play calling here. Everyone expects the old knock the net off the mooring play against Maine, but you see what BU did here? They waited until the UNH weekend to pull it out. Nice.

slurpees
11-21-2010, 09:03 PM
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight :p

I raised the question in the UNH thread, but I'll ask here. why is the defending team rewarded like that for knocking the net off? I didn't see last night's, just had the UNH radio broadcast, so I don't know how much time elapsed from the net coming off (did it come off, or pop up, like Friday night's seemed to?) and the puck going in? Did the net coming off/up have any bearing on the goal itself? I know things like that have been adjusted in the NHL so if its clear the net is coming off doesn't aid in the goal, it counts.
Rules is rules and if it was called correctly, there's not much of an argument really (though you can't tell me BU doesn't have a history of 'accidentally' knocking the net off at convenient times :p)

He slid from his right to left and in the process his right skate swung back and knocked it off. It was off about 4 or 5 inches, not popped up and came back down. There was definitely no intent as the attacker was coming right in on him so he'd have to be a fool, and a pretty skilled one too, to intentionally knock it off in that scenario and make the initial save. It was off about 3 or 4 seconds before the puck was eventually batted in. I don't know if it had much of a direct effect on the play, but the rule is what it is. Net off, no goal.

Snively65
11-21-2010, 09:22 PM
He slid from his right to left and in the process his right skate swung back and knocked it off. It was off about 4 or 5 inches, not popped up and came back down. There was definitely no intent as the attacker was coming right in on him so he'd have to be a fool, and a pretty skilled one too, to intentionally knock it off in that scenario and make the initial save. It was off about 3 or 4 seconds before the puck was eventually batted in. I don't know if it had much of a direct effect on the play, but the rule is what it is. Net off, no goal.

Interesting that we had the same view but saw the play so differently. Guess that is why eye witness accounts are so poorly regarded. I agree that the post was 4 or 5 inches off and not up and back down in place. No way was the post off 3-4 seconds before the puck was in the net, but rather about a second after. Also, I did not see a skate hit the post, but rather shoulder or upper arm lift the cross bar. I agree that it does not matter whether the post being off had a direct effect on the play; it was all the timing, which is what surprised me about the review, which presumably included an overhead cam?

Gryba Dekes
11-22-2010, 08:13 AM
Interesting that we had the same view but saw the play so differently. Guess that is why eye witness accounts are so poorly regarded. I agree that the post was 4 or 5 inches off and not up and back down in place. No way was the post off 3-4 seconds before the puck was in the net, but rather about a second after. Also, I did not see a skate hit the post, but rather shoulder or upper arm lift the cross bar. I agree that it does not matter whether the post being off had a direct effect on the play; it was all the timing, which is what surprised me about the review, which presumably included an overhead cam? The post came off with enough time for me to think "play's dead" before the puck actually went in the net, which is why I had no reaction to the puck going in net--I knew it would be waived off immediately. I'm sitting in 115 so I was right on the goal line as well. Also, the save was all the way to Rollie's left so it's only natural that he would kick off the right post. This also means he wouldn't have the space to use his arm or shoulder to knock off the goal; he was hanging out the left side of the goal.

C-H-C
11-22-2010, 10:25 AM
Would have been helpful for the BU Hockey website to include the play in question on their "Highlight Video." (though I realize it probably is not practical and only a few USCHO posters think it's a "highlight").

BU Hammer
11-22-2010, 12:28 PM
Re: The no-goal call

I got to watch the replay 3-4 times in the press box. What happened was Rollheiser slid to his left to stay with the puck, and kicked the post to his left with his skate. When he hit that post, the whole net shook, and you could see the right post –– the opposite one*–– jump up and come down 4 or 5 inches behind where it belonged. The net was off at least 2 or 3 seconds before the puck went in, and was clearly the right call.

The only part that was confusing to me was how Rollheiser kicking the left post caused the right one to pop up. I saw it happen, and nobody else touched the net so I know that's what caused it. It was just a very strange play.

Agganis
11-22-2010, 12:40 PM
The only part that was confusing to me was how Rollheiser kicking the left post caused the right one to pop up. I saw it happen, and nobody else touched the net so I know that's what caused it. It was just a very strange play.

It's cause the net is on hydraulics operated by Parker on the bench, he just pushed the wrong button so the opposite post lifted up. Duh:rolleyes:

defkit
11-22-2010, 12:55 PM
It's cause the net is on hydraulics operated by Parker on the bench, he just pushed the wrong button so the opposite post lifted up. Duh:rolleyes:

Strong work.

C-H-C
11-22-2010, 01:06 PM
Re: The no-goal call

I got to watch the replay 3-4 times in the press box. What happened was Rollheiser slid to his left to stay with the puck, and kicked the post to his left with his skate. When he hit that post, the whole net shook, and you could see the right post –– the opposite one*–– jump up and come down 4 or 5 inches behind where it belonged. The net was off at least 2 or 3 seconds before the puck went in, and was clearly the right call.

The only part that was confusing to me was how Rollheiser kicking the left post caused the right one to pop up. I saw it happen, and nobody else touched the net so I know that's what caused it. It was just a very strange play.
That pretty much settles it.

C-H-C
11-22-2010, 01:12 PM
It's cause the net is on hydraulics operated by Parker on the bench, he just pushed the wrong button so the opposite post lifted up. Duh:rolleyes:
That pretty much explains it.

Federal League
11-22-2010, 01:16 PM
It's cause the net is on hydraulics operated by Parker on the bench, he just pushed the wrong button so the opposite post lifted up. Duh:rolleyes:

You win one (1) threads.

buoldtimer
11-22-2010, 01:31 PM
It's cause the net is on hydraulics operated by Parker on the bench, he just pushed the wrong button so the opposite post lifted up. Duh:rolleyes:

It's next to the button JP pushes that activates a buzzer in the refs' pocket letting them know when to call a penalty on the opposition.

slurpees
11-22-2010, 03:12 PM
It's next to the button JP pushes that activates a buzzer in the refs' pocket letting them know when to call a penalty on the opposition.

paging lowell fans, paging lowell fans.

buoldtimer
11-22-2010, 03:15 PM
paging lowell fans, paging lowell fans.

In the case of UML, it's the button he uses to alert the refs to disallow a goal.

Snively65
11-22-2010, 03:48 PM
It's cause the net is on hydraulics operated by Parker on the bench, he just pushed the wrong button so the opposite post lifted up. Duh:rolleyes:

Excellent! Well played. I guess that the black object that I thought that I saw at the back of the net before the right post got knocked off was something other than the puck. Probably time for me to get new glasses.

WildShawn
11-22-2010, 05:42 PM
In the case of UML, it's the button he uses to alert the refs to disallow a goal.

Or to 'intend to blow.........the whistle'