BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

[Alton]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

McInchak screwed Michigan at Yost last season against Notre Dame, whistling a play dead (from 70 feet away) that resulted in a game tying goal mouth scramble goal being waived off. His partner was looking at the play from behind the net.

So yes, contrary to how most Mav fans feel towards Michigan, they do not get all of the CCHA breaks.

Be fair, Streak. The ref you are thinking about, who whistled the play dead from 80 feet away despite having a partner right on top of the play, was Brian Aaron.

http://www.collegehockeystats.net/08...s/mmicndm1.j31

[MavRick]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

I don't think there's much of a conspiracy here. "Not reopening a closed game" is the last shriek on the retreat for every commissioner who holds a job at the pleasure of his league institutions. But a goal scored by an ineligible player is a non-thing, a nullity, a vodka martini, a chicken club sandwich: It is a thing that is not.

For this proposition, I cite Approved Ruling 34 from the Ice Hockey rulebook:

A.R.: The penalty timekeeper mistakenly releases Team A player A1 before
the penalty time is up. While player A1 is on the ice, Team A scores a goal.
RULING: The goal is disallowed, regardless of whether the penalized
player took part in the score. A1 must return to the penalty box and serve
the remaining penalty time.

What's significant here is that it does not say "The goal must be disallowed," or "The referee must wave off the goal." It says "the goal is disallowed." The penalized player's goal in the shootout was disallowed, no matter what Steve McInchak or Tom Anastos said. There was no goal to score.

There is, therefore, nothing to let Bowling Green keep. On the face of the score sheet, a player with an unexpired penalty cannot be shown as having scored a valid goal. If you wrote down a 5-minute penalty for Jones at 10:00, and then you write down a goal for Jones at 11:00, the goal is an ex-parrot. It simply doesn't exist. The score sheet of the game does not show Bowling Green won the shootout. It shows that the shootout is incomplete.

As I said over on MavPuck, Ben's analogy to baseball is off the mark. In baseball, the rules permit appeals but only until the next pitch is thrown or the next batter appears, at which time the appeal becomes untimely by rule. In baseball, the pitcher can not throw, the batter can not step in and each manager can call effectively unlimited time outs. Effectively, both sides can prevent the next play from occurring. Hockey has no untimeliness rule. And as above, the validity of the goal does not depend on the objection of the team; the validity of the goal depends on the eligibility of the player.

The only question in my mind is whether Bowling Green has forfeited the shootout by leaving town before it was over.

[Alton]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

So the CCHA statement says, in part, that "This error in rules enforcement during the course of the game, while unfortunate, can only be corrected during the course of the game. Once the game is concluded, there are no further actions that can take place to correct the situation."

I am surprised no Nebraska-Omaha fans have reminded us of this game:
http://www.uscho.com/recaps/20022003...11/col-uno.php

In that game, the Mavericks scored an overtime goal to beat Colgate, 6-5. Except, several days after the game ended, the NCAA Rules Committee decided that further actions could take place to correct the situation.

Because Nebraska-Omaha did not follow the proper overtime protocol, all of the overtimes played after the first 5 minutes were wiped out. Even though the officials signed the scoresheet, declaring Nebraska-Omaha a 6-5 winner, it seems that corrective action took place.

[MavRick]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

That's right, Alton. The NCAA felt free to step in when UNO's score sheet said a goal had been scored in the "second overtime" of a regular season game. The face of the score sheet purported to show something that could not have legally occurred. The NCAA stepped in and recognized only the events that could have occurred consistent with the rules, and changed the result accordingly.

The argument here is the same. The score sheet shows an event occurred that could not have legally affected the outcome. There is no BG shootout win to "recognize."

[unofan]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

As I said over on MavPuck, Ben's analogy to baseball is off the mark. In baseball, the rules permit appeals but only until the next pitch is thrown or the next batter appears, at which time the appeal becomes untimely by rule. In baseball, the pitcher can not throw, the batter can not step in and each manager can call effectively unlimited time outs. Effectively, both sides can prevent the next play from occurring. Hockey has no untimeliness rule. And as above, the validity of the goal does not depend on the objection of the team; the validity of the goal depends on the eligibility of the player.

And UNO could have not taken their last shootout attempt.

That would have prevented the next play from occuring, which is the nearly universal limiting point for reviewing in-game calls. The next pitch, the next snap, the next inbounding of the basketball, all prevent review of prior actions. Likewise, in hockey, you cannot review goals (or non-goals) once the puck has been dropped again following the whistle.

Also, the NCAA is not going to review this, because it has no effect for NCAA purposes. Shootouts themselves are nullities in the eye of the NCAA, affecting neither team's record. In the eyes of the NCAA, the game was a tie.

[davyd83]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

My question is did Blais raise the issue when the BGSU player lined up to shoot, immediately after the shot or following the conclusion of the shootout? Or did this issue escape not only the player and BG Coach Williams and the referees, but Blais and the UNO team as well?

[streaker]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

Be fair, Streak. The ref you are thinking about, who whistled the play dead from 80 feet away despite having a partner right on top of the play, was Brian Aaron.

http://www.collegehockeystats.net/08...s/mmicndm1.j31

Oh crap. That's right. My apologies. Gingko is in order. Just the same, there is no conspiracy for or against any team in the league.

In fairness to the officials, shouldn't the scorer/Penalty box official at UNO catch that first, anyway?

[Alton]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

It's like batting out of order in baseball. If you catch it in time, the guy's out. If you don't, whatever happened counts and you move on.

I disagree with this. Batting out of order is one of many instances in baseball of an "appeal play"--something that the umpires are not to call unless the play is appealed by the other team. For example, the rule about batting out of order (OBR 6.07) includes the comment "The umpire shall not direct the attention of any person to the presence in the batter's box of an improper batter. This rule is designed to require constant vigilance by the players and managers of both teams."

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y20...the_batter.pdf

There is no such thing as an appeal play in hockey. If a puck is kicked into the net by an attacking player, for example, it is "no goal" whether the opposing team suggests it to the referee or not. Unlike baseball, it never falls on the offended team to request a correct ruling from the officials in hockey.

Since we have a precedent already established for a governing body exercising their discretion to deliver "justice" to a team after the game has ended (see the Colgate at Nebraska-Omaha game of 2002), there is nothing preventing the CCHA from doing the same thing here, despite the league's statement to the contrary.

Obviously, since this was a shootout, the justice can not come from the NCAA rules committee here--as far as they are concerned, conference points can be given out based on a post-game tiddlywinks contest if that's what the league wants. Justice can only be served by the action of the CCHA.

It also seems that the referees intended to immediately submit the question to league officials for adjudication: by declining to sign the scoresheet, they were saying, "we don't know what the right ruling is here; we will leave that for the league to determine." The league said the next day that they can't change a ruling made by the referees. The CCHA is implying that a ruling was actually made on the ice--and I don't think it was.

[unofan]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

There is no such thing as an appeal play in hockey. If a puck is kicked into the net by an attacking player, for example, it is "no goal" whether the opposing team suggests it to the referee or not. Unlike baseball, it never falls on the offended team to request a correct ruling from the officials in hockey.

But if the referee doesn't notice the "no goal," and play continues, the "no goal" counts and will not be taken off the board. Wrong call? Sure. Will it be changed after the fact? No.

I'm not saying the refs were 100% correct in this. What I'm saying is that the rules in virtually all sports prevent any and all review of calls made by game officials once the next play has taken place. In basketball, a review of a shot to see if a foot was on the line or if it beat the clock can only be made until the ball is put back into play after the next whistle. The same thing in hockey for review of goals/no-goals. In football, plays may only be challenged until the next snap. In baseball all appeal plays must be made before the next pitch.

If something happens at the 10:00 mark of the 1st, and around the 15:00 mark, after thinking about it, the ref realizes he blew it, it isn't going to be changed at that point in time (unless there hasn't been a whistle for those 5 minutes).

The point of all this is, UNO was screwed once their last shooter took his attempt following the error in allowing the BGSU player to take his attempt. Doesn't matter whose fault it ultimately was (primarily the refs, though UNO should've caught it earlier, BGSU shouldn't have tried it in the first place, and there's one story out there that the off-ice officials screwed up by originally writing the wrong number down for the penalty), it's over and done with.

[MavRick]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

But if the referee doesn't notice the "no goal," and play continues, the "no goal" counts and will not be taken off the board. Wrong call? Sure. Will it be changed after the fact? No.

What I'm saying is that the rules in virtually all sports prevent any and all review of calls made by game officials once the next play has taken place.

There is nothing to "review." Even if Ben's citation-free summary of hockey rules (and other sports) was correct, he doesn't address this point.

While Alton's analogy to a kicked-in goal is helpful, it's not perfect. A kicked-in goal is a question of observation, interpretation and judgment by the referee. A player's eligibility is not. You don't have to look at tape of the game, you have to look only at the score sheet, and you know that BG's player was ineligible to take the shot, so he was, by extension, ineligible to make it.

The notation on the score sheet that he made it does not have any effect, any more than a goal scored in the 27th minute of the period, or a goal listed as a three-point basket. On the face of the score sheet, a three-point basket and a 27th minute goal are wrong, and can easily be addressed as the non-events they are without having to review a millimeter of game tape.

The point of all this is, UNO was screwed once their last shooter took his attempt following the error in allowing the BGSU player to take his attempt.

Rule cite, please. College hockey rules strongly preferred.

[dankthetank]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

McInchak screwed Michigan at Yost last season against Notre Dame, whistling a play dead (from 70 feet away) that resulted in a game tying goal mouth scramble goal being waived off. His partner was looking at the play from behind the net.

So yes, contrary to how most Mav fans feel towards Michigan, they do not get all of the CCHA breaks.

Who hasn't McInchak screwed over? Honestly I think he is probably the worst ref in college hockey. He is the only ref I have ever seen make a, "Contact to the Head, High Sticking, Face Off interference, tripping" call. That's right somehow you can trip a player while high sticking them during the face off. Tripping yes. High stick yes. But trip and high stick at the same time? Pretty sure that only works if the player's head is up his own ***** like McInchak's. He looked like a drunk sailor trying to land a jumbo jet on an aircraft carrier on that call.

[unofan]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

Rule cite, please. College hockey rules strongly preferred.

Rule 5: Officials and Officiating Systems
SECTION 3. The duties of the referee are as follows:
a. Have general supervision of the game and full control of game officials
and players from the time the teams exit their dressing rooms, during the
warm-up, during the game, including any stoppages or interruptions of
play, and after the game until such time as the teams enter their dressing
rooms.
In case of any dispute, the referee may change the decision or that of
any other official, provided the change is made before play is renewed.
The referee decision is final; there is no appeal.

(emphasis added is my own)

Edit: For basketball, the rule is 2.12 Correctable Errors, and the applicable subsections are:

Art. 2. When the officials’ error as in Rule 2-12.1 is made while the game clock
is stopped, such errors must be recognized and corrected by an official during
the first dead ball after the game clock has been started properly.
Art. 3. When the officials’ error as in Rule 2-12.1.e is made while the game
clock is running and the ball becomes dead after a successful goal, it must be
recognized and corrected by an official before the second live ball.

[IrishHockeyFan]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

There is no such thing as an appeal play in hockey. If a puck is kicked into the net by an attacking player, for example, it is "no goal" whether the opposing team suggests it to the referee or not. Unlike baseball, it never falls on the offended team to request a correct ruling from the officials in hockey.

I'll throw this out since I don't have my rule book me with or have time right now to look it up: what about goals scored using an illegal stick? Every time I have seen this scenario play out, IIRC it has been the scored-upon team who has asked for a measurement or some other ruling on the stick in question. Would this not be an "appeal" play?

[Alton]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

I'll throw this out since I don't have my rule book me with or have time right now to look it up: what about goals scored using an illegal stick? Every time I have seen this scenario play out, IIRC it has been the scored-upon team who has asked for a measurement or some other ruling on the stick in question. Would this not be an "appeal" play?

Yep--you got me on that one. A goal scored with an illegal stick still counts as a goal, but requesting a measurement of an illegal stick is an "appeal play": Rule 3-1-d reads "When a formal complaint is made by the captain of a team about the dimensions of any stick, the referee shall make the necessary measurements immediately."

Still...my point stands. unofan correctly cites the current rule from the rule book (5-3-a), but I also want to reiterate that the committee who wrote that rule also claimed the right to reverse a referee's decision in that Nebraska-Omaha game against Colgate. Referee Mark Wilkins decided that the game should continue until a winner was determined, and it did. The game ended 6-5, and Wilkins signed the scoresheet with a 6-5 final score indicated.

Was the referee's decision final? Was there no appeal? Obviously not--the record books now say the game ended 5-5, and that goal that Wilkins allowed was wiped off the scorecard over a week after the fact. This is the important point: the committee who wrote those words quoted by unofan also saw no problem in changing the decision of a referee.

Based on that, it seems to me that the CCHA has every right to review whether the protocol was properly followed, and to take corrective action if it was not.

[Iwearpurple]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

If the CCHA played hockey the way it should be played (No stupid shootouts), this discussion would not be taking place.