Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

[SCSU Euro]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

My point in posting this wasn't to actually get an apology. The league is never going to admit they made a mistake and throw the refs under the bus.

Could not disagree more. The WCHA used to hand out "sorry we blew that call" apology letters all the time; if you want to see what one looks like ask Motzko, he's got a few lying around his office. I'll preface by saying I have no dog in this fight and I didn't see the play, but from what I have read and the still shots what I think is that its a really, really close judgement call, and close enough where they don't need to issue an apology. Its when they blow a call that is irrefutable that they issue apologies. This is one that if they'd made the call either way they'd not have to apologize, cuz it was too close to call either way.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

Could not disagree more. The WCHA used to hand out "sorry we blew that call" apology letters all the time; if you want to see what one looks like ask Motzko, he's got a few lying around his office. I'll preface by saying I have no dog in this fight and I didn't see the play, but from what I have read and the still shots what I think is that its a really, really close judgement call, and close enough where they don't need to issue an apology. Its when they blow a call that is irrefutable that they issue apologies. This is one that if they'd made the call either way they'd not have to apologize, cuz it was too close to call either way.

The point is that if it's that's clos, you go with call on ice.

[SCSU Euro]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

The point is that if it's that's clos, you go with call on ice.

And I get that, though I'm not a fan of that logic. Its the same thing in football; if you see something live, in a split-second, from a bad, maybe obstructed view, and you make a call, then that overrules a call when you get multiple angles and you can slow it down and pause and rewind if you're 99% sure you got it wrong? I say if you review it and you're 51% right the call was wrong, overturn it. But that's just one man's opinion.

And again, I didn't see the play, but is there a chance that they took a look, decided to overturn it, and then had to spend more time figuring something else out like how much time to put on the clock? Not saying there is, but I feel like there could be something else going on there.

[SJHovey]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

I was watching a football game in the past couple of weeks where a similar situation came up. The call went one way on the field. Before the replay the color analyst was stressing the importance of the call being made one way, and the need for "irrefutable" evidence to overturn it. Like this Tech play, it was hard to say there was some evidence that you could look at that said yes, this call should be overturned, but the replay sure seemed to suggest it should be overturned and sure enough it was.

The broadcasters raised many of the same questions/arguments Tech fans have in this thread, and they asked their officiating expert to explain. I thought his response was interesting.

He said that even though the on-field officials know about the "irrefutable" evidence standard, or whatever it might be called, there is a growing feeling among officials that once they get in the replay booth it is more important to them that they ultimately get the call right, rather than overturn a predetermined "standard of proof." In other words, I can't actually see the football cross the line (definitive, clear proof), but I know it has to be there because of all else that I can see. I thought that was a really interesting point, and one that I have come to believe in.

If someone had just handed me the photos you guys posted earlier and asked me if I thought Tech was offside, knowing nothing more about the play, I would have told you they were offsides, even though I can't see the puck. I can see the players, and I can see the blade that is pushing the puck just about to enter the blue line as the other Tech player has clearly reached the far side of the blue line. Furthermore the Tech player with the puck is skating slightly diagonal to the blue line as opposed to directly across it, stretching the distance he must cross the blue line by a slight amount.

Seeing that, and applying my years of watching hockey, I would say Tech was offside. I agree there is not "irrefutable" proof of it because I literally can't see the puck, but if I were sitting in the replay booth and wanting to get the call ultimately right, I might very well go the way these officials went.

[manurespreader]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

I was watching a football game in the past couple of weeks where a similar situation came up. The call went one way on the field. Before the replay the color analyst was stressing the importance of the call being made one way, and the need for "irrefutable" evidence to overturn it. Like this Tech play, it was hard to say there was some evidence that you could look at that said yes, this call should be overturned, but the replay sure seemed to suggest it should be overturned and sure enough it was.

The broadcasters raised many of the same questions/arguments Tech fans have in this thread, and they asked their officiating expert to explain. I thought his response was interesting.

He said that even though the on-field officials know about the "irrefutable" evidence standard, or whatever it might be called, there is a growing feeling among officials that once they get in the replay booth it is more important to them that they ultimately get the call right, rather than overturn a predetermined "standard of proof." In other words, I can't actually see the football cross the line (definitive, clear proof), but I know it has to be there because of all else that I can see. I thought that was a really interesting point, and one that I have come to believe in.

If someone had just handed me the photos you guys posted earlier and asked me if I thought Tech was offside, knowing nothing more about the play, I would have told you they were offsides, even though I can't see the puck. I can see the players, and I can see the blade that is pushing the puck just about to enter the blue line as the other Tech player has clearly reached the far side of the blue line. Furthermore the Tech player with the puck is skating slightly diagonal to the blue line as opposed to directly across it, stretching the distance he must cross the blue line by a slight amount.

Seeing that, and applying my years of watching hockey, I would say Tech was offside. I agree there is not "irrefutable" proof of it because I literally can't see the puck, but if I were sitting in the replay booth and wanting to get the call ultimately right, I might very well go the way these officials went.

I, at first, agreed with you, but then after looking at it more, it appears that the puck was not touching the stick. there is another angle available and he didn't put his stick to the puck until it was already over the line.
I do agree though that getting the call right is important and that refs do not always follow the rules if they think that they would not get it right by doing so.

[davyd83]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

In the last game between NMU and Fairbanks, NMU's Dom Shine was given a DQ for Contact to the Head. From where I sat, it looked like a good, hard hit, with the only penalty possibility maybe being boarding. The refs not only called the major and game, but gave him a DQ. Now it seemed the league had preferred to have the game misconduct called and then add supplemental after review by the league office.

Further review showed absolutely no contact to the head. None. But because the on ice officials, Tommy Albindia and Ross Gibbs, DQ'd him, the DQ cannot be rescinded. Shine will have to miss Friday's game vs Minnesota State and has an undeserved DQ on his record and will face cumulative penalties if he actually earns one. John J MacInnes you were at a Michigan State/ NMU game a few years back when a similar situation occurred to NMU's Pat Bateman. Then commissioner Tom Anastos was standing next to me watching the replay and could not come up with a good answer as to why the league can add discipline on review, but would not rescind it. The same situation still exists in today's WCHA.

[camilo]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

... If someone had just handed me the photos you guys posted earlier and asked me if I thought Tech was offside, knowing nothing more about the play, I would have told you they were offsides, even though I can't see the puck. I can see the players, and I can see the blade that is pushing the puck just about to enter the blue line as the other Tech player has clearly reached the far side of the blue line. Furthermore the Tech player with the puck is skating slightly diagonal to the blue line as opposed to directly across it, stretching the distance he must cross the blue line by a slight amount.

Seeing that, and applying my years of watching hockey, I would say Tech was offside.

Interesting - seeing the same two photos, and I've been playing and watching hockey since the 60s, I would make the opposite call. I can't see that the puck is touching the line, nor can I see that the other player's skate is still touching the line. I'd have to say both are questionable. Then I look at the linesman's position. It looks like he can see both the puck and the other player's skate. I'd stick with the call on the ice, and would do so, whether it was called onside or offside.

...I do agree though that getting the call right is important and that refs do not always follow the rules if they think that they would not get it right by doing so.

I agree with this too, but I just can't see (from those two photos) how the photos provide any better info than the linesman who's right there watching intently. At some point we have to admit to human judgement in real time.

But I've never really been a referee. I tried it once while in highschool, reffing a kids game and it was awful. I was awful and the players, coaches and parents were all jerks. I'm not good enough or thick skinned enough to be a ref.

[John J. MacInnes]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

In the last game between NMU and Fairbanks, NMU's Dom Shine was given a DQ for Contact to the Head. From where I sat, it looked like a good, hard hit, with the only penalty possibility maybe being boarding. The refs not only called the major and game, but gave him a DQ. Now it seemed the league had preferred to have the game misconduct called and then add supplemental after review by the league office.

Further review showed absolutely no contact to the head. None. But because the on ice officials, Tommy Albindia and Ross Gibbs, DQ'd him, the DQ cannot be rescinded. Shine will have to miss Friday's game vs Minnesota State and has an undeserved DQ on his record and will face cumulative penalties if he actually earns one. John J MacInnes you were at a Michigan State/ NMU game a few years back when a similar situation occurred to NMU's Pat Bateman. Then commissioner Tom Anastos was standing next to me watching the replay and could not come up with a good answer as to why the league can add discipline on review, but would not rescind it. The same situation still exists in today's WCHA.

I do remember that one. Tough that it happened again.

[PGB]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

My point in posting this wasn't to actually get an apology. The league is never going to admit they made a mistake and throw the refs under the bus. My point is why have video review if the refs will just go with their gut feel rather than what they see (or in this case can't see). If the ref's opinion is the deciding factor then there is no reason to have video review because they've already given an opinion on the ice in real time.

A puck going off the ref into the net is a legal play, just like a puck going off the Zamboni door, glass post, defender's rear, etc. It's all part of the surface of play. Going back and reversing a call with no evidence to do so is in a whole different category (which shouldn't exist). Full disclosure, if someone from Tech wouldn't have speared a Falcon in the crotch after the whistle, none of this would be discussed because Tech would have likely won the game outright. One stupid selfish play set the stage to let the refs make another stupid decision which will ultimately cost Tech one or more positions in the end of season league standings.

Ryan J

I'm not addressing any specific play, but a puck going off the ref into the net IS NOT a legal goal. NCAA Rule 83.6 specifically states that a goal shall be disallowed "if the puck hits an official and goes directly into the net." This is true in every league not just the NCAA.

[bghockeyphotos]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

The puck didn't go into the goal after hitting the ref, it just hit the ref and bounced directly into the path of a MTU player, which is a legal play. It's a bad bounce, but still not against the rules (in this specific case, anyway).

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

My $2...

Judging by the two stills posted, my gut says he was offside, but neither is definitive enough to overturn.

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

My $2...

Judging by the two stills posted, my gut says he was offside, but neither is definitive enough to overturn.

I think many of us can accept that thought, but the point is that you don't overturn a call on gut feeling of where the puck was, especially when the linesman was in position.

[Jon]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

Can I apologize to MTU instead? Sorry guys. So sorry... so very very sorry.
There you go.

[manurespreader]

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

Can I apologize to MTU instead? Sorry guys. So sorry... so very very sorry.
There you go.

Not unless your team agrees to lose any and all games in the post season. then ok.