Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

[J.D.]

He turned the heel of his foot forward and directed the puck, and I'm not a fan of either team just a college hockey fan

If you're saying because of this it shouldn't have counted, we're on the same page

[GreenCat]

I actually saw him up in the replay booth!

LOL...Regardless both these teams should make a good run in the NCAAs.

[sterlippo1]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

If you're saying because of this it shouldn't have counted, we're on the same page

it's the entire argument, case closed. whether he tried to kick it in or direct it to his stick it doesn't matter, he kicked the puck into the net. I'm glad though. UML won and the game is over

[uncle_cliff]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

I have the greatest respect for the Lowell hockey program, but that goal should not have counted. Hockey East - you should be ashamed. Your on-ice referees got the call correct. Too bad you are more interested in kowtowing to Jerry York and keeping on schedule than having this epic game decided correctly on a valid goal.

[The Freds]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

It's just too bad a game like this ended on a goal like that.

[chickod]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

If you're saying because of this it shouldn't have counted, we're on the same page

I tend to agree with you; however, they're saying on TV (Cahoon) that the rule has been changed "several times" and apparently as long as there is no "kicking motion" (even though you could say he "directed" it in), it's a good goal. Either way, an unfortunate way for the game to end.

[Scarlet]

me too, not even close but karma kinda. Makes up for the screw job they got vs BU

What screw job would that be? Do you mean the HE Championship game in 2009 when they thought they scored but was called no goal early in the second period and when they had more than half the game left to actually try to tie it, not to mention several power play opportunities to give them a bit more of an advantage over BU who only scored one goal? That screw job?

[brassbonanza]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Can't see how the call on the ice is overturned. If it's called a goal on the ice, the same logic would apply. He didn't "kick" it, but he certainly pushed it. Wouldn't be surprised if the officials' own fatigue pushed their decision here.

[J.D.]

I have the greatest respect for the Lowell hockey program, but that goal should not have counted. Hockey East - you should be ashamed. Your on-ice referees got the call correct. Too bad you are more interested in kow towing to Jerry York and keeping on schedule than having this epic game decided correctly on a valid goal.

Yes i am sure they called it a goal because of Jerry York

[John_Fuller]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

OK, folks here we go again

From the NCAA Rule Book


83.4 Goals Scored Off of Skates -
A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal.
...
A goal shall be allowed if a puck deflects off an attacking player who is in the act of stopping.

The key is the last sentence. There is no question in my mind that the skate was turned towards the net, however, the catch is that the skate was not lifted or moved vertically. Don't blame the refs on this one. College hockey resisted this change in rules for a long time. Even a few years ago, this goal would not have counted and I think that's why the refs waived it off.

While the hockey purest in me can't stand goals off skates, it's the way the game has changed towards in the past 10-15 years. While my team came out on top, I just hate to see overtime games decided like that, especially an epic game like this.

[sterlippo1]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Too bad you are more interested in kowtowing to Jerry York and keeping on schedule than having this epic game decided correctly on a valid goal.

how much HE have you watched over the years? I suspect not a lot

[Patman]

I have the greatest respect for the Lowell hockey program, but that goal should not have counted. Hockey East - you should be ashamed. Your on-ice referees got the call correct. Too bad you are more interested in kowtowing to Jerry York and keeping on schedule than having this epic game decided correctly on a valid goal.

No distinct kicking motion... The end.

[Patman]

What screw job would that be? Do you mean the HE Championship game in 2009 when they thought they scored but was called no goal early in the second period and when they had more than half the game left to actually try to tie it, not to mention several power play opportunities to give them a bit more of an advantage over BU who only scored one goal? That screw job?

Yes scarlet. That one.

[John_Fuller]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Don't change a thing....this is a treat every time it happens like this.

As an impartial observer, I have to ask. Do you prefer the current overtime format or would you like to see a change such as 4 on 4 or 3 on 3? Perhaps just regular season, perhaps post season as well.

Also congrats to both teams, an outstanding defensive effort by both.

[sterlippo1]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

OK, folks here we go again

From the NCAA Rule Book


83.4 Goals Scored Off of Skates -
A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate
who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal.
...
A goal shall be allowed if a puck deflects off an attacking player who is in the act of stopping.



The key is the last sentence. There is no question in my mind that the skate was turned towards the net, however, the catch is that the skate was not lifted or moved vertically. Don't blame the refs on this one. College hockey resisted this change in rules for a long time. Even a few years ago, this goal would not have counted and I think that's why the refs waived it off.

While the hockey purest in me can't stand goals off skates, it's the way the game has changed towards in the past 10-15 years. While my team came out on top, I just hate to see overtime games decided like that, especially an epic game like this.

how can you say it wasn't a " distinct kicking motion"? it was clearly that , he angled his skate perfectly to deflect the puck into the net, whether he meant it or not. They cant assume he was kicking it to his stick