#8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

[BU Fan 84]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

Yes. But think about it. Theoretically there could be multiple infractions. How do you know until you go back and look? The puck could have "entered the attacking zone illegally" five minutes before the goal was scored. I get it that once it "leaves the zone" you can't review it, but that's like saying "hindsight is 20/20." The point is, you don't KNOW if there was an infraction until you review everything. Either that or the wording is ambiguous, at least to me.

You're missing the point. It opens a Pandora's Box. Yes, I get it that there are "limitations" about what can be reviewed. But those limitations are being eliminated every year. Every season there are "more and more" things that are "eligible" for review. I said from the beginning this wasn't about "tonight." It's about the general philosophy of "going back" to look at things that have already occurred and not accepting that humans make mistakes. EXAMPLE: A pitcher walks a batter with two outs. The next guy hits a walk-off home run. Upon review, it turns out that ball four was actually a strike. The batter never should have walked in the first place and the game should have been over. Do you go back and change the outcome because the plate umpire missed the call? Do you get what I'm saying? And if you say "That's ridiculous, you're coming up with unlikely scenarios," I would say to you: "Really? Just wait..."

Yeah ... I don't think you get it ....

[brassbonanza]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

Yes. But think about it. Theoretically there could be multiple infractions. How do you know until you go back and look? The puck could have "entered the attacking zone illegally" five minutes before the goal was scored. I get it that once it "leaves the zone" you can't review it, but that's like saying "hindsight is 20/20." The point is, you don't KNOW if there was an infraction until you review everything. Either that or the wording is ambiguous, at least to me.

You're missing the point. It opens a Pandora's Box. Yes, I get it that there are "limitations" about what can be reviewed. But those limitations are being eliminated every year. Every season there are "more and more" things that are "eligible" for review. I said from the beginning this wasn't about "tonight." It's about the general philosophy of "going back" to look at things that have already occurred and not accepting that humans make mistakes. EXAMPLE: A pitcher walks a batter with two outs. The next guy hits a walk-off home run. Upon review, it turns out that ball four was actually a strike. The batter never should have walked in the first place and the game should have been over. Do you go back and change the outcome because the plate umpire missed the call? Do you get what I'm saying? And if you say "That's ridiculous, you're coming up with unlikely scenarios," I would say to you: "Really? Just wait..."

He was saying you would only go back and look at the one offside play. They don't go look at all of the tape to see if another infraction occurred.

[defkit]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

Well, it's been a calm and happy night but now I'm going to go on a rant. I'm not directing this at you (but you brought it up so it just hit a nerve).

Let's just replay every second of every game forever. If there was a bug on the blue line in the 1st period causing the puck to skip, then history has been changed forever, right?

I mean, how far do you go back? At least in baseball or football there's a "finite" time to a "play." What if there is no stoppage for eight minutes? Someone scores a goal. Do you go back and watch eight minutes of footage to ensure that there wasn't a "violation" somewhere?

So we are going to create a perfect world where nobody ever makes a mistake? Where does it end? And people wonder why officials are "tentative" or "afraid to make a call." As a former official I can tell you that if there was someone looking over my shoulder every second I would quit the game. Players make mistakes all the time, but officials can't? Mistakes are part of the game. The obsessive scrutiny (under the guise of "it's more important that they 'got it right'") is excessive. Let's just play a virtual reality computer game instead.

This has nothing to do with who won the game. Something has to be done about this stuff (and the same people who scream in favor of replay are screaming about the "length" of games). I mean seriously...what would have happened if they scored at 10:05 of overtime and there hadn't been a stoppage since 1:25? Seriously. Would they review the previous 8:40 to look for an infraction? And if there was an offside at 1:28, would they set the clock back and start again from there? This is so ridiculous. People make mistakes and you just have to let it go. OR...do what football and baseball do and give each coach two challenges. If Madigan thought it was offside, he can challenge. But reviewing EVERY score as far back as the previous stoppage (I mean, I assume that's what they do, because if not, it's even worse because then it would be "arbitrary") is insane.

I have been making the same complaint for years ever since they allowed this. If you can dig up comments from Parker after BU's 2OT win over BC in the 2003 (?) HE semis, it is exactly why this new approach to looking at offsides and other non-directly impacting aspects of the game makes no sense to me. On the tying goal, Justin Maiser knocked the puck down with his stick on what was very close to a high stick play. He then shot the puck and scored. When asked, Parker said that they would have had to call the play dead right away, which they didn't, so there was nothing controversial about it. If he had knocked it in with the high stick directly that would be another story. So he basically said, if they could review that, then every play in every game could be considered to have an impact on the next goal. I mean, a missed icing call can have a huge impact since it brings the puck all the way down for a face-off.

I have never found a rule that identifies when the "time cutoff" is (to your main point). Edit: I see see Sean's post includes a time definition.

Replays should stick to just determining if a puck went in the net, if it did so with time still on the clock, and if it was directed in illegally (hand, kick, etc.). Once they started reviewing for penalties (goalie interference), things started going down hill.

[Gr8Sk8M8]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

It's been an abomination tonight. Really difficult to watch. BU's kill has been good but NU is not playing their best powerplay hockey

At some point you do want to shoot the puck...no?

[Gr8Sk8M8]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

I looked at the tape and the play was not offsides but, in an ironic twist, by looking at it I don't see how the linesman knew that. How's that for having it both ways? The penalty was a marginal one end of story...as was the one on Fabbro and the one on ZAR...I'd love to see a replay on the Cockerill penalty because from my vantage point he appeared to go between the BU player's legs and poke the puck away long before the BU player went down...

Look we can ***** about what is a given in any HockeyEast game...inadequate officiating by all 4 on ice officials...but this game comes down to the same things we have seen all year...soft goals, bad to outright stupid line matchups and moronic decisions with the puck when the game is on the line the only difference is that for once it wasn't Cockerill...

[Sean Pickett]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

And as I read the rule it doesn't matter if a whistle is blown during that time or not.

I looked further and in the Official Ice Hockey Rules Interpretations section it clearly states a video review for offsides when a goal is scored can only occur if there has been no whistle. This is what I expected, but the wording of the actual rule does not make this clear.

Rule 93. Video Replay - Offsides/Too Many Men
A.R. 1: Team A enters the attacking zone and is offside, but the on-ice officials do not detect the offside. Play continues and Team B’s goalkeeper makes a save and freezes the puck. At the ensuing faceoff, which remains in the attacking zone, Team A wins the faceoff and scores. Is this play reviewable? RULING: NO. Once the faceoff is administered to restart play, this type of play is no longer reviewable. This applies to both offside plays and undetected too many men on the ice situations.

I have been making the same complaint for years ever since they allowed this. If you can dig up comments from Parker after BU's 2OT win over BC in the 2003 (?) HE semis, it is exactly why this new approach to looking at offsides and other non-directly impacting aspects of the game makes no sense to me. On the tying goal, Justin Maiser knocked the puck down with his stick on what was very close to a high stick play. He then shot the puck and scored. When asked, Parker said that they would have had to call the play dead right away, which they didn't, so there was nothing controversial about it. If he had knocked it in with the high stick directly that would be another story. So he basically said, if they could review that, then every play in every game could be considered to have an impact on the next goal. I mean, a missed icing call can have a huge impact since it brings the puck all the way down for a face-off.

There are 13 reviewable items on the video replay criteria list: 9 specifically mention a goal being scored (or the puck entering the net); one is about goalie interference (and I assume to be about the puck entering the net); one is for identifying the correct player who committed an infraction; one is for establishing the correct time or faceoff location; and one is for determining if a goal was scored before a penalty was called (and which I assume would then "not have occurred". I wonder what the results would be if this is used to call off a major penalty and game DQ). The ever expanding list of reviewable plays for a goal seems to be getting longer and longer and murkier and murkier. For example, the play mentioned by defkit is now reviewable and the goal can be wavied off: To determine if a goal was scored as the direct result of a hand pass or high stick by an attacking player to a teammate or deflection off of the goalkeeper. Of course, as Maiser played it to himself the goal should count based on the exact wording of the rule, but the intent of the rule is obvious.

Also, I read the section regarding a coach's challenge and if successful the team keeps their timeout. So, it is like tennis, where as long as a coach is successful every time they have unlimited challenges. However, unlike tennis they can be wrong only once.

Sean

[Richard]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

Hoping for a game 3


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sean Pickett]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

I'd love to see a replay on the Cockerill penalty because from my vantage point he appeared to go between the BU player's legs and poke the puck away long before the BU player went down...

Whether or not a player touches the puck before committing a penalty is irreverent. From the Official Ice Hockey Rules Interpretations section of the 2016-17 and 2017-18 NCAA Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules and Interpretations:

Rule 61. Tripping
A.R. 1: A1, on a two-on-one, has the puck. B1 slides on the ice, knocking the puck away from A1, but in the process, trips A1. RULING: B1 must be assessed a minor penalty for tripping. Tripping must be called anytime it occurs, regardless of whether contact is made with the puck.

Sean

[mookie1995]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

Mookie went up to umlol to watch that game last night. Well officiated contest. Maybe those guys rotate to haa tonight

[Gr8Sk8M8]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

Whether or not a player touches the puck before committing a penalty is irreverent. From the Official Ice Hockey Rules Interpretations section of the 2016-17 and 2017-18 NCAA Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules and Interpretations:

Rule 61. Tripping
A.R. 1: A1, on a two-on-one, has the puck. B1 slides on the ice, knocking the puck away from A1, but in the process, trips A1. RULING: B1 must be assessed a minor penalty for tripping. Tripping must be called anytime it occurs, regardless of whether contact is made with the puck.

Sean

You should go back and read the specific wording of my statement.

I don't recall that play being a 2 on 1...I do recall poor gap coverage...I don't recall Cockerill sweeping the stick thereby taking out the legs of the player...if Player A trips over a stick that he skates into is it a trip?

[chickod]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

Yeah ... I don't think you get it ....

I don't think YOU get it. Did you read what I wrote???? It wasn't about "one" play...it's the general philosophy of greater expansion of the replay rule each year, in every sport.

I watched the UCLA/Arizona game last night. They showed a replay of two players tipping a ball out of bounds. Each time they showed it, the announcers changed their minds.

You can't blame officials for losing games. You should not have put yourself in a position where one call can decide the outcome. The official makes the call and you have to LIVE WITH IT.

I can see it now...the day won't be far when someone will be able to "edit" the tape before the official looks at the replay. You can laugh...but I'm not.

[chickod]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

Replays should stick to just determining if a puck went in the net, if it did so with time still on the clock, and if it was directed in illegally (hand, kick, etc.). Once they started reviewing for penalties (goalie interference), things started going down hill.

YOU get it.

[Leonidas]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

Sean, just as an aside (and a compliment), I don't know what you do for a living, but whatever it is, I bet you're ****ed good at it.

[Rogie21]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

Haven't found a replay of the Cockerill penalty, but looking at the Davies goal in slo-mo (start at 39 seconds), it sure looks like Stevens gets his stick on Fabbro's right skate, causing him to go down prior to the goal. Would be interested to hear from someone who was watching at that end of the ice.

[christos1968]

Re: #8 NU @ #2 BU...For A Trip to the Garden

And this is why the whole "bracket integrity" cra* is disingenuous. You can't have it both ways. And, as has been discussed in previous years, this isn't basketball, where the ACC is holding its conference tournament in BROOKLYN and the B1G is holding its tournament in Washington DC! (That's akin to the Big East holding its tournament in Montana). Ridiculous. Hockey can't get away with that. They HAVE to pay attention to attendance. Which is why I like things the way they "were." Have two regionals: East and West. Fans get to see their teams (well, at least in the East, where everything is within reasonable driving distance). The fans in the West are most likely going to have to fly a good percentage of the time anyway (which is probably the rationale for sending a Denver east), so you can't do anything about that. But my point is - decide one way or another. Attendance or bracket integrity. But don't try to serve two masters.

The NCAA can't have things both way. If bracket integrity and a fair tournament is what you want, you cannot reward a 3 or 4 seed like Providence or North Dakota with a home game. Not fair to the higher seed that has to play them, as you are making it exponentially tougher to play in the opponent's home town, even worse at the actual home rink for North Dakota. For "integrity" sake, that shouldn't happen. If your worried about attendance, then go back to what you used to do late 80's- have a best 2 out of 3 at the home ice of the higher seed in the quarters and round of 16. Straight 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, etc. Attendance shouldn't be an issue then, and the higher seed always gets rewarded.
Don't understand how much money the NCAA makes off these regionals anyway- depending on matchups some of these places are empty. Had an extra ticket few years ago in Albany and literally could not give the ticket away- no scalpers even!