CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

[bigmrg74]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

Bobby Mo!! WOW!!! all but reduced my bracket to rubbish right there.

[tnlong]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

Here's Iuorio's waved-off goal:

******* width="400" height="300">****** name="allowfullscreen" value="true" />****** name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" />****** name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=10263437&server=vimeo.com&sh ow_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fu llscreen=1" />****** src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=10263437&server=vimeo.com&sh ow_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fu llscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="300">

2010 CHA Championship: Giancarlo Iuorio's Overturned Goal from Geoffrey Morris on Vimeo.

5Hole can now complain about it, and I won't say a word.

GFM

Philo had the perfect position to make the call and was quick and emphatic about it. So, here's the question regarding the rule. If the stick starts above the crossbar and comes down striking the puck below the crossbar, is that the reason for the call? The elevated camera angle distorts the reference to the crossbar height, but the next to last replay shows that the stick began its motion downward above the crossbar.

[wsp67326]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

1) Durbin is full of it; he clearly ran over Byrne, no question. Ridgeway did next to nothing, and certainly did not check him into Byrne. Oh well. Thanks for the video, everyone, even if it brings back difficult memories...

2) Iuorio masterfully hit the puck, and I cannot for the life of me see how Philo decided no goal unless it was one of two things: a) as Terry noted, possibly the starting location of the stick controls the overall play, or b) he was making up for the UAH no goal (perhaps both?). In the whole scheme of things, who knows what would have happened had Philo decided differently... but, I have to give Iuorio some props for a great redirection nonetheless.

At least Niagara will dominate the AHA next year; wish our Chargers had the same degree of possibility for returning to the tournament.

[tnlong]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

1) Durbin is full of it; he clearly ran over Byrne, no question. Ridgeway did next to nothing, and certainly did not check him into Byrne. Oh well. Thanks for the video, everyone, even if it brings back difficult memories...

That's Halliwell defending the crease. Ridgeway was defending Kingston.

2) Iuorio masterfully hit the puck, and I cannot for the life of me see how Philo decided no goal unless it was one of two things: a) as Terry noted, possibly the starting location of the stick controls the overall play, or b) he was making up for the UAH no goal (perhaps both?). In the whole scheme of things, who knows what would have happened had Philo decided differently... but, I have to give Iuorio some props for a great redirection nonetheless.

High Sticks
SECTION 21.
a. Carrying sticks above the height of 4 feet (the height of the
goal cage) is prohibited.
HR-72 RULE 6 / PLAYING RULES
PENALTY—Minor.
b. A player shall not violently use the stick for contact to the head or neck
region of the opponent.
PENALTY—Major or disqualification at discretion of the referee.
c. When the puck is above the height of 4 feet [1.22m] it shall not be batted
with the stick, and when it occurs there shall be a whistle unless:
1. The puck is batted to an opponent, in which case the play shall
continue. When a player bats the puck to an opponent, an on-ice
official shall give the washout signal immediately.
2. A player of the defending team bats the puck directly into his or her
own goal, in which case the goal shall be allowed.
PENALTY—Faceoff at one of the end-zone faceoff spots adjacent to the
goal of the team causing the stoppage of play.
d. When the puck is struck above 4 feet directly to the goalkeeper, there
shall be an immediate whistle.
PENALTY—Faceoff at one of the end-zone faceoff spots adjacent to the
goal of the team causing the stoppage of play.


Given that "a." is provided concisely and first, it appears that it occurring immediately before the puck is struck and a goal is scored would be the cause of the call.

[5hole]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

1) Durbin is full of it; he clearly ran over Byrne, no question. Ridgeway did next to nothing, and certainly did not check him into Byrne. Oh well. Thanks for the video, everyone, even if it brings back difficult memories...

2) Iuorio masterfully hit the puck, and I cannot for the life of me see how Philo decided no goal unless it was one of two things: a) as Terry noted, possibly the starting location of the stick controls the overall play, or b) he was making up for the UAH no goal (perhaps both?). In the whole scheme of things, who knows what would have happened had Philo decided differently... but, I have to give Iuorio some props for a great redirection nonetheless.

At least Niagara will dominate the AHA next year; wish our Chargers had the same degree of possibility for returning to the tournament.

1) I absolutely agree.

2) I absolutely agree.
a) I was standing next to Vince Rocco's Dad when this play occurred. He immediately offered the same question as to the only reason to wave it off - what is the rule? Is it where the stick starts that controls the play? Since he watches a lot of juniors and I watch a lot of minor pro, neither of us was sure of the college rule. But after watching the replay numerous times, including my best efforts at pausing to try to create a frame by frame, I have to question whether the stick was ever high enough to have waved it off. I think not. Whether Philo had a good view or not does not mean he got it right.
b) Yes, I immediately felt that the reversal of the UAH goal might have influenced him.

As I stated in an earlier post, based on talks with someone who saw both, the waved-off UAH goal was a clear call ... if the puck hit Noonan's stick, it was a goal; if it did not, no goal. It clearly did not, therefore no goal. Iuorio's was less clear but I think they got it wrong. And, yup, props to Giancarlo for knocking it home.

So Geof ... nice job on the video. Glad you understand my bi-itching on this one. And I sure understand yours ... you got a right to!

[Douglas]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

Shucks, let's jump in here with my 2 cents...

For the two waved off goals:
1. The UAH no-goal was a no brainer but I'd like to point out that Coby wasn't trying to kick the puck into the net, he was trying to kick the puck to his stick but it went into the net before he could touch it. The pass came to his feet and we've all either seen it and/or done the same thing about a few thousand times. Unfortunately for him, he didn't get his stick on the puck before it went into the net. You can clearly see him slapping at the puck, just too late. The no-goal call was absolutely correct.

2. The NU no-goal, in my mind and based on the rules Terry posted below, could only be called if Philo believed Iuorio's stick was carried above the 4 ft level or the puck was above the 4 ft level when he struck it. I mean, what else can it be? The really iffy part to me, and it should bother the heck out of the Purps fans, was that the man who made the call was the same man who reviewed the call if I'm not mistaken. I just don't see him reversing himself since the call was so close to the magic 4 ft level and let's face it, it was a judgement call on his part as to the height of the puck/stick. I'll give him credit for not hesitating on the call but I sure see where there's room to complain... Just some more CHA history...

[gfmorris]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

Thanks, Terry, for posting the relevant rulebook reference ... my copy is at work, and I didn't want to go through the NCAA publications "checkout" process for my free copy of the rules. [Asinine, that.]

At no time do I feel that Iuorio's stick or stickblade got above the top of the cage. Did he get it past the horizontal? Yes, that obviously happened. Did he chop down to hit the puck? Yes. Was it amazing handiwork? Hell yes.

5Hole, glad to provide the video to you. It's on my Vimeo account if you want to use that to send it to Burky, Iuorio, or anyone else. Heck, if purpleeagles.com wanted to embed it on their site, I'd be honored.

GFM

[BC/HE]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

Shucks, let's jump in here with my 2 cents...

For the two waved off goals:
1. The UAH no-goal was a no brainer but I'd like to point out that Coby wasn't trying to kick the puck into the net, he was trying to kick the puck to his stick but it went into the net before he could touch it. The pass came to his feet and we've all either seen it and/or done the same thing about a few thousand times. Unfortunately for him, he didn't get his stick on the puck before it went into the net. You can clearly see him slapping at the puck, just too late. The no-goal call was absolutely correct.

2. The NU no-goal, in my mind and based on the rules Terry posted below, could only be called if Philo believed Iuorio's stick was carried above the 4 ft level or the puck was above the 4 ft level when he struck it. I mean, what else can it be? The really iffy part to me, and it should bother the heck out of the Purps fans, was that the man who made the call was the same man who reviewed the call if I'm not mistaken. I just don't see him reversing himself since the call was so close to the magic 4 ft level and let's face it, it was a judgement call on his part as to the height of the puck/stick. I'll give him credit for not hesitating on the call but I sure see where there's room to complain... Just some more CHA history...

That fact amazed me too. You have a referree reviewing his own call and he already was adament about it. Why would he overule himself if even beyond a reasonable doubt? I think he blew the call. However the game is over and the result is in much like the Lowell-BU goal fiasco last year. BU is the defending NC and Lowell fans can just revel in their "stolen" conference banner. It makes you sick when you're on the losing end but the result is final and it will haunt you for years.

[gfmorris]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

That fact amazed me too. You have a referree reviewing his own call and he already was adament about it. Why would he overule himself if even beyond a reasonable doubt? I think he blew the call. However the game is over and the result is in much like the Lowell-BU goal fiasco last year. BU is the defending NC and Lowell fans can just revel in their "stolen" conference banner. It makes you sick when you're on the losing end but the result is final and it will haunt you for years.

Just for reference's sake:

1. The Durbin-Kingston affair happened on Dwyer ice.

2. The Gardner net-kick happened on VBC ice.

3. The Iuorio no-goal + Desmet GWG have, for Charger fans, erased all the frustrations of #1 and #2. But 5Hole is bound to not feel the same way.

GFM

[5hole]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

Just for reference's sake:

1. The Durbin-Kingston affair happened on Dwyer ice.

2. The Gardner net-kick happened on VBC ice.

3. The Iuorio no-goal + Desmet GWG have, for Charger fans, erased all the frustrations of #1 and #2. But 5Hole is bound to not feel the same way.

GFM

Well, you guys had to wait a long time for that redemption. I was going to say that I would hate to wait that long but, in reality, we will never get a chance for vindication. Believe me, I would rather win a CHA championship than an Atlantic Hockey ... the on-ice quality of the teams we faced in CHA was simply always better.

[tnlong]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

... At no time do I feel that Iuorio's stick or stickblade got above the top of the cage. Did he get it past the horizontal? Yes, that obviously happened. Did he chop down to hit the puck? Yes. Was it amazing handiwork? Hell yes. ...

Check the next to last replay. When checking the first replay, consider the aspect distortion of the elevated camera angle. Also, the stick is moving so fast that it looks like it disappears at its apex because it's moving faster than all of the combined refresh and digitization rates. Given all of those considerations, I couldn't overturn the call since Philo had the perfect position with the reference point in front of him.

[wsp67326]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

Well, you guys had to wait a long time for that redemption. I was going to say that I would hate to wait that long but, in reality, we will never get a chance for vindication. Believe me, I would rather win a CHA championship than an Atlantic Hockey ... the on-ice quality of the teams we faced in CHA was simply always better.

Which is why I, at least, expect to see Niagara in the tournament every year (well, at least Niagara and Bobby Mo should be playing in the AHA finals every year).

[gfmorris]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

Well, you guys had to wait a long time for that redemption. I was going to say that I would hate to wait that long but, in reality, we will never get a chance for vindication. Believe me, I would rather win a CHA championship than an Atlantic Hockey ... the on-ice quality of the teams we faced in CHA was simply always better.

Curious ... Mackinder wrote: "Robert Morris came and though the Colonials don’t have any championships to show for their efforts (two finals losses in OT), played extremely well and should be a middle-of-the-pack team in Atlantic Hockey with Niagara."

Does he think both RMU and NU will be middle-of-the-pack AHA teams? I don't. I think they'll both be top-third or higher. The only thing I can see hurting RMU is if Schooley goes to WMU or wherever else he's rumored to go. [I figure RMU makes the most sense as he's a Bronco alum ... not that I expect him to leave the Colonials, because I don't.]

I thought your vindication, 5Hole, was in winning three tournament titles and making those NCAA appearances. At least you have a conference for next year. :sigh:

GFM

[5hole]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

Check the next to last replay. When checking the first replay, consider the aspect distortion of the elevated camera angle. Also, the stick is moving so fast that it looks like it disappears at its apex because it's moving faster than all of the combined refresh and digitization rates. Given all of those considerations, I couldn't overturn the call since Philo had the perfect position with the reference point in front of him.

Sorry, Terry, I don't agree. I looked at that replay many times. In particular, I did a lot of pausing around the 1:12, 1:13 mark, trying to create a freeze-frame effect. I do not see where the stick ever got above the top of the net - close but I think it was a bad call. When you freeze frame at that point, the little menu boxes pop up along the upper right hand side, effectively blocking the play- until you slide the mouse over the boxes and they disappear. At that point, after I freeze-framed over and over, I was confident that his stick was never above the net. The only thing I saw that might have even been close to be above the net was that he had the blade, at one point, at 12 o'clock. Perhaps the very end of the blade was above for a split second (questionable) but the stick itself was not carried above the net. And I thought the last angle showed it most clearly that his stick was never above the net. I think you are overplaying the distortion thing. Bad call.

But, hey, good luck to UAH in the NCAA. It was a good game, well-played by both teams.

[gfmorris]

Re: CHA Thoughts and Prognostications: Year 11, The Finale... Part Deux

Yeah, I think the key things were that 1) the stick got above the horizontal and 2) his shoulders dipped, making the stick look higher than it really was.

Anyway, you never know ... maybe the PEs get so excited that they take another penalty, leaving the Charger PP to go 4/6 on the night.

GFM <-- is really happy that, after a horrible start, the PP scored all four goals at the Dwyer