Merrimack at UVM 10/23

[UVM Cat in Texas]

Re: Merrimack at UVM 10/23

Funny thing about last nights game was at times you felt like a tie would be an disapointment and then 5 minutes later you would be happy to get one.

I hate to say it but it was a good call by the refs on the no-goal, granted they couldnt make the correct call of goalie interference(dont think they can call penalties
from the review)so they called something that at least pulled the goal of the scoreboard.

Gotta feel for Stacey who kept trying to play but just couldnt stay on the ice. Also great work by Leonard just before the Albertson goal, Brent has surely come a long way
from last year.

What's the situation with Stacey? Is he still hurting? Dang, they need to have him healthy!

Regardless or whether it was a good call or not (Sneddon didn't care for it), why do these calls always seem to end up going against the Cats? It ended up costing them a point.

[WarriorDJ]

Re: Merrimack at UVM 10/23

That was a good up and down hockey game last night. Merrimack has a nice team, they will compete for home ice and probably end up in the 4-7 range with UVM. There are no easy games in league play this year. Both teams had a number of great opportunities that they didn't convert. I thought both goalies played great, both Madore and the Merrimack keeper made great saves in the last minute of overtime on transition plays.

Based on the replays I saw last night, it was a very even game--I really was impressed by the compete factor of the Catamounts in the 3rd period and the OT. Madore is the real deal and he will carry the team as far as the offense can support him.

I look forward to seeing you guys again in January...those games will be crucial for a swing in the standings.

[VermontFan]

Re: Merrimack at UVM 10/23

Here is the postgame extra on Catamount TV, the assistant coach provides some commentary on the disallowed goal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFuqDuoL508

Looks like a good goal in my eyes. Nonetheless, UVM did have many other grade A scoring chances that they could have buried. Here's an article written by Ted Ryan that talks about our bad breaks with regard to refereeing calls in 2 of our first 3 games:

http://blogs.burlingtonfreepress.com/oncampus/

[jcarter7669]

Re: Merrimack at UVM 10/23

I hate to say it but it was a good call by the refs on the no-goal, granted they couldnt make the correct call of goalie interference(dont think they can call penalties
from the review)so they called something that at least pulled the goal of the scoreboard.

Boy I don't know about that. Looking at the replay it clearly wasn't a man in the crease call. Goalie interference ....maybe, but then again that's not what the call was. I haven't been impressed with the refs this year. Especially considering they have replay. The disallowed goal against DU was terrible...no way you can call that with replay. This disallowed goal is iffy IMO. However, its done and over with...time to move on and get ready for next weekend.

[GuttCheck]

Re: Merrimack at UVM 10/23

I had assumed they got the call right considering it went to replay, but....

That was a goal. The UVM player was out of the crease when the goal was scored. Goalie interference? If that was the call, there would have been a penalty. Oh well, maybe these reviews will even out over the course of a year.

[HockeyJM1902]

Re: Merrimack at UVM 10/23

here is the issue with the review system (the miami dolphins football game this week had a very similar situation)

Once the play is under review the question is whether or not the goal should be allowed. It was deemed that their was goaltender interference and therefore no goal. (there was no penalty called on the original play, but that no longer matters as the goal can still be disallowed)

The officials have no authority to go back and call a penalty on a play that had already been blown dead. The review is strictly to call the goal good or no good, not to call a penalty that should have been assessed.

I also feel that when I watch the clip that there shouldn't have been a penalty call anyway. Was Joe interferred with and therefore couldn't make the follow up save, yes, but i do believe it was incidental contact and JC was pretty far out of the net.

Either way, the calls that were made, IMO, are all correct. It's a bit confusing though on what the officials can and can't do in that scenario. The real question is who requested the review. Grumblings are saying that MC players were protesting for the review which isn't supposed to happen. And as I remember JC didn't seem to protest too much after the goal was scored, so i think that's another interesting point.

[Salvo1017]

Re: Merrimack at UVM 10/23

After watching the replay a few times Joe was definitely inside the crease...the Vermont player was definitely not pushed...there was contact that spun Joe around preventing him from sliding across the crease...goalie interference...correct call was made

[jcarter7669]

Re: Merrimack at UVM 10/23

The thing with a review is that to overturn a call it must be blatantly clear. I don't think this classifies. I am not sure it's goaltender interference. Possibly, but not clear enough to overturn a goal. It's definitely a man in the crease... The goal at DU is obvious in that the refs blew it. The officiating has been terrible this year so far at the Gutt.

Either way, its over and done with and theres no going back. Let's not turn turn this into a UML/BU flamefest.

The game was close, both goalies were solid. To be Continued.