BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

[mcfarljd]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

I could be wrong, but I think the shootout was tied after the first three shooters (counting the goal scored by the ineligible player). If you don't count that goal, Nebraska-Omaha led after each team took 3 shots.

I do see the other side, too: it was the ref's mistake, and you don't penalize either team when the ref makes the mistake. What should have happened is the ref should have said to the BG coach, "hey, you can't use him." The BG coach would then have used an eligible player.

maybe, not sure, but the write up here makes it seem like it was tied, bg scored, uno missed, game over. but then the beat writers here can't really be taken too seriously.

 

[mcfarljd]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

That mavs site says BG was the only player that scored, so it theoretically would have still been tied.

 

[AKJD]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

Only way I could've (possibly) seen this being overturned is if UNO shot first, scored, then the ineligible player scored to force sudden-death shootout rounds, and another BG player scored on a subsequent round for the win. In that case, UNO had one on the board, the ineligible player's shot could've been wiped out, and the following rounds wouldn't have needed to take place.

As it was, I would've been very surprised if they hadn't let it stand, since the precedent seems to be to allow mistakes by on-ice officials to stand.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

Blais wants to a redo of the shootout before tonights game.

That's hilarious.

 

[mcfarljd]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

If they decided to overturn the goal would that have then meant that BG would get one shot before the game tonight to see if they would win? And if that missed, it would then go to the sudden death?

 

[IrishHockeyFan]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

But McInchak is a state cop and he's never wrong.

Actually isn't he a cop somewhere Downriver?

I think the post that referred to batting out of order hit the thing right. Someone on UNO should have caught it in time if they wanted to have it go their way. But still, it is inexcusable that all the on and off ice officials lost track of who should have been ineligible.

 

[UNOMav]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

The decision to grant BG the point is odd. The BG coach should know the rules. Personally I think each team gets 1 point and leave it, no additional point for a shootout win to either team. The result was that BG broke the rule, but there is no consequences.

 

[mcfarljd]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

The decision to grant BG the point is odd. The BG coach should know the rules. Personally I think each team gets 1 point and leave it, no additional point for a shootout win to either team. The result was that BG broke the rule, but there is no consequences.

but like someone mentioned earlier, its not up to BG to notice the mistake, but up to the refs and UNO.

 

[Section96]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

The CCHA did replace McInchak and crew for game 2 of the series last night, interestingly enough.

What's done is done. I think UNOFAN's analogy of a batter batting out of order is spot on. Although a part of me wonders if it was Michigan on the short end, would the decision have been the same?

 

[streaker]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

The CCHA did replace McInchak and crew for game 2 of the series last night, interestingly enough.

What's done is done. I think UNOFAN's analogy of a batter batting out of order is spot on. Although a part of me wonders if it was Michigan on the short end, would the decision have been the same?

McInchak screwed Michigan at Yost last season against Notre Dame, whistling a play dead (from 70 feet away) that resulted in a game tying goal mouth scramble goal being waived off. His partner was looking at the play from behind the net.

So yes, contrary to how most Mav fans feel towards Michigan, they do not get all of the CCHA breaks.

 

[Alton]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

McInchak screwed Michigan at Yost last season against Notre Dame, whistling a play dead (from 70 feet away) that resulted in a game tying goal mouth scramble goal being waived off. His partner was looking at the play from behind the net.

So yes, contrary to how most Mav fans feel towards Michigan, they do not get all of the CCHA breaks.

Be fair, Streak. The ref you are thinking about, who whistled the play dead from 80 feet away despite having a partner right on top of the play, was Brian Aaron.

http://www.collegehockeystats.net/0809/boxes/mmicndm1.j31

 

[MavRick]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

I don't think there's much of a conspiracy here. "Not reopening a closed game" is the last shriek on the retreat for every commissioner who holds a job at the pleasure of his league institutions. But a goal scored by an ineligible player is a non-thing, a nullity, a vodka martini, a chicken club sandwich: It is a thing that is not.

For this proposition, I cite Approved Ruling 34 from the Ice Hockey rulebook:

A.R.: The penalty timekeeper mistakenly releases Team A player A1 before
the penalty time is up. While player A1 is on the ice, Team A scores a goal.
RULING: The goal is disallowed, regardless of whether the penalized
player took part in the score. A1 must return to the penalty box and serve
the remaining penalty time.

What's significant here is that it does not say "The goal must be disallowed," or "The referee must wave off the goal." It says "the goal is disallowed." The penalized player's goal in the shootout was disallowed, no matter what Steve McInchak or Tom Anastos said. There was no goal to score.

There is, therefore, nothing to let Bowling Green keep. On the face of the score sheet, a player with an unexpired penalty cannot be shown as having scored a valid goal. If you wrote down a 5-minute penalty for Jones at 10:00, and then you write down a goal for Jones at 11:00, the goal is an ex-parrot. It simply doesn't exist. The score sheet of the game does not show Bowling Green won the shootout. It shows that the shootout is incomplete.

As I said over on MavPuck, Ben's analogy to baseball is off the mark. In baseball, the rules permit appeals but only until the next pitch is thrown or the next batter appears, at which time the appeal becomes untimely by rule. In baseball, the pitcher can not throw, the batter can not step in and each manager can call effectively unlimited time outs. Effectively, both sides can prevent the next play from occurring. Hockey has no untimeliness rule. And as above, the validity of the goal does not depend on the objection of the team; the validity of the goal depends on the eligibility of the player.

The only question in my mind is whether Bowling Green has forfeited the shootout by leaving town before it was over.

 

[Alton]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

So the CCHA statement says, in part, that "This error in rules enforcement during the course of the game, while unfortunate, can only be corrected during the course of the game. Once the game is concluded, there are no further actions that can take place to correct the situation."

I am surprised no Nebraska-Omaha fans have reminded us of this game:
http://www.uscho.com/recaps/20022003/m/10/11/col-uno.php

In that game, the Mavericks scored an overtime goal to beat Colgate, 6-5. Except, several days after the game ended, the NCAA Rules Committee decided that further actions could take place to correct the situation.

Because Nebraska-Omaha did not follow the proper overtime protocol, all of the overtimes played after the first 5 minutes were wiped out. Even though the officials signed the scoresheet, declaring Nebraska-Omaha a 6-5 winner, it seems that corrective action took place.

 

[MavRick]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

That's right, Alton. The NCAA felt free to step in when UNO's score sheet said a goal had been scored in the "second overtime" of a regular season game. The face of the score sheet purported to show something that could not have legally occurred. The NCAA stepped in and recognized only the events that could have occurred consistent with the rules, and changed the result accordingly.

The argument here is the same. The score sheet shows an event occurred that could not have legally affected the outcome. There is no BG shootout win to "recognize."

 

[unofan]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

As I said over on MavPuck, Ben's analogy to baseball is off the mark. In baseball, the rules permit appeals but only until the next pitch is thrown or the next batter appears, at which time the appeal becomes untimely by rule. In baseball, the pitcher can not throw, the batter can not step in and each manager can call effectively unlimited time outs. Effectively, both sides can prevent the next play from occurring. Hockey has no untimeliness rule. And as above, the validity of the goal does not depend on the objection of the team; the validity of the goal depends on the eligibility of the player.

And UNO could have not taken their last shootout attempt.

That would have prevented the next play from occuring, which is the nearly universal limiting point for reviewing in-game calls. The next pitch, the next snap, the next inbounding of the basketball, all prevent review of prior actions. Likewise, in hockey, you cannot review goals (or non-goals) once the puck has been dropped again following the whistle.

Also, the NCAA is not going to review this, because it has no effect for NCAA purposes. Shootouts themselves are nullities in the eye of the NCAA, affecting neither team's record. In the eyes of the NCAA, the game was a tie.

 

[davyd83]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

My question is did Blais raise the issue when the BGSU player lined up to shoot, immediately after the shot or following the conclusion of the shootout? Or did this issue escape not only the player and BG Coach Williams and the referees, but Blais and the UNO team as well?

 

[streaker]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Inelligible Player?

Be fair, Streak. The ref you are thinking about, who whistled the play dead from 80 feet away despite having a partner right on top of the play, was Brian Aaron.

http://www.collegehockeystats.net/0809/boxes/mmicndm1.j31

Oh crap. That's right. My apologies. Gingko is in order. Just the same, there is no conspiracy for or against any team in the league.

In fairness to the officials, shouldn't the scorer/Penalty box official at UNO catch that first, anyway?

 

[Alton]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

It's like batting out of order in baseball. If you catch it in time, the guy's out. If you don't, whatever happened counts and you move on.

I disagree with this. Batting out of order is one of many instances in baseball of an "appeal play"--something that the umpires are not to call unless the play is appealed by the other team. For example, the rule about batting out of order (OBR 6.07) includes the comment "The umpire shall not direct the attention of any person to the presence in the batter's box of an improper batter. This rule is designed to require constant vigilance by the players and managers of both teams."

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2008/official_rules/06_the_batter.pdf

There is no such thing as an appeal play in hockey. If a puck is kicked into the net by an attacking player, for example, it is "no goal" whether the opposing team suggests it to the referee or not. Unlike baseball, it never falls on the offended team to request a correct ruling from the officials in hockey.

Since we have a precedent already established for a governing body exercising their discretion to deliver "justice" to a team after the game has ended (see the Colgate at Nebraska-Omaha game of 2002), there is nothing preventing the CCHA from doing the same thing here, despite the league's statement to the contrary.

Obviously, since this was a shootout, the justice can not come from the NCAA rules committee here--as far as they are concerned, conference points can be given out based on a post-game tiddlywinks contest if that's what the league wants. Justice can only be served by the action of the CCHA.

It also seems that the referees intended to immediately submit the question to league officials for adjudication: by declining to sign the scoresheet, they were saying, "we don't know what the right ruling is here; we will leave that for the league to determine." The league said the next day that they can't change a ruling made by the referees. The CCHA is implying that a ruling was actually made on the ice--and I don't think it was.

 

[unofan]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

There is no such thing as an appeal play in hockey. If a puck is kicked into the net by an attacking player, for example, it is "no goal" whether the opposing team suggests it to the referee or not. Unlike baseball, it never falls on the offended team to request a correct ruling from the officials in hockey.

But if the referee doesn't notice the "no goal," and play continues, the "no goal" counts and will not be taken off the board. Wrong call? Sure. Will it be changed after the fact? No.

I'm not saying the refs were 100% correct in this. What I'm saying is that the rules in virtually all sports prevent any and all review of calls made by game officials once the next play has taken place. In basketball, a review of a shot to see if a foot was on the line or if it beat the clock can only be made until the ball is put back into play after the next whistle. The same thing in hockey for review of goals/no-goals. In football, plays may only be challenged until the next snap. In baseball all appeal plays must be made before the next pitch.

If something happens at the 10:00 mark of the 1st, and around the 15:00 mark, after thinking about it, the ref realizes he blew it, it isn't going to be changed at that point in time (unless there hasn't been a whistle for those 5 minutes).

The point of all this is, UNO was screwed once their last shooter took his attempt following the error in allowing the BGSU player to take his attempt. Doesn't matter whose fault it ultimately was (primarily the refs, though UNO should've caught it earlier, BGSU shouldn't have tried it in the first place, and there's one story out there that the off-ice officials screwed up by originally writing the wrong number down for the penalty), it's over and done with.

 

[MavRick]

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

Re: BGSU @ UNO Shootout Fallout - Ineligible Player?

But if the referee doesn't notice the "no goal," and play continues, the "no goal" counts and will not be taken off the board. Wrong call? Sure. Will it be changed after the fact? No.

What I'm saying is that the rules in virtually all sports prevent any and all review of calls made by game officials once the next play has taken place.

There is nothing to "review." Even if Ben's citation-free summary of hockey rules (and other sports) was correct, he doesn't address this point.

While Alton's analogy to a kicked-in goal is helpful, it's not perfect. A kicked-in goal is a question of observation, interpretation and judgment by the referee. A player's eligibility is not. You don't have to look at tape of the game, you have to look only at the score sheet, and you know that BG's player was ineligible to take the shot, so he was, by extension, ineligible to make it.

The notation on the score sheet that he made it does not have any effect, any more than a goal scored in the 27th minute of the period, or a goal listed as a three-point basket. On the face of the score sheet, a three-point basket and a 27th minute goal are wrong, and can easily be addressed as the non-events they are without having to review a millimeter of game tape.

The point of all this is, UNO was screwed once their last shooter took his attempt following the error in allowing the BGSU player to take his attempt.

Rule cite, please. College hockey rules strongly preferred.