What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

BU: '22-'23 Season: Sail The Boats

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tmtroiano said:
Why was WM goal called back? Goalie interference? Announcers are lousy. Nice goal by LH!!
Click to expand...

The puck was frozen under Commesso's pad. For at least two seconds...clearly. It was out of sight but for some reason the ref didn't blow the whistle. Maybe he was sleepy because there were only 100 people in the stands at the time. I believe it was the right call (even though I'm biased). The announcers DID say that the "information" they got "from above" was that it WAS because the puck was frozen and the whistle should have blown.

I guess one can make the case that you "play until the whistle," but, on the other hand, banging at the goalie's pad until the puck dislodges and goes in isn't what is supposed to happen either.

Razor seems to think the puck was "loose." Yeah, it was loose at first, but when the guy banged at Commesso's pad it was NO LONGER loose. It was clearly not visible under the pad. It was the second "bang" at the puck that caused it to go in, and by that time, IMO it was already frozen.

And for those who don't know, Andrew Raycroft ("Razor") is a local Bruins analyst, so there may be some attempt to not appear biased towards Boston teams.
 
Last edited:
chickod said:
The puck was frozen under Commesso's pad. For at least two seconds...clearly. It was out of sight but for some reason the ref didn't blow the whistle. Maybe he was sleepy because there were only 100 people in the stands at the time. I believe it was the right call (even though I'm biased). The announcers DID say that the "information" they got "from above" was that it WAS because the puck was frozen and the whistle should have blown.
Click to expand...

Thanks!! I guess I missed them saying that. I'm really surprised by that call though. We should have blown the whistle so we're taking away the goal. That doesn't happen often, does it?
 
chickod said:
The puck was frozen under Commesso's pad. For at least two seconds...clearly. It was out of sight but for some reason the ref didn't blow the whistle. Maybe he was sleepy because there were only 100 people in the stands at the time. I believe it was the right call (even though I'm biased). The announcers DID say that the "information" they got "from above" was that it WAS because the puck was frozen and the whistle should have blown.

I guess one can make the case that you "play until the whistle," but, on the other hand, banging at the goalie's pad until the puck dislodges and goes in isn't what is supposed to happen either.

Razor seems to think the puck was "loose." Yeah, it was loose at first, but when the guy banged at Commesso's pad it was NO LONGER loose. It was clearly not visible under the pad. It was the second "bang" at the puck that caused it to go in, and by that time, IMO it was already frozen.

And for those who don't know, Andrew Raycroft ("Razor") is a local Bruins analyst, so there may be some attempt to not appear biased towards Boston teams.
Click to expand...

To add to that, I also think the puck was "freed up" after Larkin pushed the goalies pad back toward the net. So it took contact with the goalie to even free up the puck to score it. My wife saw it different, but that's what I saw. So your whole banging on the goalie's pad point.
 
Tmtroiano said:
Why was WM goal called back? Goalie interference? Announcers are lousy. Nice goal by LH!!
Click to expand...

They didn't specifically use the term "goalie interference" and I don't believe that's what it was. IMO it was basically that the play was over. There is no doubt that the whistle did not blow (and obviously there was no intent for the ref to blow it, because he emphatically waved "goal" and pointed at the net). But...upon review it was obvious (to me, anyway) that it was simply the wrong call. No different than plays that get overruled in any other sport.

We can discuss how difficult it is for officials to be under constant scrutiny and second-guessing. I personally don't like replay, but it's apparently here to stay. It's not easy to make calls when every other call is questioned, but that's the way it is now.
 
MichVandal said:
To add to that, I also think the puck was "freed up" after Larkin pushed the goalies pad back toward the net. So it took contact with the goalie to even free up the puck to score it. My wife saw it different, but that's what I saw. So your whole banging on the goalie's pad point.
Click to expand...

Yeah....that's why I said the "second bang" because it WAS frozen until he dislodged it. But the whistle (as far as I know from watching hockey for 58 years) is supposed to be blown when the referee "loses sight of the puck." I agree that it was "loose" but by the time he banged his pad the second time, it was under the pad and there's was no way the referee could have seen it.
 
Tmtroiano said:
Thanks!! I guess I missed them saying that. I'm really surprised by that call though. We should have blown the whistle so we're taking away the goal. That doesn't happen often, does it?
Click to expand...

You're right. Hence my comments about replay. Ten years ago that would have been a goal because play was not stopped on the ice and there would have been no review. So, hence the argument that "See, that's why they have replay. To get the call right."

Which doesn't mean I still have to like it...but it is what it is. We are circumcising ants and eventually the games are going to grind to a halt becuase EVERYTHING is being questioned. I have noticed a tremendous increase this year, especially in the NCAA Women's Basketball. EVERY call is getting questioned and it's just getting ridiculous. The games are starting to become unwatchable. A half hour to play the last two minutes. Humans make mistakes...it's part of the game. If you put yourself in a position where one call costs you the game after an hour of playing time, that's on you. In my opinion. I get the "get it right" thing, but if you can see where this is going; there is no limit.
 
chickod said:
Yeah....that's why I said the "second bang" because it WAS frozen until he dislodged it. But the whistle (as far as I know from watching hockey for 58 years) is supposed to be blown when the referee "loses sight of the puck." I agree that it was "loose" but by the time he banged his pad the second time, it was under the pad and there's was no way the referee could have seen it.
Click to expand...


It still feels like goalie interference to me (at multiple points in the sequence) but I think you are correct Go BU!!
 
If this is any indication BU has a good chance to beat Denver. When it was 1-0 it felt like 3-0 and now it is.
 
WMU is one of the worst defensive teams I have seen all year. Maybe that's a feather in the cap for other HE teams.
 
J.D. said:
WMU is one of the worst defensive teams I have seen all year. Maybe that's a feather in the cap for other HE teams.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised they're still sending two men in to forecheck. Usually after you get burned about 20 times you stop that. Wisconsin tried that in 1978 at Providence and after O'Callahan blew by them a couple of times they backed off.
 
chickod said:
You're right. Hence my comments about replay. Ten years ago that would have been a goal because play was not stopped on the ice and there would have been no review. So, hence the argument that "See, that's why they have replay. To get the call right.
Click to expand...
Not quite. You have appearantly forgotten the UML non-goal in the 2009 Hockey East Championship game. As I recall that was an extremely long review before being called no goal.

Sean
 
Sean Pickett said:
Not quite. You have appearantly forgotten the UML non-goal in the 2009 Hockey East Championship game. As I recall that was an extremely long review before being called no goal.

Sean
Click to expand...

Wow...time flies I guess. I can't believe replay has been around THAT long. Yikes...
 
Just a comment between periods while I nervously await play to resume. The other thing the NCAA doesn't consider when determining times is where the schools are located. New England is a relatively small region. I can think of at least 15 schools right off the top of my head that are within less than three hours driving distance from anywhere. If a team has to travel a long distance (i.e., Denver), it DOESN'T MATTER when the game is. They're here and they're staying. They're not going to work the next day. So why you would put a LOCAL team at 2:00 p.m. where the fans have to miss work, especially when they could DRIVE to the game after work, makes NO sense. NONE. Put the local teams in the evening when the fans can get there. It doesn't matter when Denver plays...their fans aren't driving to work the next day. Oh, that's right...they don't care about attendance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top