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.

CC vs UNO goal waved off

Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

As a CC fan, I obviously have some bias here, but by the *rule* this seems like a pretty easy call. One can argue whether the rule is good, but I don't think there's much argument that this was the correct call according to the rule.
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

I think under the rule as quoted it's a goal. When I go through the rule carefully, it says to me that there are two situations where the goal is disallowed: when the puck is kicked in, and when the puck is "directed" in, whether off a skate or any body part. But if it just hits you and goes in, then it's a goal, regardless of which direction you're moving or what part of you (or your equipment) it hits. In order to disallow the goal, the official has to decide that the puck was either "kicked" or "directed" into the goal. Deflections are goals. It does say that when in doubt the goal should be disallowed, but I don't see anything in the video to suggest the player was "directing" the puck. It hit his skate.
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

FlagDUDE08 said:
My reasoning for no goal was the language of the player stopping. The player was not stopping, but instead clearly following through his stride as if he were continuing to go forward. I'm not going to get into an intent argument with you, because there's nothing in the rule book that says anything about intent. If he wasn't following through his stride, then depending upon the change he could be trying to stop, and in that scenario, I would consider the possibility of it being a goal.
Click to expand...

Does the rule state that if the puck deflects off a player from the same team , AND THAT PLAYER IS NOT MOVING, then it is a goal, but if the player is actively skating, then it is NOT a goal? NO. Talk to a few refs. While not explicitly stated, using "directed", instead of "deflected" implies intent. So a player who is skating and turns a skate with the intent of directing it towards the net should result in the goal being disallowed. But a player also has to turn his skates to stop, hence the need to clarify goals scored that are deflected off a player's skate who is stopping should be allowed, because the intent of the player was to stop, not to direct the puck. If you have followed hockey for awhile, you should be aware of the evolution of rules here. There was language that forbid "direct kicking motions", but that wasn't precise enough to stop a guy from turning his skate sideways to allow it to change the direction of the puck. The current intent of the language is to essentially say, 'if the puck goes in off any part of a player unintentionally, it is a goal. If it is intentionally directed in with anything besides the stick, it isn't a goal.' That has always been the intent, but the language to make that precise, has not been there. So the question to be asked in this case is, 'did the player intentionally direct it in?' You might not agree, but I think if you ask a number of refs, almost all will tell you the same thing. In the case of this goal, his skate wavers slightly, so I can't tell you for sure what his intent was. I personally would say it didn't look intentional, so I would give him the goal. I would prefer the NFL type approach of 'if there isn't clear evidence in the replay to overturn a call on the field, ruling on the field stands' in which case I would call it a goal. But because the rule says 'if unsure, no goal', I guess I can't say they made a bad call. Either way, I see nothing in the rules that would make me believe your stance that whether a skating player continues to skate has a bearing on a goal. By your interpretation, a guy could be skating through the slot and get hit in the back by a shot he never saw from the point that deflects in, and the refs would have to disallow the goal since he was moving. Do you really believe that is the correct interpretation?
 
Last edited:
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

Pretty tough one. I think I would have allowed it, but I can't really fault them for disallowing, based on the "doubt" factor.
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

Oh, oh..........

Boom goes the dynamite.

Coach Blais might suspended, fined, sanctioned, admonished, or something for this:

http://www.omaha.com/article/201202...isallowed-goal-thwarts-mavericks-comeback-bid

What are the NCAA/WCHA rules about criticizing officiating? This is probably a little over the line. Depends on how you take it, I guess.

I'll say this about the events of last night, something I have said, elsewhere. And that is I would never have thought it possible that anything could ever make me wish for CCHA officials or officiating.
 
Last edited:
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

Red Cows said:
Oh, oh..........

Boom goes the dynamite.

Coach Blais might suspended, fined, sanctioned, admonished, or something for this:

http://www.omaha.com/article/201202...isallowed-goal-thwarts-mavericks-comeback-bid

What are the NCAA/WCHA rules about criticizing officiating? This is probably a little over the line. Depends on how you take it, I guess.

I'll say this about the events of last night, something I have said, elsewhere. And that is I would never have thought it possible that anything could ever make me wish for CCHA officials or officiating.
Click to expand...

Quote form that article:
After a review, though, the goal was disallowed as officials ruled it was intentionally kicked.
Click to expand...
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

IS that the official word? It was called a kick? Someone brought to my attention that he was also in the crease. I was so caught up in thinking they were concentrating on the kicking, however, his foot was in the goal crease before the puck. So technically, that would be a violation.
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

If you back off the fine print and look at the spirit of the law, it's no goal. It was kicked in. Kudos to the refs for taking the time to get it right.
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

Pants said:
IS that the official word? It was called a kick? Someone brought to my attention that he was also in the crease. I was so caught up in thinking they were concentrating on the kicking, however, his foot was in the goal crease before the puck. So technically, that would be a violation.
Click to expand...

Crease is only a violation now if there is goalie interference, which there wasn't. I question whether you could call it a "kick" either.
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

Was at both games this weekend. I wasn't sure about Friday's call. I thought it would probably stand as a goal, and was pleasantly surprised when it didn't. Not sure though...I probably would've given it to them.

That said, the refs obviously felt a need to balance that call on Saturday. Last night's crew was downright hostile toward CC, all four of them.

Balanced teams, balanced games. Good of the officials to ensure the outcome was also balanced. The split was the right result from the weekend... just wish it could happen with a little less ref BS all around.
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

Here is the epilogue to all this from Zombo himself. From today's Omaha World Herald:

"Zombo, a freshman, got his first goal in Saturday's 5-3 victory at Colorado College. It was the first goal of that game and was considered — in UNO circles — payback for having Zombo's game-tying goal with 2:56 left in regulation taken away Friday. Following video review, officials determined that Zombo had kicked the puck into the net.

"I didn't even see the puck. ... I was looking for it to hit my tape and it went off my skate," Zombo said. "I couldn't kick it, because I didn't see it."

http://www.omaha.com/article/20120221/MAVS/702219872/-1#lower-line-contributions-provide-boost
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

I love this. This is just PROOF that God doesn't want Hockey to be played in non-traditional locations. That and no one wanting Huntsville in their conference...:p
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

as per the rules;
Goals and Assists
SECTION 18. a. A goal is scored when the puck, initially propelled
legally by a stick of a player of the attacking team, passes between
the goal posts, entering from the front and below the top of the net,
and completely crosses the goal line, with the goal frame in its proper
position. If the puck was last touched by a defending player before it
entered the cage, the goal is allowed, unless otherwise identified in Rule
6-18-c-10.
A goal shall not be allowed if the puck has been kicked or directed into the goal off an attacking player’s skate or any body part. When in doubt, the goal shall be disallowed.
A goal shall be allowed if a puck deflects off an attacking player who is in the act of stopping. When administering this rule, the puck must initially be legally propelled by a stick.
If the puck deflects into the goal from the shot of an attacking player by striking any body part of a player on the same team, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal.
Click to expand...
For me, this means there are 3 ways to score.
The third requires the puck be SHOT which it clearly wasn't, not from behind the goal line.
The second requires the player that deflects the puck to be STOPPING which he clearly wasn't.
The first first is anything that doesn't involve kicking or DIRECTING it into the goal, which he clearly did. The puck changed direction when it hit his skate, he wasn't stopping. NO GOAL!! The kicking argument is moot.
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

Wol4ine said:
as per the rules;

For me, this means there are 3 ways to score.
The third requires the puck be SHOT which it clearly wasn't, not from behind the goal line.
The second requires the player that deflects the puck to be STOPPING which he clearly wasn't.
The first first is anything that doesn't involve kicking or DIRECTING it into the goal, which he clearly did. The puck changed direction when it hit his skate, he wasn't stopping. NO GOAL!! The kicking argument is moot.
Click to expand...

So, by YOUR interpretation of the language, if an attacking player takes a shot that brushes off a teammate that is stanging still with his back to the play and changes directions and enters the goal, it is not a goal because it was "directed" in?
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

Directed:
adjective
1. guided, regulated, or managed
2. subject to direction, guidance, regulation, etc.
3. (of an angle or vector) having positive or negative direction or orientation assigned

Directed implies intent. Deflected implies accidental. If you look at the interpretation of the rule as it has been applied, it is all about intent. The interpretation is that if there is no change of skate direction, etc. it is incidental so goal should be allowed. Because stopping requires a player to change direction of their skate blades, language is added to prevent refs from having to disallow goals directed in unintentionally in this unique circumstance.

I don't believe the player did this intentionally, but the clause that says 'when unsure, deny goal', I am fine with either call.
 
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

Koho said:
So, by YOUR interpretation of the language, if an attacking player takes a shot that brushes off a teammate that is stanging still with his back to the play and changes directions and enters the goal, it is not a goal because it was "directed" in?
Click to expand...

Wol4ine said:
as per the rules;

If the puck deflects into the goal from the shot of an attacking player by striking any body part of a player on the same team, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal. .
Click to expand...

My interpretation of your scenario would let the goal stand. There are three sentences that explain what is, and what is not a goal.

The first sentence, "A goal shall not be allowed......" is a general statement that means players must use their stick to score the goal. Anything else is no good.
The next 2 sentences are exceptions to the first sentence.

The second sentence, "A goal shall be allowed....." describes the puck going in after it hits a players skate while trying to stop.
Regardless of whether the puck was shot or passed.

The third sentence, "If the puck deflects into the goal ..." describes the puck going in after it is shot and hits any body part. For me, the key word is SHOT. Otherwise, what is the difference between sentence 2 and 3? I think there can be much leeway in calling a shot anything from in front of the net, but little when it comes from behind the goal line.
 
Last edited:
Re: CC vs UNO goal waved off

Wol4ine said:
I think there can be much leeway in calling a shot anything from in front of the net, but little when it comes from behind the goal line.
Click to expand...

If this interpretation were correct, a review on a play like this would take about 5 seconds and they would make the no-goal call, not review it for minutes. By your definition, if a player trying to pass across the crease to a teammate hits the teammate in the Knee and it goes in, it would not be a goal. Read the quote above about the goal being disallowed because it appeared to be intentionally directed in (or more like, couldn't tell for sure it was accidental). It is all about "intent". Take my word for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top