Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

[chickod]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

If you're saying because of this it shouldn't have counted, we're on the same page

I tend to agree with you; however, they're saying on TV (Cahoon) that the rule has been changed "several times" and apparently as long as there is no "kicking motion" (even though you could say he "directed" it in), it's a good goal. Either way, an unfortunate way for the game to end.

 

[Scarlet]

me too, not even close but karma kinda. Makes up for the screw job they got vs BU

What screw job would that be? Do you mean the HE Championship game in 2009 when they thought they scored but was called no goal early in the second period and when they had more than half the game left to actually try to tie it, not to mention several power play opportunities to give them a bit more of an advantage over BU who only scored one goal? That screw job?

 

[brassbonanza]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Can't see how the call on the ice is overturned. If it's called a goal on the ice, the same logic would apply. He didn't "kick" it, but he certainly pushed it. Wouldn't be surprised if the officials' own fatigue pushed their decision here.

 

[J.D.]

I have the greatest respect for the Lowell hockey program, but that goal should not have counted. Hockey East - you should be ashamed. Your on-ice referees got the call correct. Too bad you are more interested in kow towing to Jerry York and keeping on schedule than having this epic game decided correctly on a valid goal.

Yes i am sure they called it a goal because of Jerry York

 

[John_Fuller]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

OK, folks here we go again

From the NCAA Rule Book

<I>
83.4 Goals Scored Off of Skates -
A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal.
...
A goal shall be allowed if a puck deflects off an attacking player who is in the act of stopping.</I>

The key is the last sentence. There is no question in my mind that the skate was turned towards the net, however, the catch is that the skate was not lifted or moved vertically. Don't blame the refs on this one. College hockey resisted this change in rules for a long time. Even a few years ago, this goal would not have counted and I think that's why the refs waived it off.

While the hockey purest in me can't stand goals off skates, it's the way the game has changed towards in the past 10-15 years. While my team came out on top, I just hate to see overtime games decided like that, especially an epic game like this.

 

[sterlippo1]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Too bad you are more interested in kowtowing to Jerry York and keeping on schedule than having this epic game decided correctly on a valid goal.

how much HE have you watched over the years? I suspect not a lot

 

[Patman]

I have the greatest respect for the Lowell hockey program, but that goal should not have counted. Hockey East - you should be ashamed. Your on-ice referees got the call correct. Too bad you are more interested in kowtowing to Jerry York and keeping on schedule than having this epic game decided correctly on a valid goal.

No distinct kicking motion... The end.

 

[Patman]

What screw job would that be? Do you mean the HE Championship game in 2009 when they thought they scored but was called no goal early in the second period and when they had more than half the game left to actually try to tie it, not to mention several power play opportunities to give them a bit more of an advantage over BU who only scored one goal? That screw job?

Yes scarlet. That one.

 

[John_Fuller]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Don't change a thing....this is a treat every time it happens like this.

As an impartial observer, I have to ask. Do you prefer the current overtime format or would you like to see a change such as 4 on 4 or 3 on 3? Perhaps just regular season, perhaps post season as well.

Also congrats to both teams, an outstanding defensive effort by both.

 

[sterlippo1]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

OK, folks here we go again

From the NCAA Rule Book

<quote>
83.4 Goals Scored Off of Skates -
A puck that is directed into the net by an attacking player’s skate shall be a legitimate goal as long as no distinct kicking motion is evident. A goal cannot be scored by an attacking player who kicks a puck that deflects into the net off any player, goalkeeper or official. A puck that deflects into the net off an attacking player’s skate
who does not use a distinct kicking motion is a legitimate goal.
...
A goal shall be allowed if a puck deflects off an attacking player who is in the act of stopping.

</quote>

The key is the last sentence. There is no question in my mind that the skate was turned towards the net, however, the catch is that the skate was not lifted or moved vertically. Don't blame the refs on this one. College hockey resisted this change in rules for a long time. Even a few years ago, this goal would not have counted and I think that's why the refs waived it off.

While the hockey purest in me can't stand goals off skates, it's the way the game has changed towards in the past 10-15 years. While my team came out on top, I just hate to see overtime games decided like that, especially an epic game like this.

how can you say it wasn't a " distinct kicking motion"? it was clearly that , he angled his skate perfectly to deflect the puck into the net, whether he meant it or not. They cant assume he was kicking it to his stick

 

[Patman]

Don't change a thing....this is a treat every time it happens like this.

We play tomorrow for the chance to play out east.... Errr... I mean win hockey east

 

[Scarlet]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Just saw the video. I totally think it should not have counted. However, if it was called a goal initially, reviewed and it was decided there wasn't enough to overturn it, that would have still sucked but been easier to take. Usually those are called goals, reviewed and then overturned. It's really rare to have it called no goal, reviewed and then overturned to count as a goal when there didn't seem to be any video that would prove otherwise.

 

[sterlippo1]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

What screw job would that be? Do you mean the HE Championship game in 2009 when they thought they scored but was called no goal early in the second period and when they had more than half the game left to actually try to tie it, not to mention several power play opportunities to give them a bit more of an advantage over BU who only scored one goal? That screw job?

yes, i know it's hard to distinguish though

 

[UML Puck Hawk]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

So alliance back on? If it survives this it'll survive anything.

Once it was double ot it just felt like it would be controversial somehow. Turning his skate isn't a kicking motion but if I were on the other side I'd be pretty ****ed. Was a great game, too bad it had to end that way

 

[UML Puck Hawk]

how can you say it wasn't a " distinct kicking motion"? it was clearly that , he angled his skate perfectly to deflect the puck into the net, whether he meant it or not. They cant assume he was kicking it to his stick

Directing isn't the same as kicking in the eyes of the ref.

 

[chickod]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

how can you say it wasn't a " distinct kicking motion"? it was clearly that , he angled his skate perfectly to deflect the puck into the net, whether he meant it or not. They cant assume he was kicking it to his stick

Because it wasn't. That doesn't mean that he didn't intentionally "turn his skate" to DIRECT the puck in (which I think he did and he knows it). BUT...if you go by the rule (which has been cited on here elsewhere) there was NOT a "distinct kicking motion." He didn't "push" his skate toward the net...he TURNED his skate. There's a difference. I don't like goals scored like this, but according to the letter of the rule, the call was correct.

 

[uncle_cliff]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

So alliance back on? If it survives this it'll survive anything.

Once it was double ot it just felt like it would be controversial somehow. Turning his skate isn't a kicking motion but if I were on the other side I'd be pretty ****ed. Was a great game, too bad it had to end that way

Only if BC wins the midnight game.

 

[Terrance]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

how can you say it wasn't a " distinct kicking motion"? it was clearly that. They cant assume he was kicking it to his stick

Yes.

Just saw the video. I totally think it should not have counted. However, if it was called a goal initially, reviewed and it was decided there wasn't enough to overturn it, that would have still sucked but been easier to take. Usually those are called goals, reviewed and then overturned. It's really rare to have it called no goal, reviewed and then overturned to count as a goal when there didn't seem to be any video that would prove otherwise.

Yes.

You're right. It was. It doesn't matter if he "turn his skate" to DIRECT the puck in (which I think he did and he knows it). BUT...if you go by the rule (which has been cited on here elsewhere) there was a "distinct kicking motion." He did "push" his skate toward the net...after he TURNED his skate. I don't like goals scored like this, but according to the letter of the rule, the call was incorrect.

FYP

 

[John_Fuller]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

how can you say it wasn't a " distinct kicking motion"? it was clearly that , he angled his skate perfectly to deflect the puck into the net, whether he meant it or not. They can't assume he was kicking it to his stick

Easy, the NHL screwed this up 20 years ago by putting this rule in effect and it has now has trickled down to the lower levels. In turn, hockey allows soccer-type goals. As written, the rule allows to turn the skate (even towards the net) while "in the act of stopping" and by the same token is not truly called a "distinct kicking motion".

I'm sure some will say it's good and some will stay it was a kick. I've always been one to disallow goals off skates, regardless of circumstance.

Needless to say, there will be much more discussion on this game to come.

 

[brassbonanza]

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

Re: Lowell/Providence Hockey East Semi Final (3/18) – Alliance Suspended!

This would be made a lot easier if the rulebook clearly defined what constitutes a kicking motion, how forward motion of a skate is supposed to be interpreted, and whether a moving skate that is directing the puck is considered a kick.

My problem with the call is I don't think there's clear evidence either way to overturn the call on the ice. If it was called a goal, I'd have a problem with it being waved off.