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!

FYP

Wrong.

 

[GreenCat]

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.

I agree on how do you over turn the call on the ice. Additionally there was no attempt to put the puck to the stick it was directed directly into the net. In my opinion the intent of the rule is when a D and O are tied up and sliding to the net and it inadvertently goes off the O skate and goes in it is a good goal. Not sticking the leg forward but not 'kicking' and angling the puck in off the skate. I am sticking with the Jerry York calling up stairs conspiracy theory to end the game as he is getting old and still behind Jack Parker in playoff wins...:--)

 

[chickod]

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

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

I agree on how do you over turn the call on the ice. Additionally there was no attempt to put the puck to the stick it was directed directly into the net. In my opinion the intent of the rule is when a D and O are tied up and sliding to the net and it inadvertently goes off the O skate and goes in it is a good goal. Not sticking the leg forward but not 'kicking' and angling the puck in off the skate. I am sticking with the Jerry York calling up stairs conspiracy theory to end the game as he is getting old and still behind Jack Parker in playoff wins...:--)

Well, no offense, but I don't think they care about your "opinion." Really...I don't see what the big deal is. We can all agree the rule sucks, but how can you argue that he "kicked" it in? He didn't...(and I understand that some of you at the Garden may not have gotten a good look at it). He CLEARLY TURNED his skate but did NOT "push" the skate toward the net. And what does "he didn't try to kick it to his stick" have to do with anything? If he had kicked it to his stick he would have had to go behind the net to get it, since he was about two feet in front of the net when the puck hit his skate.

 

[GreenCat]

I agree on how do you over turn the call on the ice. Additionally there was no attempt to put the puck to the stick it was directed directly into the net. In my opinion the intent of the rule is when a D and O are tied up and sliding to the net and it inadvertently goes off the O skate and goes in it is a good goal. Not sticking the leg forward but not 'kicking' and angling the puck in off the skate. I am sticking with the Jerry York calling up stairs conspiracy theory to end the game as he is getting old and still behind Jack Parker in playoff wins...:--)

Did I mention through his south Boston interpreter......JC would someone get that guy a speech therapist!!!

 

[Scarlet]

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

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

Looked like he kicked it/advanced it forward to me.

 

[Go-UML]

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

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

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.

Keep it 5x5

 

[GreenCat]

Well, no offense, but I don't think they care about your "opinion." Really...I don't see what the big deal is. We can all agree the rule sucks, but how can you argue that he "kicked" it in? He didn't...(and I understand that some of you at the Garden may not have gotten a good look at it). He CLEARLY TURNED his skate but did NOT "push" the skate toward the net. And what does "he didn't try to kick it to his stick" have to do with anything? If he had kicked it to his stick he would have had to go behind the net to get it, since he was about two feet in front of the net when the puck hit his skate.

Yeah his foot did not make a soccer kicking motion but it is pushed out in front of his body to direct the puck. It was not a "stopping " motion. Generally you don't kick the puck with your foot like you do on a soccer ball with the toe pointed forward and the foot coming off the ice up to the buttocks based on your interpretation of a kicking motion.

 

[chickod]

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

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

Yeah his foot did not make a soccer kicking motion but it is pushed out in front of his body to direct the puck. It was not a "stopping " motion. Generally you don't kick the puck with your foot like you do on a soccer ball with the toe pointed forward and the foot coming off the ice up to the buttocks based on your interpretation of a kicking motion.

This is getting silly. I don't have a rooting interest either way so I think i can be pretty objective. I understand that everyone is "interpreting" what they saw. But, again, it doesn't matter what he did BEFORE the puck hit his skate. He could have been stopping, falling over, or standing on his head. But his skate was stationary WHEN THE PUCK HIT IT. Therefore, it was not a "kicking" motion. I agree that he obviously was DIRECTING the puck into the net. But the rule does not prohibit that unless his skate is clearly moving in the direction of the net. You (or I) don't have to like it...but that's the way the rule is written and was interpreted.

 

[Scarlet]

This is getting silly. I don't have a rooting interest either way so I think i can be pretty objective. I understand that everyone is "interpreting" what they saw. But, again, it doesn't matter what he did BEFORE the puck hit his skate. He could have been stopping, falling over, or standing on his head. But his skate was stationary WHEN THE PUCK HIT IT. Therefore, it was not a "kicking" motion. I agree that he obviously was DIRECTING the puck into the net. But the rule does not prohibit that unless his skate is clearly moving in the direction of the net. You (or I) don't have to like it...but that's the way the rule is written and was interpreted.

His skate was most certainly NOT stationary.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">UMass Lowell finally beats Providence in triple OT after this goal waved off and then overturned on review <a href="https://t.co/VKWASIcpU8">pic.twitter.com/VKWASIcpU8</a></p>— CJ Fogler (@cjzero) <a href="https://twitter.com/cjzero/status/711008059712282625">March 19, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[chickod]

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

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

His skate was most certainly NOT stationary.

Well, his whole BODY was moving (gliding) but the skate was stationary relative to his body. Like if you drop a ball out of a car going 60 mph the ball is "moving" because the momentum of the car gives it inertia. But he didn't "flash" out his skate or "move" his leg or foot toward the net. Sorry...he didn't. It would have been nice for Lowell to lose, but jeez...the call was correct the way the rule is written. And for those who say "I don't understand how they can overturn the call on the ice," well, then what's the point of replay? If you can't "overturn" a call, then don't have replay in the first place (which, as I have opined on this board before, wouldn't be a bad thing IMO anyway).

 

[leswp1]

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?

Yep, still bitter about that one. More so because one of the refs involved actually told us at one of lil's games that the team got screwed. Fat lot of good telling us that the following Fall. I think I would have felt better not hearing that.

Just got home, missed all the controversy. No matter who had won it always makes me sad someone has to lose in a game like that. The atmosphere toward the end was electric, the players were on their last legs. Talk about leaving it all on the ice. Deepest respect for Providence. Viva L'alliance!!

 

[GreenCat]

This is getting silly. I don't have a rooting interest either way so I think i can be pretty objective. I understand that everyone is "interpreting" what they saw. But, again, it doesn't matter what he did BEFORE the puck hit his skate. He could have been stopping, falling over, or standing on his head. But his skate was stationary WHEN THE PUCK HIT IT. Therefore, it was not a "kicking" motion. I agree that he obviously was DIRECTING the puck into the net. But the rule does not prohibit that unless his skate is clearly moving in the direction of the net. You (or I) don't have to like it...but that's the way the rule is written and was interpreted.

I am neutral as well. It comes down to how do you define a kicking motion. He is not playing kick ball but the leg is out in front of the body which in my mind is an attempt to 'kick' the puck to his stick but it went in the net instead. The UVM BC game was less controversial than this and yet they called it a kick.

 

[Scarlet]

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

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

It wasn't a screw job in the sense that it lost the game for UML. If that game went into OT and that happened, then BU scored, that would've been a screw job. The play in question happened early in the second period. BU didn't score any more goals. The fact that UML couldn't score in 30+ minutes of hockey when having several power play opportunities, not to mention keeping BU off the scoreboard, well, that's just a lost opportunity. Not a screw job. And now you can't complain about 2009 ever again before you just got your own gift.

 

[leswp1]

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

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

I am neutral as well. It comes down to how do you define a kicking motion. He is not playing kick ball but the leg is out in front of the body which in my mind is an attempt to 'kick' the puck to his stick but it went in the net instead. The UVM BC game was less controversial than this and yet they called it a kick.

Have not seen the replay so can't comment but it certainly sounds like a subjective call either way.

Fitting so many feel the refs decided the game. No idea what it was like to watch on TV but live Linesmen getting in the way the whole game, breaking up plays, blocking the team clearing the ice or getting it in the zone. Holy Hannah! they let things go that would have been called in the WWE. Talk about letting them play. One penatly in 6 periods of play?!

 

[Tater]

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

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

The goal was directed in, but not with a "distinct kicking motion." Looks like a good goal to me as the rule is written.

BTW, good goal or screwjob, I'm on board with Lowell stopping *****ing about '09.

 

[Patronick]

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?

Yup, that's the one. It was obviously a goal.

 

[leswp1]

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

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

It wasn't a screw job in the sense that it lost the game for UML. If that game went into OT and that happened, then BU scored, that would've been a screw job. The play in question happened early in the second period. BU didn't score any more goals. The fact that UML couldn't score in 30+ minutes of hockey when having several power play opportunities, not to mention keeping BU off the scoreboard, well, that's just a lost opportunity. Not a screw job. And now you can't complain about 2009 ever again before you just got your own gift.

well, that depends on who you ask
I still haven't seen it. Got home too late to catch it on any news. My internet is loading as slow as a snail so can't even watch on line. Didn't even know it was controversial until I came in here.

 

[Scarlet]

Yup, that's the one. It was obviously a goal.

Doesn't matter if it was a goal or not. Which it wasn't. It happened far too early in the game to be classified as a screw job. Your lack of faith in your team's ability to score in 30+ minutes while being on the man advantage for a decent portion of that time does not constitute any kind of screw job. What happened to Providence was way more of a screw job.

 

[Patronick]

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

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

Doesn't matter if it was a goal or not. Which it wasn't. It happened far too early in the game to be classified as a screw job. Your lack of faith in your team's ability to score in 30+ minutes while being on the man advantage for a decent portion of that time does not constitute any kind of screw job. What happened to Providence was way more of a screw job.

You have the right to your opinion. You're completely wrong and don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about, but that's your right.
.

 

[leswp1]

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

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

This is really pointless. No one will agree on that goal. You will believe what you believe, we will believe what we believe. It was a few years ago. ANd with that I am off to gt some shut eye.