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.

Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

Theres a connection between Bahstan and Irish folks, right :)

Voted Best Joke in Ireland

John O'Reilly hoisted his beer and said, "Here's to spending the rest of my life, between the legs of me wife!"
That won him the top prize at the pub for the best toast of the night!
He went home and told his wife, Mary, "I won the prize for the Best toast of the night."
She said, "Aye, did ye now. And what was your toast?"
John said, "Here's to spending the rest of my life, sitting in church beside me wife."
"Oh, that is very nice indeed, John!" Mary said.
The next day, Mary ran into one of John's drinking buddies on the street corner.
The man chuckled leeringly and said, "John won the prize the other night at the pub with a toast about you, Mary."
She said, "Aye, he told me, and I was a bit surprised myself. You know, he's only been in there twice in the last four years. Once he fell asleep, and the other time I had to pull him by the ears to make him come."
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

Q: How many Irishmen does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: Five. One to hold the lightbulb and the other four to drink until the room spins.
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

AMC said:
KIA, I'd like to hear your take on the use of video review to make penalty calls on hitting after the whistle. I'd never seen that before. Is it provided for in the rule book?
Click to expand...

I'd like to chime in here. I refereed basketball (and the sport doesn't matter - the principle is the same) for 17 years. My personal opinion is that they should scrap ALL replays for ANYTHING. First of all, it opens up a can of worms for more second-guessing. Secondly, the game is played by humans and officiated by humans. Do players NEVER make mistakes? The problem is, by bringing the spotlight directly onto the official, it just puts more pressure on them to the point where they're thinking about what the replay will show instead of just making the call. You may not agree, but what's next? A laser to call balls and strikes? Are we going to "review" every foul in basketball? If you remove all judgment from the game, then why not just have someone sitting in a box above the ice call the game remotely? Also, you are watching the replay in slow-motion, but we have to make the call in "real time" with a split-second, instinctive decision. So much of the criticism about "well, he SHOULD HAVE seen that" is unfounded. Yes, officials make mistakes? So what? It's part of life. But this society wants to legislate EVERYTHING now so that life is perfect. That's not the way the world is...
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

AMC said:
KIA, I'd like to hear your take on the use of video review to make penalty calls on hitting after the whistle. I'd never seen that before. Is it provided for in the rule book?
Click to expand...

it is

"To correctly identify individuals who participated in a fight or committed an infraction"

in section six... right before section 7 starts
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH12.pdf

and facemasking can be a minor, major, or dq depending on the adjudged severity...
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

diamond will need to walk the straight and narrow from here on out

A player who receives three (3) game misconduct penalties in the same
season (including exhibition games) shall not be permitted to play in
the team’s next regular-season or tournament game against an NCAA
member institution. For each additional game misconduct penalty (e.g.
four, five, etc.) assessed to the same player in the same season, the player
shall be suspended for one (1) additional game. This shall not be part of a
progressive penalty structure. Exhibition games cannot be used to fulfill the
suspension for this violation
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

Here's the rule. Clear as mud.

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.
Click to expand...

So part a of the rule says a goal cannot be "directed" into the net with a skate. Part b says if the player is stopping, then the goal is good. Makes perfect sense!
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

Priceless said:
So part a of the rule says a goal cannot be "directed" into the net with a skate. Part b says if the player is stopping, then the goal is good. Makes perfect sense!
Click to expand...

Not sure what you don't get about that. "Kicked or directed" is meant to be synonymous. You're implying that "directed" is different from kicking. Therefore, the point is that they are addressing intent. If a player "kicks" or "directs" the puck toward the goal, it is considered intentional and, therefore, disallowed. If it deflects off the skate of a player who is stopping, that is interpreted to be NOT intentional, so, therefore, the goal would count.

Now, it may be true that the call they made was not consistent with the intent of the rule, but that's a different issue. The rule itself seems perfectly clear to me (but maybe your mud is murkier than my mud). :D
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

chickod said:
Not sure what you don't get about that. "Kicked or directed" is meant to be synonymous. You're implying that "directed" is different from kicking. Therefore, the point is that they are addressing intent. If a player "kicks" or "directs" the puck toward the goal, it is considered intentional and, therefore, disallowed. If it deflects off the skate of a player who is stopping, that is interpreted to be NOT intentional, so, therefore, the goal would count.

Now, it may be true that the call they made was not consistent with the intent of the rule, but that's a different issue. The rule itself seems perfectly clear to me (but maybe your mud is murkier than my mud). :D
Click to expand...
If the puck goes in off a skate, no goal.
If the puck goes in off a skate, it's a goal.
When in doubt, it's no goal.

Why bother adding the clause about stopping? The referees ignore it. To properly administer the rule requires them to become psychologists and determine "intent".

If they had interpreted the rule correctly, Maine would have been up 3-1. They don't even bother so just take that line out.
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

chickod said:
I'd like to chime in here. I refereed basketball (and the sport doesn't matter - the principle is the same) for 17 years. My personal opinion is that they should scrap ALL replays for ANYTHING. First of all, it opens up a can of worms for more second-guessing. Secondly, the game is played by humans and officiated by humans. Do players NEVER make mistakes? The problem is, by bringing the spotlight directly onto the official, it just puts more pressure on them to the point where they're thinking about what the replay will show instead of just making the call. You may not agree, but what's next? A laser to call balls and strikes? Are we going to "review" every foul in basketball? If you remove all judgment from the game, then why not just have someone sitting in a box above the ice call the game remotely? Also, you are watching the replay in slow-motion, but we have to make the call in "real time" with a split-second, instinctive decision. So much of the criticism about "well, he SHOULD HAVE seen that" is unfounded. Yes, officials make mistakes? So what? It's part of life. But this society wants to legislate EVERYTHING now so that life is perfect. That's not the way the world is...
Click to expand...

I get it. The problem in this particular case is that the officials had already taken the spotlight for themselves. They made mistakes-that's fine. Yet they kept making mistakes. The. Same. Mistakes. Much like Maine made the same mistakes in the form of retaliation.

I like replay for goals, time left on the clock, and that is about it. There is too much at stake in a lot of these games to put it all on the officials. They are human after all.
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

Priceless said:
If the puck goes in off a skate, no goal.
If the puck goes in off a skate, it's a goal.
When in doubt, it's no goal.

Why bother adding the clause about stopping? The referees ignore it. To properly administer the rule requires them to become psychologists and determine "intent".

If they had interpreted the rule correctly, Maine would have been up 3-1. They don't even bother so just take that line out.
Click to expand...

But you're conveniently leaving out the part that you don't want to talk about. It doesn't say "If the puck goes in off a skate, no goal" - it says if it is DIRECTED in it's no goal, if it's NOT directed in, it's a goal. In BOTH cases it goes in off a skate. You're deliberately trying to muddle the issue. True about the "stopping" part, but that doesn't negate the rest of it, which you are (I feel) intentionally leaving out...and I don't care one way or another because I'm not a Maine OR Merrimack fan.
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

chickod said:
But you're conveniently leaving out the part that you don't want to talk about. It doesn't say "If the puck goes in off a skate, no goal" - it says if it is DIRECTED in it's no goal, if it's NOT directed in, it's a goal. In BOTH cases it goes in off a skate. You're deliberately trying to muddle the issue. True about the "stopping" part, but that doesn't negate the rest of it, which you are (I feel) intentionally leaving out...and I don't care one way or another because I'm not a Maine OR Merrimack fan.
Click to expand...
What you're leaving out is that the rule requires the referee to determine "intent" when that is nearly impossible. When it's a bang-bang play like that, how can you possibly determine the intent of the player? You can't crawl inside someone's brain and determine that. Anthoine was stopping so he wouldn't run into Cannata, I doubt he ever saw the puck...but if there's any doubt at all, wave off the goal. Just eliminate the clause and have referees officiate the game and leave the headshrinking to trained professionals.
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

Kick it in or direct it in by changing skate blade angle - NO GOAL

No kick or no redirection of skate blade angle, whether stopping or not - GOAL


Very clear and simple. But the refs dont follow the rules most of the time on this. I'd be willing to bet if the player is looking down at his skate when the puck changes direction, 99% of the time it will be waived. = suspicion of intent :D If the player is looking up in the stands at that stacked blond, itza goal!
 
Last edited:
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

acs64 said:
Kick it in or direct it in by changing skate blade angle - NO GOAL

No kick or no redirection of skate blade angle, whether stopping or not - GOAL


Very clear and simple. But the refs dont follow the rules most of the time on this. I'd be willing to bet if the player is looking down at his skate when the puck changes direction, 99% of the time it will be waived. = suspicion of intent :D If the player is looking up in the stands at that stacked blond, itza goal!
Click to expand...

when you say stacked, you're talking about the number of chins, right?:D
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

TripleE said:
Thanks Bob

Time?
Click to expand...

Would just get there early, as place is big so even if the event is on the 3rd floor you'll notice a distinct blue color throughout. Band should make an appearance but event will likely go until 7 or possibly a bit later.
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

Priceless said:
What you're leaving out is that the rule requires the referee to determine "intent" when that is nearly impossible. When it's a bang-bang play like that, how can you possibly determine the intent of the player? You can't crawl inside someone's brain and determine that. Anthoine was stopping so he wouldn't run into Cannata, I doubt he ever saw the puck...but if there's any doubt at all, wave off the goal. Just eliminate the clause and have referees officiate the game and leave the headshrinking to trained professionals.
Click to expand...

No...they're looking to see if there was a MOTION of the skate "directing" the puck towards the goal. It's not intent - it's visual evidence. That's not crawling into their head. That's the whole justification (in their eyes) of the replay. By slowing the play down you can see things that you couldn't possibly be expected to see real time. I get that. Of course it's a bang-bang play - that's the whole point. But what I'm saying is that if they then don't make the RIGHT call, it's pointless to even go to replay. And personally, I think they would rather make the safe, or less controversial call so as not to open themselves up to criticism. So if you're going to do that, why bother?

And that's why it's ludicrous. Why SHOULD they bring wrath upon themselves? The problem is not the rule - the rule is clear. The problem is (and always is) the interpretation of the rule. If it hits a guy's skate and he clearly did not make a motion with his foot to direct the puck, then it should be ruled a goal. If they DON'T call it that way, that's not my fault. But that doesn't make the RULE wrong. Since so many are reluctant to do that, however, we're right back where we started from.

I still say just let them play the game. Are we going to review every cross-check to see if (in the words of the immortal Johnny Pierson "two hands on the stick, no part of the stick on the ice, Fred") it's really a penalty? Every trip to see if he actually touched the puck before making contact with the player? Every offside while we go frame-by-frame to see if part of the skate was still in contact with the blue line when the puck entered the zone? And I'm not being sarcastic. But where does it end?

PLAY THE GAME!!
 
Last edited:
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

acs64 said:
Kick it in or direct it in by changing skate blade angle - NO GOAL

No kick or no redirection of skate blade angle, whether stopping or not - GOAL


Very clear and simple. But the refs dont follow the rules most of the time on this. I'd be willing to bet if the player is looking down at his skate when the puck changes direction, 99% of the time it will be waived. = suspicion of intent :D If the player is looking up in the stands at that stacked blond, itza goal!
Click to expand...

Well, based on years of following Maine Hockey, this particular law is immutable: if a puck goes off a Maine player's skate into an opponent's net, it is No Goal. If a puck goes off an opponent's skate into Maine net, it is a Goal. You should know better than that. :D
 
Re: Maine thread (cont) - Hobey Abbott goes Dancing

whatever said:
Well, based on years of following Maine Hockey, this particular law is immutable: if a puck goes off a Maine player's skate into an opponent's net, it is No Goal. If a puck goes off an opponent's skate into Maine net, it is a Goal. You should know better than that. :D
Click to expand...

lucas lawson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top