Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
After seeing the replay the net came off before the puck went into the net. No goal.
After seeing the replay the net came off before the puck went into the net. No goal.
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.
Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
- Thread starter Driftryder
- Start date
2nd MN goal was fine, just changed the skate blade angle to redirect, no harm no danger!, no kicking
One could argue Wilcox innocently knocked the net off as the MSU player decked right on top of him in the crease. You could also argue that some goalies have that trick down to a science with extending back into the post and not making it look to obvious to get a stop in play during goalmouth scrambles. I think Wilcox acted to knock it off.
One could argue Wilcox innocently knocked the net off as the MSU player decked right on top of him in the crease. You could also argue that some goalies have that trick down to a science with extending back into the post and not making it look to obvious to get a stop in play during goalmouth scrambles. I think Wilcox acted to knock it off.
state of hockey
He fixes the cable?
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
I don't really get the player not getting another try in that situation, regardless of whether or not it was intentional.
I don't really get the player not getting another try in that situation, regardless of whether or not it was intentional.
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
It just goes to show why I hate the shootout. In a normal setting Wilcox doesn't have to purposely do it because the shooter doesn't have the time to make a play like that.
It just goes to show why I hate the shootout. In a normal setting Wilcox doesn't have to purposely do it because the shooter doesn't have the time to make a play like that.
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
Because no one (cough, Anastos as CCHA commish, cough) never thought of it with his director of officials. Don't see it too often in the NHL. I agree, should have been re-shot. Can't punish the shooter or his team.
Because no one (cough, Anastos as CCHA commish, cough) never thought of it with his director of officials. Don't see it too often in the NHL. I agree, should have been re-shot. Can't punish the shooter or his team.
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
Technically the rule was enforced as written. I think the spirit of the rule has to allow some discretion here and give the on ice officials some latitude on interpretation. (I truly don't think they really want it, but....) In that case, the puck was directed, clearly, by the skate purposely. In the past, this would have been no goal.
Technically the rule was enforced as written. I think the spirit of the rule has to allow some discretion here and give the on ice officials some latitude on interpretation. (I truly don't think they really want it, but....) In that case, the puck was directed, clearly, by the skate purposely. In the past, this would have been no goal.
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
Just looking at teams pts/gm for all the teams and dividing by number of minutes you get about 10.75 minutes of game per goal, meaning, all else being equal, a 5 min. OT will only settle about 46% of games. Add in the fact teams often play not to lose and the fact the refs are probably reluctant to call a penalty, and it drops further. So we are probably talking about 2/3 of games that are tied going to a skills competition. Go to 8 minutes, without the considerations I just mentioned, and you are at about 74% decided in OT. Which means, given the other factors, you are still probably over 50% of games decided by the game of hockey, not a SO. I say make OT 8 minutes, or more.
Just looking at teams pts/gm for all the teams and dividing by number of minutes you get about 10.75 minutes of game per goal, meaning, all else being equal, a 5 min. OT will only settle about 46% of games. Add in the fact teams often play not to lose and the fact the refs are probably reluctant to call a penalty, and it drops further. So we are probably talking about 2/3 of games that are tied going to a skills competition. Go to 8 minutes, without the considerations I just mentioned, and you are at about 74% decided in OT. Which means, given the other factors, you are still probably over 50% of games decided by the game of hockey, not a SO. I say make OT 8 minutes, or more.
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
And I am too lazy to try to figure out how close these stats are to what has actually happened in OT games this year.
And I am too lazy to try to figure out how close these stats are to what has actually happened in OT games this year.
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
Overtime should really be 10 minutes. I don't understand how playing for an extra 1/12 of regulation is expected to decide things in a low scoring game. Basketball does 1/8 and that has tons of scoring. Soccer does 1/3 and baseball goes on forever.
Back in the days of manly men FIFA would replay the entire game the next day if a game was still tied.
Overtime should really be 10 minutes. I don't understand how playing for an extra 1/12 of regulation is expected to decide things in a low scoring game. Basketball does 1/8 and that has tons of scoring. Soccer does 1/3 and baseball goes on forever.
Back in the days of manly men FIFA would replay the entire game the next day if a game was still tied.
Tipsy McStagger
Falling on fans at NHC since 2001
Do you understand english? He said the MSU player deserved a second chance since the net came off before the attempt.
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
Agree on the effort part - Ryan gave all he had. But one of MSU's goals was scored after Ryan left his feet, slid into and took out Skjei which left the Gophers outmanned in front. I could have misread it, but it looked like Skjei was really peeved at Ryan when they went to the bench right afterwards.
Agree on the effort part - Ryan gave all he had. But one of MSU's goals was scored after Ryan left his feet, slid into and took out Skjei which left the Gophers outmanned in front. I could have misread it, but it looked like Skjei was really peeved at Ryan when they went to the bench right afterwards.
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
You must have been watching a different game than the one I attended. There was no penalty shot last night.
You must have been watching a different game than the one I attended. There was no penalty shot last night.
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
Both of the contentious plays last night have been specifically addressed in the NCAA 2012 Rules and Preseason Rules Video.
For the net coming off in the shootout - see the video beginning at 8:30.
I'm not sure if there is a different rule that applies to shootouts, but as the net dislodgement rule is currently written that should have been a goal.
- The net was dislodged by a defending player's actions
- The attacking player was in a position to shoot when the net was dislodged
- The puck would have entered the net should it have been in its normal position
- intent of the defending player is irrelevant
As for Kloos' goal in regulation - see the video beginning at 13:30
This was a good goal. Pay particular attention to examples #11 and #14 in the video which are almost identical to what happened last night.
Basically, the player needs to propel the puck into the net. Simply changing the angle of the skate blade to deflect or redirect the puck results in a good goal. Intent is a non-factor.
So the officials were 1-for-2 last night.
Disappointing night for the Gophers. At the risk of being a "negative nancy" I have to say this is about the 6th time in the last 8 games the Gophers have had a somewhat poor performance. The good news is that despite those performances this team still hasn't lost, and on whole they have shown themselves to be an extremely difficult team to beat.
Wilcox has been, hands-down, the most valuable player on this Gopher team. What's interesting is that early in the season special teams were a weakness for them, but since the return from the holiday break it has been special teams and Wilcox that have allowed MN to earn wins and ties in games that they probably shouldn't have. Last night was another example of that.
Both of the contentious plays last night have been specifically addressed in the NCAA 2012 Rules and Preseason Rules Video.
For the net coming off in the shootout - see the video beginning at 8:30.
I'm not sure if there is a different rule that applies to shootouts, but as the net dislodgement rule is currently written that should have been a goal.
- The net was dislodged by a defending player's actions
- The attacking player was in a position to shoot when the net was dislodged
- The puck would have entered the net should it have been in its normal position
- intent of the defending player is irrelevant
As for Kloos' goal in regulation - see the video beginning at 13:30
This was a good goal. Pay particular attention to examples #11 and #14 in the video which are almost identical to what happened last night.
Basically, the player needs to propel the puck into the net. Simply changing the angle of the skate blade to deflect or redirect the puck results in a good goal. Intent is a non-factor.
So the officials were 1-for-2 last night.
Disappointing night for the Gophers. At the risk of being a "negative nancy" I have to say this is about the 6th time in the last 8 games the Gophers have had a somewhat poor performance. The good news is that despite those performances this team still hasn't lost, and on whole they have shown themselves to be an extremely difficult team to beat.
Wilcox has been, hands-down, the most valuable player on this Gopher team. What's interesting is that early in the season special teams were a weakness for them, but since the return from the holiday break it has been special teams and Wilcox that have allowed MN to earn wins and ties in games that they probably shouldn't have. Last night was another example of that.
Last edited:
HarleyMC
Registered User
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
Anastos obviously didn't agree with the call either:
I understand your point, and it does make a lot of sense. The refs spent quite a bit of ice time discussing the situation. I think it's reasonable to assume the refs considered a re-shot based upon the circumstances you mentioned as well.
I hadn't seen the actual ruling, but looking through the NCCA 2013-14 Rules and Interpretations there does not appear to be a clear and detailed explanation on the shootout protocol for this specific issue though. Often times that means referee discretion is involved on how to accurately interpret and apply a "conjunctive" ruling in a situation like what happened with Cox. There does seem to be some precedent for referee discretion to determine whether the goalie specifically (not just generally a "defending player" as other rules on net displacement mentioned by Slap Shot indicate) dislodged the net intentionally or not when considering awarding a goal, or a re-shot on a penalty shot or shootout.
From what the refs told Anastos and according to Rule 28.7, it seems the refs determined that 1) the dislodged net was not "deliberately" displaced by Wilcox and 2) the act of dislodging the net did not impede an "obvious" goal. From what I saw Cox did not shoot the puck in the net until AFTER the net was dislodged. Therefore no goal was awarded and a re-shot was not awarded since no "deliberate" foul was committed by the goalie. It was just a simple accident.
It is clearly stated that the NCAA Ice Hockey Rules and Interpretations regarding shootouts are essentially governed by the rules for penalty shots:
Rule 25.2 Penalty Shot Procedure states,
The operative words for rule interpretation on awarding a penalty or shootout re-shot in Rule 25.2 seems to be "any foul committed by the goalkeeper". Regarding the ruling in question, based upon conjunctive interpretation of the above rulings, it seems a re-shot was not awarded based upon the referee's discretion and interpretation of the ENTIRE sequence of events, NOT just whether the unintentional net displacement should automatically award Cox with a re-shot.
IMO that's what seems to be the refs method to their madness. I must admit the ruling seems ambiguous as it reads now and an automatic re-shot for a goalie net displacement under any circumstances should be considered. This is a situation that could potentially end up on the table in future NCAA rules committee meetings as a talking point for creating or changing the NCAA ruling in the off season.
Anastos obviously didn't agree with the call either:
I understand your point, and it does make a lot of sense. The refs spent quite a bit of ice time discussing the situation. I think it's reasonable to assume the refs considered a re-shot based upon the circumstances you mentioned as well.
I hadn't seen the actual ruling, but looking through the NCCA 2013-14 Rules and Interpretations there does not appear to be a clear and detailed explanation on the shootout protocol for this specific issue though. Often times that means referee discretion is involved on how to accurately interpret and apply a "conjunctive" ruling in a situation like what happened with Cox. There does seem to be some precedent for referee discretion to determine whether the goalie specifically (not just generally a "defending player" as other rules on net displacement mentioned by Slap Shot indicate) dislodged the net intentionally or not when considering awarding a goal, or a re-shot on a penalty shot or shootout.
From what the refs told Anastos and according to Rule 28.7, it seems the refs determined that 1) the dislodged net was not "deliberately" displaced by Wilcox and 2) the act of dislodging the net did not impede an "obvious" goal. From what I saw Cox did not shoot the puck in the net until AFTER the net was dislodged. Therefore no goal was awarded and a re-shot was not awarded since no "deliberate" foul was committed by the goalie. It was just a simple accident.
It is clearly stated that the NCAA Ice Hockey Rules and Interpretations regarding shootouts are essentially governed by the rules for penalty shots:
Rule 25.2 Penalty Shot Procedure states,
The operative words for rule interpretation on awarding a penalty or shootout re-shot in Rule 25.2 seems to be "any foul committed by the goalkeeper". Regarding the ruling in question, based upon conjunctive interpretation of the above rulings, it seems a re-shot was not awarded based upon the referee's discretion and interpretation of the ENTIRE sequence of events, NOT just whether the unintentional net displacement should automatically award Cox with a re-shot.
IMO that's what seems to be the refs method to their madness. I must admit the ruling seems ambiguous as it reads now and an automatic re-shot for a goalie net displacement under any circumstances should be considered. This is a situation that could potentially end up on the table in future NCAA rules committee meetings as a talking point for creating or changing the NCAA ruling in the off season.
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
If there is no distinct clarification, or amendment, to the rules as they are applied to shoot-outs and penalty shots, I'm not sure why the rules would be applied any differently than they would be in standard run of play. Additionally, in all circumstances when the goalkeeper is considered outside the definition of a "defending player" it is duly noted in the way the rule is written. Considering that, the rules state that the goal yesterday should have been allowed (as I detailed in my previous post).
I think the refs got this one wrong, but I agree we will likely see some further clarification come out of the rules committee in the not-too-distant future.
If there is no distinct clarification, or amendment, to the rules as they are applied to shoot-outs and penalty shots, I'm not sure why the rules would be applied any differently than they would be in standard run of play. Additionally, in all circumstances when the goalkeeper is considered outside the definition of a "defending player" it is duly noted in the way the rule is written. Considering that, the rules state that the goal yesterday should have been allowed (as I detailed in my previous post).
I think the refs got this one wrong, but I agree we will likely see some further clarification come out of the rules committee in the not-too-distant future.
honest to god why is this so difficult? the argument isn't about whether it was a goal or not, it's about should the shooter have gotten a redo
HarleyMC
Registered User
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
I never stated there is "no distinct clarification or amendment" that applies here. There is "conjunctive" NCAA rule clarification regarding a goalie's "intentionality" in dislodging the net specifically in a shootout or penalty shot as mentioned in my post (Rule 91.3, 25.2). Arguably it's not crystal clear and subject to referee discretion, which is why the refs deliberated for a significant amount of time. But a specific NCAA ruling regarding a goalie's intentionality in net displacement within the context of a shootout/penalty shot as in Rule 91.3 and 25.2 (e.g. net displacement, goalie intentionality, shootout/penalty re-shot) would carry more binding authority for a referee over a general ruling regarding "defending players" in this officiating result.
Seems like you're contradicting yourself in your post as that's essentially what you are agreeing to in your statement, "Additionally, in all circumstances when the goalkeeper is considered outside the definition of a "defending player" it is duly noted in the way the rule is written". It's simply like case law in which a judge is obligated to respect a binding precedent to resolve similar cases. Such serious hockey talk here...wow.
I never stated there is "no distinct clarification or amendment" that applies here. There is "conjunctive" NCAA rule clarification regarding a goalie's "intentionality" in dislodging the net specifically in a shootout or penalty shot as mentioned in my post (Rule 91.3, 25.2). Arguably it's not crystal clear and subject to referee discretion, which is why the refs deliberated for a significant amount of time. But a specific NCAA ruling regarding a goalie's intentionality in net displacement within the context of a shootout/penalty shot as in Rule 91.3 and 25.2 (e.g. net displacement, goalie intentionality, shootout/penalty re-shot) would carry more binding authority for a referee over a general ruling regarding "defending players" in this officiating result.
Seems like you're contradicting yourself in your post as that's essentially what you are agreeing to in your statement, "Additionally, in all circumstances when the goalkeeper is considered outside the definition of a "defending player" it is duly noted in the way the rule is written". It's simply like case law in which a judge is obligated to respect a binding precedent to resolve similar cases. Such serious hockey talk here...wow.
Last edited:
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1
I think we should all just agree that shootouts are a silly, stupid way to end a hockey game and move on.
Gophers need to start coming out with more intensity and focus or they aren't going to go far in the postseason. They have shown the ability to come back after slow starts, which is a positive, but getting into the habit of coming out slow isn't good. Hard to just flip the switch come postseason. Not saying the Gophers have been playing poorly by any stretch, and you have to give credit to the opponents they have played the past few weeks, but this Gopher team is capable of playing at a higher level than they have the past few weeks.
I think we should all just agree that shootouts are a silly, stupid way to end a hockey game and move on.
Gophers need to start coming out with more intensity and focus or they aren't going to go far in the postseason. They have shown the ability to come back after slow starts, which is a positive, but getting into the habit of coming out slow isn't good. Hard to just flip the switch come postseason. Not saying the Gophers have been playing poorly by any stretch, and you have to give credit to the opponents they have played the past few weeks, but this Gopher team is capable of playing at a higher level than they have the past few weeks.