NESCAC '15-'16 season

[shelfit]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

Oh my god!! That is absolutely the worst call ever - not even close to the goal-line.....

Agree 100%. The only place in the universe where that play is called a goal is a magic little place called Mandigoland. Is it just me or does he seem to get a lot of homer calls that seem to help his teams win games every year. That puck hit the back of the sliding defender and it was heading harmlessly off to the side well before she knocked the net of its moorings so there's no possible way the refs could have thought that it would have gone in had she not done that. How did Amherst not protest that terribly wrong goal ruling?! What a shame particularly in a conference championship game like that. Without that crappy ruling Amherst wins that game. Awful.

 

[PuckRush]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

The only place in the universe where that play is called a goal is a magic little place called Mandigoland. Is it just me or does he seem to get a lot of homer calls that seem to help his teams win games every year.

It's just you.

 

[hockey4u]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

As an Amherst fan I had the pleasure (not) of seeing this non goal in person, everyone there knew it wasn't a goal, including the refs. Net was put back on and faceoff was about to take place in the Amherst defensive zone when lo and behold the magic of Mandigoland (like that reference) took hold. He complains, refs have a pow wow, Amherst coach informed, refs go over to the goal judge (puppet may be a better word), who did not call goal before, now says it was a goal. Absolute disgrace that what happens up there on that ice is allowed to continue year after year. Completely unfair to the other teams to have to play on tilted ice. On a side note it was also amazing how two refs that Amherst had banned from reffing their games because of their bias ended up reffing the conference championship game. Completely unfathomable but then again it is Mandigoland.

 

[CrossCheck]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

It's just you.

no....it's not just him. It's anyone who's ever watched a game at Kenyon and seen the BS calls the screaming crybaby gets every game.

 

[PuckRush]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

As an Amherst fan I had the pleasure (not) of seeing this non goal in person, everyone there knew it wasn't a goal, including the refs. Net was put back on and faceoff was about to take place in the Amherst defensive zone when lo and behold the magic of Mandigoland (like that reference) took hold. He complains, refs have a pow wow, Amherst coach informed, refs go over to the goal judge (puppet may be a better word), who did not call goal before, now says it was a goal. Absolute disgrace that what happens up there on that ice is allowed to continue year after year. Completely unfair to the other teams to have to play on tilted ice. On a side note it was also amazing how two refs that Amherst had banned from reffing their games because of their bias ended up reffing the conference championship game. Completely unfathomable but then again it is Mandigoland.

EVERY good NHL and College coach who sees his/her players put their sticks in the air after a shot, followed by a whistle, are going to ask for the refs to come over and explain what's going on. Yes or no?

The fact that the refs blew the call - because intimidated by Mandigo, or just not good refs - is not Mandigo's problem. It's more evidence of good coaching, not a rigged system.

If that happens in D1 and NHL games, the refs go to the overhead video. Absent that, he's going to be a good coach and try to get every advantage he can.

 

[hockey4u]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

EVERY good NHL and College coach who sees his/her players put their sticks in the air after a shot, followed by a whistle, are going to ask for the refs to come over and explain what's going on. Yes or no?

The fact that the refs blew the call - because intimidated by Mandigo, or just not good refs - is not Mandigo's problem. It's more evidence of good coaching, not a rigged system.

If that happens in D1 and NHL games, the refs go to the overhead video. Absent that, he's going to be a good coach and try to get every advantage he can.

You can spin it any way you want. Refs had it as no goal and so did goal judge, the fact that Mandigo complained and both refs and goal judge decided it was a goal happened for only one reason, and that is bias. Is it good coaching or playing a rigged system? I'm sure you would get a majority saying the latter.

 

[shelfit]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

You can spin it any way you want. Refs had it as no goal and so did goal judge, the fact that Mandigo complained and both refs and goal judge decided it was a goal happened for only one reason, and that is bias. Is it good coaching or playing a rigged system? I'm sure you would get a majority saying the latter.

Part of my definition of a "good" coach includes being honest and ethical and and off the ice and when it comes to a play like that. It clearly was NOT a goal but Mickey Mandigo the whiner knew he was at home in Mandigoland where he has a loooooong history of getting calls to go his way, so he complained and got what he wanted. I don't call that good coaching at all. It's borderline cheating. How can any player on that team feel "good" about getting a W in that way. Awful.

Just watched it several more times again. The puck is never out of sight at any time before during and after it hits the Amherst player's back (or goalie's leg pad), which happened before she fell and collided with the post and knocked it off. She clearly did not intend to knock off the net - she fell in trying to tie up the Mandigoland player in front, but it looked like she actually tripped on one of that player's skates. I would really like to know what explanation the refs had on that one. Are there any Amherst parents on here that were at the game or whose daughter's have told them what the ref's explanation was? I think many people would be very interested in finding out.

P.S. Only one Mandigoland player started to raise her stick as she went around the net and lost sight of the puck but she immediately brings her stick back down when she sees the puck didn't go in.

 

[stacksave]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

Part of my definition of a "good" coach includes being honest and ethical and and off the ice and when it comes to a play like that. It clearly was NOT a goal but Mickey Mandigo knew he was at home in Mandigoland where he has a loooooong history of getting calls to go his way, so he complained and got what he wanted. I don't call that good coaching at all. It's borderline cheating. How can any player on that team feel "good" about getting a W in that way. Awful.

Isn't there a rule in NCAA hockey that if a puck would have crossed the line into the net, but for the dislodging of the net by a defensive player, a goal shall be awarded? This would be the ONLY logical explanation for the change of the call. Rule 67.2 Net Dislodgement - A player, including the goalkeeper, shall not delay the
game by deliberately displacing a goal post from its normal position. The referee shall stop play when a goal post has been displaced. Note: If the non-offending team has an offensive opportunity and its
defensive goal cage has been displaced, play shall be allowed to continue
until the scoring chance is complete. PENALTY—Minor. With less than two minutes remaining in
regulation time or any time during overtime, penalty shot/optional
minor. If this illegal act prevents an obvious and imminent goal at any
time during the game, a goal shall be awarded.

 

[shelfit]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

Isn't there a rule in NCAA hockey that if a puck would have crossed the line into the net, but for the dislodging of the net by a defensive player, a goal shall be awarded? This would be the ONLY logical explanation for the change of the call.

See my second paragraph in my previous post.

 

[stacksave]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

See my second paragraph in my previous post.

From what I saw on video a ref and goal judge could have easily determined that the puck would not have crossed the line, but it really is a close enough call in real time, without the benefit of watching it 9 times. So can we lament the bad break but dispense with the Mandigoland stuff?

 

[shelfit]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

Isn't there a rule in NCAA hockey that if a puck would have crossed the line into the net, but for the dislodging of the net by a defensive player, a goal shall be awarded? This would be the ONLY logical explanation for the change of the call. Rule 67.2 Net Dislodgement - A player, including the goalkeeper, shall not delay the
game by deliberately displacing a goal post from its normal position. The referee shall stop play when a goal post has been displaced. Note: If the non-offending team has an offensive opportunity and its
defensive goal cage has been displaced, play shall be allowed to continue
until the scoring chance is complete. PENALTY—Minor. With less than two minutes remaining in
regulation time or any time during overtime, penalty shot/optional
minor. If this illegal act prevents an obvious and imminent goal at any
time during the game, a goal shall be awarded.

So if this was the ruling on the ice, why did they not call a penalty against the Amherst player?! Face it, they made the wrong call no matter how you look at it. Why? Because the refs had a free pass for all the rides at Mandigoland.

 

[stacksave]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

So if this was the ruling on the ice, why did they not call a penalty against the Amherst player?! Face it, they made the wrong call no matter how you look at it. Why? Because the refs had a free pass for all the rides at Mandigoland.

We may have moved beyond my pay grade on rules interpretation but I think the awarding of a goal is an option in lieu of calling a penalty.

 

[Birdwatcher]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

Isn't there a rule in NCAA hockey that if a puck would have crossed the line into the net, but for the dislodging of the net by a defensive player, a goal shall be awarded? This would be the ONLY logical explanation for the change of the call. Rule 67.2 Net Dislodgement - A player, including the goalkeeper, shall not delay the
game by deliberately displacing a goal post from its normal position. The referee shall stop play when a goal post has been displaced. Note: If the non-offending team has an offensive opportunity and its
defensive goal cage has been displaced, play shall be allowed to continue
until the scoring chance is complete. PENALTY—Minor. With less than two minutes remaining in
regulation time or any time during overtime, penalty shot/optional
minor. If this illegal act prevents an obvious and imminent goal at any
time during the game, a goal shall be awarded.

This was questioned at a men's game a little over a week ago. This was the answer from a hockey official: It's called an obvious and eminent goal !

 

[shelfit]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

This was questioned at a men's game a little over a week ago. This was the answer from a hockey official: It's called an obvious and eminent goal !

First of all, she did not knock the goal off on purpose. Second of all the puck hit her on the back or it hit the goalies' right leg pad before the net was knocked off, so either way it was NOT a legal goal in any interpretation of the rules. Also, penalties are still called even when goals are scored now so if the refs thought she knocked the goal off on purpose they needed to penalize her anyway and they did not do that. They messed up big time. It's that simple. There will be an invisible asterisk beside this championship forever.

 

[Nescac Alum]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

As you can probably guess by my username, I am a NESCAC women's hockey alum. I read these forums to see scores of games or see what people think the rankings are going to be. However, I find it almost funny how into it people get with specific game calls. As a former player, it's without a doubt that refs make calls that can influence the course of a game. A bad penalty call could lead to a PP goal, etc. The refs are part of the game. After watching it on video and being at the game in person, I completely agree it was a bad call. I do not understand why it was a goal. However, I think it's kind of ridiculous to sit here and argue about it 2 days after the fact. The players can argue it was a bad call, but they have to get over it instantly, the next shift. As a player, sure you can blame the ref for that goal in a one-goal OT game, but I think what I thought about more was that opportunity I missed or that defensive play that led to OT, not a bad call by the refs in the 1st period. Also, that bad goal call did not seem to stop Amherst from completely dominating, scoring 4 goals in a row to go ahead 4-3. Instead of complaining and quitting right there, they stormed back. Say that goal wasn't called, how can you argue it would lead to a 4-3 win for Amherst in regulation? You simply can't.

And as for the ref "bias" towards Midd, it is too funny. When they win, they get criticized for rigging it, when they lose they are criticized for being cry babies. I was at that game. Mandigo was not screaming or yelling at the refs. Of course a conversation ensued, but doesn't every coach do that? Midd gets every call to go their way? If I recall correctly, this is the first NESCAC win for Midd in 4 years(after being ranked 1st every year.) So, it's just not true to say it seems to go Midd's way at Kenyon every year. Also, does Midd rig every single game to be ranked 1st in the Nescac year after year? No. That's how it works. If you are ranked first and win your quarterfinal game, you get to host. Lastly, how quickly everyone forgets last year how in the NCAA quarterfinal game in the last 5 minutes of the 3rd period, Midd had a goal disallowed after a very controversial call. Norwich went on to win the game by one goal to advance to the Frozen Four and Midd's season ended. That's hockey. Fortunately, both teams get to advance and represent the NESCAC this year. Why would you wish for "bad karma" for one of them moving forward? Good luck to both teams moving forward. Love when the NESCAC proves our league is one of the strongest and I hope both teams win.

 

[Birdwatcher]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

First of all, she did not knock the goal off on purpose. Second of all the puck hit her on the back or it hit the goalies' right leg pad before the net was knocked off, so either way it was NOT a legal goal in any interpretation of the rules. Also, penalties are still called even when goals are scored now so if the refs thought she knocked the goal off on purpose they needed to penalize her anyway and they did not do that. They messed up big time. It's that simple. There will be an invisible asterisk beside this championship forever.

it does not to have to be on purpose.

 

[obserbear]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

As you can probably guess by my username, I am a NESCAC women's hockey alum. I read these forums to see scores of games or see what people think the rankings are going to be. However, I find it almost funny how into it people get with specific game calls. As a former player, it's without a doubt that refs make calls that can influence the course of a game. A bad penalty call could lead to a PP goal, etc. The refs are part of the game. After watching it on video and being at the game in person, I completely agree it was a bad call. I do not understand why it was a goal. However, I think it's kind of ridiculous to sit here and argue about it 2 days after the fact. The players can argue it was a bad call, but they have to get over it instantly, the next shift. As a player, sure you can blame the ref for that goal in a one-goal OT game, but I think what I thought about more was that opportunity I missed or that defensive play that led to OT, not a bad call by the refs in the 1st period. Also, that bad goal call did not seem to stop Amherst from completely dominating, scoring 4 goals in a row to go ahead 4-3. Instead of complaining and quitting right there, they stormed back. Say that goal wasn't called, how can you argue it would lead to a 4-3 win for Amherst in regulation? You simply can't.

And as for the ref "bias" towards Midd, it is too funny. When they win, they get criticized for rigging it, when they lose they are criticized for being cry babies. I was at that game. Mandigo was not screaming or yelling at the refs. Of course a conversation ensued, but doesn't every coach do that? Midd gets every call to go their way? If I recall correctly, this is the first NESCAC win for Midd in 4 years(after being ranked 1st every year.) So, it's just not true to say it seems to go Midd's way at Kenyon every year. Also, does Midd rig every single game to be ranked 1st in the Nescac year after year? No. That's how it works. If you are ranked first and win your quarterfinal game, you get to host. Lastly, how quickly everyone forgets last year how in the NCAA quarterfinal game in the last 5 minutes of the 3rd period, Midd had a goal disallowed after a very controversial call. Norwich went on to win the game by one goal to advance to the Frozen Four and Midd's season ended. That's hockey. Fortunately, both teams get to advance and represent the NESCAC this year. Why would you wish for "bad karma" for one of them moving forward? Good luck to both teams moving forward. Love when the NESCAC proves our league is one of the strongest and I hope both teams win.

Thanks for sharing some logical, sane commentary!!!

 

[CrossCheck]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

As you can probably guess by my username, I am a NESCAC women's hockey alum. I read these forums to see scores of games or see what people think the rankings are going to be. However, I find it almost funny how into it people get with specific game calls. As a former player, it's without a doubt that refs make calls that can influence the course of a game. A bad penalty call could lead to a PP goal, etc. The refs are part of the game. After watching it on video and being at the game in person, I completely agree it was a bad call. I do not understand why it was a goal. However, I think it's kind of ridiculous to sit here and argue about it 2 days after the fact. The players can argue it was a bad call, but they have to get over it instantly, the next shift. As a player, sure you can blame the ref for that goal in a one-goal OT game, but I think what I thought about more was that opportunity I missed or that defensive play that led to OT, not a bad call by the refs in the 1st period. Also, that bad goal call did not seem to stop Amherst from completely dominating, scoring 4 goals in a row to go ahead 4-3. Instead of complaining and quitting right there, they stormed back. Say that goal wasn't called, how can you argue it would lead to a 4-3 win for Amherst in regulation? You simply can't.

And as for the ref "bias" towards Midd, it is too funny. When they win, they get criticized for rigging it, when they lose they are criticized for being cry babies. I was at that game. Mandigo was not screaming or yelling at the refs. Of course a conversation ensued, but doesn't every coach do that? Midd gets every call to go their way? If I recall correctly, this is the first NESCAC win for Midd in 4 years(after being ranked 1st every year.) So, it's just not true to say it seems to go Midd's way at Kenyon every year. Also, does Midd rig every single game to be ranked 1st in the Nescac year after year? No. That's how it works. If you are ranked first and win your quarterfinal game, you get to host. Lastly, how quickly everyone forgets last year how in the NCAA quarterfinal game in the last 5 minutes of the 3rd period, Midd had a goal disallowed after a very controversial call. Norwich went on to win the game by one goal to advance to the Frozen Four and Midd's season ended. That's hockey. Fortunately, both teams get to advance and represent the NESCAC this year. Why would you wish for "bad karma" for one of them moving forward? Good luck to both teams moving forward. Love when the NESCAC proves our league is one of the strongest and I hope both teams win.

Ancient Chinese proverb...."The eye never see itself"...

As a Midd alum, of course you can't see [won't see] the way games are called at Kenyon...it's a standing joke in the league whether or not you want to believe it or not.

just as an aside...2 years ago when Conn beat Midd in the quarters at Kenyon 2-1 in OT...the penalty minutes were 20 for Conn, 2!!! for Midd. So, no...the rest of the league sees things a little differently than you do.

 

[gojackets]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

This was questioned at a men's game a little over a week ago. This was the answer from a hockey official: It's called an obvious and eminent goal ! Note: If the non-offending team has an offensive opportunity and its
defensive goal cage has been displaced, play shall be allowed to continue
until the scoring chance is complete.

So I guess the argument could be made, according to this rule, that Middlebury could have scored a goal had the ref not blown the play dead, which they shouldn't have since the Amherst team was responsible for knocking the net off. When you watch the video an Amherst player slides into the Amherst goalie causing her to knock the net off the moorings. A rebound was given up and there are two Middlebury players right there that could have easily knocked the rebound in if the goalie hadn't knocked the net off...hence the awarded goal???

The only time i've ever seen a goal awarded it was obvious. It was in a Superior men's game, it was late in the game and Superior was up by 1. The other team was in the process of pulling their goalie...goalie was halfway over the boards when a UWS player stole the puck and had a breakaway. The goalie jumped back on the ice and essentially tripped/tackled the UWS player. The ref awarded UWS a goal because it was blatantly obvious that he would have scored on the empty net had the goalie not done that. I don't think its that cut and dry here.

Also, that bad goal call did not seem to stop Amherst from completely dominating, scoring 4 goals in a row to go ahead 4-3. Instead of complaining and quitting right there, they stormed back. Say that goal wasn't called, how can you argue it would lead to a 4-3 win for Amherst in regulation? You simply can't.

This right here. People are acting like that goal won the game for Middlebury. It put them up 2-0. Amherst came back and took the lead, then gave up another goal. There is no way that you can say that the game would have ended differently if that goal hadn't been awarded. Maybe Middlebury let up when they got up 3-0 and this allowed Amherst to come back. Maybe if that goal hadn't been scored, they don't let up...you never know.

 

[hockey4u]

Re: NESCAC '15-'16 season

Part of my definition of a "good" coach includes being honest and ethical and and off the ice and when it comes to a play like that. It clearly was NOT a goal but Mickey Mandigo the whiner knew he was at home in Mandigoland where he has a loooooong history of getting calls to go his way, so he complained and got what he wanted. I don't call that good coaching at all. It's borderline cheating. How can any player on that team feel "good" about getting a W in that way. Awful.

Just watched it several more times again. The puck is never out of sight at any time before during and after it hits the Amherst player's back (or goalie's leg pad), which happened before she fell and collided with the post and knocked it off. She clearly did not intend to knock off the net - she fell in trying to tie up the Mandigoland player in front, but it looked like she actually tripped on one of that player's skates. I would really like to know what explanation the refs had on that one. Are there any Amherst parents on here that were at the game or whose daughter's have told them what the ref's explanation was? I think many people would be very interested in finding out.

P.S. Only one Mandigoland player started to raise her stick as she went around the net and lost sight of the puck but she immediately brings her stick back down when she sees the puck didn't go in.

Explanation was that the ref "saw" the puck go over the line, which clearly was a lie since they wouldn't have had the teams lined up for a defensive zone face off after fixing the net. I have also heard two of the officials from that game have been suspended(???)