Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

[goalguard]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

The discussion of the trajectory of that puck is beginning to sound like the discussion of the "magic bullet" from Dallas 11/22/63.

There's a great book called the Physics of Baseball by a Yale Prof. As I recall, the first line is something like, "The physics of baseball isn't rocket science. It's much harder."

That seems to be the case here, too. I didn't clock how long the puck was aloft, but it seems like a long time. (Just watch how far the players moved -- and how they slow down.)

Also, the puck doesn't fall directly down. Given that fact and the time, it seems very likely that it was high enough to hit the netting. If so, the call was right for two reasons. (As to 11/22/63, Case Closed by Epstein methodically puts all the conspiracy theories to rest.)

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

It was rolling when it hit Millan. I propose the shot was taken, rising. Millan nicked it up and it went off the glass and spun upward. Arced back toward the playing area. Reached its apex, continued curving and fell back to earth, striking Millan and falling into the net.. Not complaining, but until I see otheise that's what happened and I'm sticking to it

 

[CHFAN222]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

The discussion of the trajectory of that puck is beginning to sound like the discussion of the "magic bullet" from Dallas 11/22/63.

It's obvious that there was a "second" puck that went into play

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

On the BU broadcast, Bernie said that the puck hit the net and thats also correctly when the whistle blew. (I have not had the benefit of seeing the replay).

 

[Bigus Paulus]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

It was rolling when it hit Millan. I propose the shot was taken, rising. Millan nicked it up and it went off the glass and spun upward. Arced back toward the playing area. Reached its apex, continued curving and fell back to earth, striking Millan and falling into the net.. Not complaining, but until I see otheise that's what happened and I'm sticking to it

Looks like mookie had seats in the newly renovated Grassy Knoll's section of MSG.

 

[nyiballs]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

It looks like to me that the puck actually hit the dasher right where the boards end and the glass starts... there's a shelf there, and if the puck was angled upward, it would shoot the puck almost straight upward, short-hopping the glass and staying up for a while, whilst moving backward into the field of play.

The call was right in the fact that the whistle clearly blew, and I'd even argue had the whistle not blown before the puck went in, the correct call would still be "no goal" because the ref had the intent of blowing the play dead, due to losing sight of the puck.

The call was INCORRECT in that the ref should probably not have lost sight of the puck and simply assumed it was out of play. It was clearly not covered up, and he has three other officials capable of blowing the whistle if the puck was out of play. It's a difficult spot because of how long the puck was in the air... but I think the back ref was a little quick on the trigger or a little slow with his eyes.

The biggest problem with the whole play though is that the ref made an ASSUMPTION and blew the play dead based on that. He didn't rely on his team to help let the play finish out.

 

[brassbonanza]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

It looks like to me that the puck actually hit the dasher right where the boards end and the glass starts... there's a shelf there, and if the puck was angled upward, it would shoot the puck almost straight upward, short-hopping the glass and staying up for a while, whilst moving backward into the field of play.

The call was right in the fact that the whistle clearly blew, and I'd even argue had the whistle not blown before the puck went in, the correct call would still be "no goal" because the ref had the intent of blowing the play dead, due to losing sight of the puck.

The call was INCORRECT in that the ref should probably not have lost sight of the puck and simply assumed it was out of play. It was clearly not covered up, and he has three other officials capable of blowing the whistle if the puck was out of play. It's a difficult spot because of how long the puck was in the air... but I think the back ref was a little quick on the trigger or a little slow with his eyes.

The biggest problem with the whole play though is that the ref made an ASSUMPTION and blew the play dead based on that. He didn't rely on his team to help let the play finish out.

The rule is if the official closest to the play loses sight of the puck, he must blow the play dead. EVERYONE on the ice lost sight of the puck. I'd bet 99% of the people in the arena lost sight of the puck. The correct play was the blow the whistle since he didn't know where the puck was, and he's the official in position to see it. It's not protocol to look to the linesmen or the official outside the zone to find out if it's out of play, or find out where it is. He followed the rule book to the word, and correctly blew the whistle. There's no assumption here, it's entirely based on whether he did or did not have sight of the puck, it was clear he did not, no one had sight of it. Where he made a mistake was pointing up to the netting, presumably not being 100% sure it hit the netting. If he was 100% sure it hit the net, there would be no need to replay, as there was no camera angle that shows the netting. But that's really not relevant to this. He lost sight of the puck and blew the whistle, and that's what the rule book told him to do, not look to a linesmen to see if it's out of play.

That said, call me a homer or "it's easy to say that because you won", but it would've been a shame for a game as hotly and closely contested as this one to be won on a one in a million bounce like that which was not the result of any one player or group of player's skill or hard work, or a goaltender's mistake. Esposito probably could stand and shoot pucks for the rest of his life and never get a bounce like that again. Of course bounces and flukes happen and it's part of the game, but it would've really been a shame had the game been decided on a play like that.

 

[Bumbles]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

It looks like to me that the puck actually hit the dasher right where the boards end and the glass starts... there's a shelf there, and if the puck was angled upward, it would shoot the puck almost straight upward, short-hopping the glass and staying up for a while, whilst moving backward into the field of play.

The call was right in the fact that the whistle clearly blew, and I'd even argue had the whistle not blown before the puck went in, the correct call would still be "no goal" because the ref had the intent of blowing the play dead, due to losing sight of the puck.

The call was INCORRECT in that the ref should probably not have lost sight of the puck and simply assumed it was out of play. It was clearly not covered up, and he has three other officials capable of blowing the whistle if the puck was out of play. It's a difficult spot because of how long the puck was in the air... but I think the back ref was a little quick on the trigger or a little slow with his eyes.

The biggest problem with the whole play though is that the ref made an ASSUMPTION and blew the play dead based on that. He didn't rely on his team to help let the play finish out.

Cmon...., everyone waited around, no one knew where the puck was. The players were starting to skate away and as a fan, it seemed like an eternity before the puck actually came back down. What was the ref suppose to do? Wait another 5 mins and see if the puck would re-appear? It's not like he knew the puck would come back into play a few seconds after he blew the whistle. He definitely gave it a reasonable amount of time before blowing the whistle IMO.

 

[css228]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

Courtesy of a friendly Cornell fan over at Elynah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-AVg8DJIMw&feature=channel_video_title Skip to 4:20, whistle clearly blows a half a second before the puck is in. Right call.

Right call in that the whistle was blown, wrong call in that the puck never went out of play, and given that it's the ref's job to track the puck, it should never have been a dead puck to begin with. Either way, we want a rematch, Parker better stay true to his word and renew this series (preferably bringing it back to each teams home ice occasionally unless you guys are too weak to brave a game at Lynah)

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

Right call in that the whistle was blown, wrong call in that the puck never went out of play, and given that it's the ref's job to track the puck, it should never have been a dead puck to begin with. Either way, we want a rematch, Parker better stay true to his word and renew this series (preferably bringing it back to each teams home ice occasionally unless you guys are too weak to brave a game at Lynah)

I know you're just busting balls, but the site of the game has nothing to do with cajones and everything to do with $$$. I'm sure that half the gate at MSG is better than a full gate at either Lynah or Agganis. Why would either team give up half of MSG at every meeting to get their full gate at home only every other meeting?

This game helps the hockey team meet its financial commitments to the athletic department, which in theory should ease a little of the pressure to schedule as many home games (read: bringing in Atlantic Hockey teams). I'd much rather play BU at MSG and then have a home-and-home with (say) UNH as opposed to playing a home-and-home with BU and then getting AIC, etc at home.

P.S. I agree that the right calls were made. It's a shame that the referee was not able to follow the puck, but it's completely understandable that he couldn't - it would be awfully hard to shift your eyes from looking at the bright white ice to be able to follow a black puck against the dark background of the crowd when it's not going a direction you necessarily expect. Given that he lost sight of the puck, there was never going to be a goal.

I'm reminded one of the goals Cornell scored against Harvard (I believe the 2nd one, but could be wrong) in the 1996 ECAC final at Lake Placid. Mike Sancimino took a hard shot that hit Tripp Tracy up high. The puck bounced straight up and Tracy couldn't find it - it came down, hit him in the back, and fell into the net in exactly the same way. Because the initial deflection was a save, it didn't bounce upward at nearly the same velocity, so the refs never thought it went out of play and there was no whistle. I know I have a VHS of it in storage, but couldn't find it on YouTube.

 

[Scarlet]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

I believe it was MSG that asked both schools to come back after the first RHH was such a success.

I hope the series continues but I think it might be better if it was once every four years instead of two. I'd hate for it to lose its lustre by doing it too often, you know? Plus, I've never been to Lynah and would love to see a BU-Cornell game there at one point.

 

[candycanes99]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

P.S. I agree that the right calls were made. It's a shame that the referee was not able to follow the puck, but it's completely understandable that he couldn't - it would be awfully hard to shift your eyes from looking at the bright white ice to be able to follow a black puck against the dark background of the crowd when it's not going a direction you necessarily expect. Given that he lost sight of the puck, there was never going to be a goal.

Yeah, I mean, did anyone in the entire arena actually track the puck the entire way? Even with almost 20k people present I highly doubt it. Great college hockey game. I remember after the first or second stoppage in overtime just taking a deep breath and saying "Wow, this is amazing." The back and forth action to open that extra session was sensational.

Also, fat chance but could anyone ask that elynah fan who uploaded the no goal if he could also upload the OT GWG?

 

[CHFAN222]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

I believe it was MSG that asked both schools to come back after the first RHH was such a success.

I hope the series continues but I think it might be better if it was once every four years instead of two. I'd hate for it to lose its lustre by doing it too often, you know? Plus, I've never been to Lynah and would love to see a BU-Cornell game there at one point.

I really doubt it's going to lose its luster if played every other year. If anything it gives fans of both schools something to look forward to and count on every year. The smartest thing all parties could do is sign a contract locking them into that series for at least a few more times.

One thing I would like to see though is other college hockey teams get a chance to play at MSG. I'm sure any of the Big 10 schools and Notre Dame schools would love to play a game there since they all have a huge alumni presence in the NYC area (with an emphasis on Michigan and Michigan State). Pair one of them up with a HE school (BC, Maine, UNH, NU, UMass, UVM) or ECAC school such as Yale and it could be a good event. I'm not saying it will sell out but it could probably get decent attendance. I think MSG should at least try.

 

[brassbonanza]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

Right call in that the whistle was blown, wrong call in that the puck never went out of play, and given that it's the ref's job to track the puck, it should never have been a dead puck to begin with. Either way, we want a rematch, Parker better stay true to his word and renew this series (preferably bringing it back to each teams home ice occasionally unless you guys are too weak to brave a game at Lynah)

Really? You're aware that both teams were complicit in the decision to amend the original plan of MSG/Home/Home to MSG every two years when it was realized it was an almost guaranteed sell out and had/has nothing to do with Parker not wanting to "brave" Lynah. He "braves" road games every year at the likes of Alfond, Yost, Matthews, and the like, so I doubt he cares too much about Lynah. I'd love to see a home and home as well, I was originally ticked off they did this game again as it seemed the luster had worn off.

And really, it's the ref's job to track a puck that flies into the air so high that it nearly hits the overhead goal cam, and much less know it's up there as a result of a bounce that probably no one in the arena had ever seen before and that not a single player on the ice was able to follow? Please, get over your sour grapes.

 

[pirate]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

It's obvious that there was a "second" puck that went into play

They throw homeruns back on the field at Wrigley, maybe an upper deck fan was just being nice


Watching the replay yesterday on the DVR, it was a 1-thousand and 3 count for the puck to return to earth, unofficially. We've all seen loose pucks blown dead while in the crease because the ref loses sight of it. This call makes sense even if it would have been a great "did you see that?" event otherwise.

The GWG was a heck of a tip by Gaudet.

 

[ajh258]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

I was quite upset about this "no goal" during the immediate hours after Saturday's game, but at this point... WHO CARES? B.U. played great D, Cornell cannot convert, and the Terriers eventually out-grinded the Red. End of story.

 

[css228]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

Really? You're aware that both teams were complicit in the decision to amend the original plan of MSG/Home/Home to MSG every two years when it was realized it was an almost guaranteed sell out and had/has nothing to do with Parker not wanting to "brave" Lynah. He "braves" road games every year at the likes of Alfond, Yost, Matthews, and the like, so I doubt he cares too much about Lynah. I'd love to see a home and home as well, I was originally ticked off they did this game again as it seemed the luster had worn off.

And really, it's the ref's job to track a puck that flies into the air so high that it nearly hits the overhead goal cam, and much less know it's up there as a result of a bounce that probably no one in the arena had ever seen before and that not a single player on the ice was able to follow? Please, get over your sour grapes.

I really think that only doing this every other year is not giving this game and rivalry the attention it deserves. If we could put the game at MSG every other year but make it an annual series alternating the in between years at Lynah and BU that'd be perfect. This isn't played enough. And its absolutely a referee's job to track a puck while its still in play. I understand that they can't always do it, but it doesn't mean that I can't be frustrated when a puck that never went out of play and ends up as a legitimate goal gets waived off because the play was whistled dead. But it was a great game, I hope to get a rematch in the NCAA tournament, and its just a shame that we may have to wait two years to get another shot.

 

[css228]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

I know you're just busting balls

Yes, totally busting balls. And at this point truth is, no reason to focus on Saturday unless it loses the Red an at-large bid and then we can revisit it (quite frankly the replay looks like Espo skimmed it off the top of the crossbar, just imagine if its just a bit lower). A few times one too many passes doomed us, but we had more Grade A chances than BU so I'd like our chances in a rematch of what was a great game between two evenly matched teams, and I'm hoping to see it come NCAA time. Only reason I'm in support of this game coming home (But still at MSG sometimes) is that by making it an annual series and playing it occasionally at the home rinks of each team, this rivalry could be rebuilt to the intensity of its ECAC glory days. After all, two national title games were determined in a matchup of these teams. Doesn't this series deserve better than every other year?

 

[Scarlet]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

I understand that they can't always do it, but it doesn't mean that I can't be frustrated when a puck that never went out of play and ends up as a legitimate goal gets waived off because the play was whistled dead. But it was a great game, I hope to get a rematch in the NCAA tournament, and its just a shame that we may have to wait two years to get another shot.

I get your frustration, honestly, I do. But come on - a puck that never went out of play? How are you so sure? Were you the only person in the arena that kept your eye on it the whole time? Everyone lost sight of it. It was a fast moving puck. And it had to have hit something for it to cross over the net - which meant it was heading towards the back - to flick it up. Based on the video, if Millan had gotten a piece of it, or the crossbar, wouldn't we have seen that change in direction? Which means it had to have hit something to deflect it upwards. I've seen plays called dead when the refs lost sight of a puck that on the white ice behind a goalie. Since no one on the ice could see where this one went, the ref had to call the play dead.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: Red. Hot. Hockey. III. - BU vs. Cornell

Doesn't this series deserve better than every other year?

I agree with you largely. Perhaps it will become an every year thing once Hockey East expands and we drop down to a 22 game league schedule. To make it big (at least on BU's campus) they would have to schedule it on a weekend that is not thanksgiving weekend when all the students are gone. The games held over Thanksgiving weekend at Agganis are usually as close to a ghost town as it gets on Comm Ave. Maybe this would be a good rivalry to bring back as the Tuesday before Thanksgiving game. Then do it on a 3 year rotation... one at Agganis, one at Lynah, one at MSG.