RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

We will get back to the season shortly-and might need a new thread title soon. For the moment let's just enjoy the recent events. For me the only way the Cornell game could have ended better would be for Cullen to have held the puck for about 17 more seconds before scoring.

We are going to have a tough time staying ahead of BU in total posts this season. Of course, there recent active is due to a series of incidents that I am happy we have not had.

 

[RPI fan 4 life]

Thanks BigGuy-I have the program but it is at our other house. I thought it might not have been John but i knew it was a Murphy. Classic screw job with some of the most unusal calls late in the third period to take this one away from RPI. Not saying we were the best team in the league that year by any means. But we were on an incredible roll and it was shameful to be stopped by officiating.

Just wanted to add one more comment on this whole situation. I've been an RPI season ticket holder since '74 and absolutely never, EVER saw such officiating before or since. I just think they didn't want to see a 10 seed playing for the ECAC title. I was at both Harvaaard the week before when Jeff Gabriel ended #1 Harvaaard's season in OT which led to having best of three series being played after that (otherwise known as the Cleary rule). And then being at the Garden to see that. It's just great to see how many RPI fans are still in here and remember so much about a game played 20 years ago.

 

[Wicked Slappaahs]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

With apologies for interrupting the officiating conspiract theorists....

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THE HFH BOX OFFICE WILL HAVE TICKETS TO SELL FOR THE WEEKEND SERIES?

 

[RPI fan 4 life]

With apologies for interrupting the officiating conspiract theorists....

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THE HFH BOX OFFICE WILL HAVE TICKETS TO SELL FOR THE WEEKEND SERIES?

The usual procedure is that the Visiting team is allotted a certain number of tickets which will probably go on sale tomorrow at the HFH box office. I would call them in the AM at 276-6262. They will probably only be selling them until Wednesday or Thursday, so if you want to go, you should contact them tomorrow if possible.

 

[burgie12]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

For anyone complaining about the "Throwing the Puck" penalty, if I'm understanding it correctly, it was also called this season.

During the Beanpot final, Chris Connolly took the puck after BC scored to go up 2-1 and shot it down the length of the ice. He received a 10-minute misconduct. So, the penalty still exists. But, in this instance, it did not result in any manpower difference.

 

[rpi82]

For anyone complaining about the "Throwing the Puck" penalty, if I'm understanding it correctly, it was also called this season.

During the Beanpot final, Chris Connolly took the puck after BC scored to go up 2-1 and shot it down the length of the ice. He received a 10-minute misconduct. So, the penalty still exists. But, in this instance, it did not result in any manpower difference.

I have a different memory than the good doc. The box score shows that the penalty didn't occur at the time of an SLU goal. As I remember the play, Brick was in the center zone when the puck popped into the air. He reached up and spiked it down into the SLU zone. It was done in one smooth motion, making it virtually impossible that he closed his hand on the puck and threw it. I have seen hundreds of college hockey games and never seen a similar play.

 

[burgie12]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

I have a different memory than the good doc. The box score shows that the penalty didn't occur at the time of an SLU goal. As I remember the play, Brick was in the center zone when the puck popped into the air. He reached up and spiked it down into the SLU zone. It was done in one smooth motion, making it virtually impossible that he closed his hand on the puck and threw it. I have seen hundreds of college hockey games and never seen a similar play.

My apologies. I should have realized that the penalty was not assessed at the time of a goal.

After perusing the current rulebook, the current rule is "A player shall be permitted to catch the puck out of the air but must immediately place it or knock it down to the ice. A player shall not catch the puck and skate with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over an opponent." A violation of that causes a faceoff. There is also the following rule: "A puck that is on the ice shall not be picked up by any skater. Additionally, the puck shall not be thrown out of the ice." A violation of that is a minor penalty. (Section 19a, page HR-71)

Going back to a discussion held in the beginning of the season in response to the Flyers / Lightning stalemate, college hockey does have a rule about refusing to advance the puck.
"Puck Must Be Kept in Motion:
Advancing puck. Except to carry the puck behind its goal once, a team in possession of the puck in its own defending zone must advance the puck toward the opposing goal, unless it is prevented from so doing by players of the opposing team.
PENALTY—For initial violation, play shall be stopped and a faceoff conducted at either end-zone faceoff spot adjacent to the goal of the team causing the stoppage, and the referee shall warn the captain of the offending team of the reason for the faceoff. For a second violation by any player of the same team in the same period, a minor shall be assessed to the offending player." (Section 41b, page HR-84)

 

[DrDemento]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

I have a different memory than the good doc. The box score shows that the penalty didn't occur at the time of an SLU goal. As I remember the play, Brick was in the center zone when the puck popped into the air. He reached up and spiked it down into the SLU zone. It was done in one smooth motion, making it virtually impossible that he closed his hand on the puck and threw it. I have seen hundreds of college hockey games and never seen a similar play.

rpi81- Please check the box score-which I think is incorrect on the time of the 3rd SLU goal or the time of our 5th goal-I have the original program. RPI scored(they call it goal #7 of the game) to go up 5-2 at 15:20 of the 3rd period(but I have that goal being scored far earlier in the period and we took what seemed like an insurmountable lead). Then they list the 8th goal as SLU but have the time as 7:40 which would have them scoring their 3rd goal to make it 4-3 on a power play if we had scored at 15:20 as they list it-which is completely out of order(it was definitely not scored before our 5th goal as we were indeed up 5-2). Then Jeff Brick penalized at 15:16 of the third period for throwing the puck down the ice(actually we thought he shot it down the ice immediately after a whistle had blown and originally I thought he was called for a delay of the game penalty) and SLU scoring goal #9 to make to 5-4 at 16.16. Then we get called again for a penalty at 17.59 for holding (thought it was Kelly Askew at the time as my wife remarked that they were putting our fastest penalty killer into the box) and SLU scoring goal #10 to make it 5-5 as their 3rd power play goal of the period and 3rd in a row. Of course I could have the times confused-but for sure we were up 5-2 and not 4-3 when SLU scored the 3 power play goals in the third period. The second of the 3 PP goals I remember as being scored after Brick was put in the box. We were burning after the game and could not forget that up 5-2 we were called for 3 consecutive penalties (1 that was ridiculous) that led to all 3 power play goals to tie the score. It was 20 years ago-and this is from memory but the box score should reflect that we were leading 5-2 at the time of the 3 penalty calls and the 3 resultant power plays. Until the 2nd playoff game in Ithaca i had always felt this was the biggest screw job i had seen.

 

[DrDemento]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

My apologies. I should have realized that the penalty was not assessed at the time of a goal.

After perusing the current rulebook, the current rule is "A player shall be permitted to catch the puck out of the air but must immediately place it or knock it down to the ice. A player shall not catch the puck and skate with it, either to avoid a check or to gain a territorial advantage over an opponent." A violation of that causes a faceoff. There is also the following rule: "A puck that is on the ice shall not be picked up by any skater. Additionally, the puck shall not be thrown out of the ice." A violation of that is a minor penalty. (Section 19a, page HR-71)

Going back to a discussion held in the beginning of the season in response to the Flyers / Lightning stalemate, college hockey does have a rule about refusing to advance the puck.
"Puck Must Be Kept in Motion:
Advancing puck. Except to carry the puck behind its goal once, a team in possession of the puck in its own defending zone must advance the puck toward the opposing goal, unless it is prevented from so doing by players of the opposing team.
PENALTY—For initial violation, play shall be stopped and a faceoff conducted at either end-zone faceoff spot adjacent to the goal of the team causing the stoppage, and the referee shall warn the captain of the offending team of the reason for the faceoff. For a second violation by any player of the same team in the same period, a minor shall be assessed to the offending player." (Section 41b, page HR-84)

Burgie-i have no idea what the college rules were then-but Jeff Brick shot the puck down the ice-after a whistle had blown-or may have been blown. he did not close his hand on a puck or throw it and it was immediately after a stoppage in play. My origianl thought was that he was called for a delay of the game penalty. But as i mentioned-it has been 20 years-so he could have thrown it-but in any case it was not during play.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Burgie-i have no idea what the college rules were then-but Jeff Brick shot the puck down the ice-after a whistle had blown-or may have been blown. he did not close his hand on a puck or throw it and it was immediately after a stoppage in play. My origianl thought was that he was called for a delay of the game penalty. But as i mentioned-it has been 20 years-so he could have thrown it-but in any case it was not during play.

Based on what you say, that would be the rule about shooting the puck after the whistle. Here's what the rule book says on that:

Shooting Puck After the Whistle
SECTION 46. a. A player shall not shoot the puck away from an official
after the whistle has blown.
PENALTY—Misconduct.
b. A player shall not shoot the puck at the goalkeeper or bench after the
whistle.
PENALTY—Minor and misconduct, game misconduct or disqualification
at the discretion of the referee.

The rule book does not state the date of the last amendment to this rule, so I don't know if this was enforced during the game you had cited. If he shot at any of the three locations noted (obviously four, but I would think the players are smart enough not to shoot at their own goal), the minor was warranted. Anywhere else, and it should have been just a misconduct.

 

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Based on what you say, that would be the rule about shooting the puck after the whistle. Here's what the rule book says on that:



The rule book does not state the date of the last amendment to this rule, so I don't know if this was enforced during the game you had cited. If he shot at any of the three locations noted (obviously four, but I would think the players are smart enough not to shoot at their own goal), the minor was warranted. Anywhere else, and it should have been just a misconduct.

It sounds as if shooting the puck at an official is perfectly legal. We should try that.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

It sounds as if shooting the puck at an official is perfectly legal. We should try that.

I wouldn't press your luck on that. Under section 1:

m. A player shall not physically or deliberately make contact with an
official before, during or after the game.
PENALTY—Disqualification.

Although there's nothing in there about barely missing the ref, they could probably find some justification in section 1.

 

[LTsatch]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Shooting Puck After the Whistle
SECTION 46. a. A player shall not shoot the puck away from an official
after the whistle has blown.
PENALTY—Misconduct.
b. A player shall not shoot the puck at the goalkeeper or bench after the
whistle.
PENALTY—Minor and misconduct, game misconduct or disqualification
at the discretion of the referee.

At a recent Yale game an opposing player was penalized a two minute minor for a slap shot on goal well after the whistle, from the above rules statement would a two minute minor be the incorrect call in this situation?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Shooting Puck After the Whistle
SECTION 46. a. A player shall not shoot the puck away from an official
after the whistle has blown.
PENALTY—Misconduct.
b. A player shall not shoot the puck at the goalkeeper or bench after the
whistle.
PENALTY—Minor and misconduct, game misconduct or disqualification
at the discretion of the referee.

At a recent Yale game an opposing player was penalized a two minute minor for a slap shot on goal well after the whistle, from the above rules statement would a two minute minor be the incorrect call in this situation?

No, a minor would be the correct call. The misconducts are listed as discretionary to basically say the ref may call them if he wishes. However, the minor is mandatory.

 

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

I wouldn't press your luck on that. Under section 1:



Although there's nothing in there about barely missing the ref, they could probably find some justification in section 1.

I thought that there would be something about that.

 

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Ithaca Journal article about Schafer's postgame reaction http://www.theithacajournal.com/art...s-devastating-defeat-men-s-hockey?odyssey=tab. I love it.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Ithaca Journal article about Schafer's postgame reaction http://www.theithacajournal.com/art...s-devastating-defeat-men-s-hockey?odyssey=tab. I love it.

"The game-winning goal, we had four people in the corner," he said. "It's just mind-boggling that we could make that kind of mistake in overtime. I mean, it was icing, it's pretty evident ... and our guys all thought it was icing, they were taking their time coming back, and that was a mistake."

Once again, with Fat Mike, players win, refs lose. And to think he was on a four-man power play all night, too. What a baby.

 

[jericho]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

"Schafer argued afterward that icing should have been called on Union"


Well, no wonder they were slow to get back, they were all the way in Hamilton.

 

[Ralph Baer]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Once again, with Fat Mike, players win, refs lose. And to think he was on a four-man power play all night, too. What a baby.

Isn't that the truth.

 

[engineerhockeyfan]

Re: RPI 2011-12 Part V: Don't Stop Believing

Ithaca Journal article about Schafer's postgame reaction http://www.theithacajournal.com/art...s-devastating-defeat-men-s-hockey?odyssey=tab. I love it.

Imagine, Mike blaming the officials for the loss. I guess the other 64 minutes didn't count. How many power playes did they get from those same officials?
Maybe Mike didn't have his team ready for such a big game. Maybe they took RPI lightly. Maybe they thought they could just throw their sticks on the ice and that would be enough.
I really don't care what Mike thinks. His team had plenty of chances to win this game, and they didn't. Too Bad