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.

RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

JC-Thanks for the post and the great pictures. I was off line for the time all this happened but Jenny was watching as we had up on the big screen TV. She is not familiar with all the rules of hockey but her description of it was perfect. SA summarized it well in his interview. Unless an RPI player was the cause of the net being dislodged (either knocking it off himself or pushing or tripping the QU player into the net), this should have been a good goal. I have to wait for RPI TV to make the film available and I will make it a point to watch that non goal a few times. But it sure seems that the rules cover exactly what happened well and it should have counted as the tying goal.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

DrDemento said:
JC-Thanks for the post and the great pictures. I was off line for the time all this happened but Jenny was watching as we had up on the big screen TV. She is not familiar with all the rules of hockey but her description of it was perfect. SA summarized it well in his interview. Unless an RPI player was the cause of the net being dislodged (either knocking it off himself or pushing or tripping the QU player into the net), this should have been a good goal. I have to wait for RPI TV to make the film available and I will make it a point to watch that non goal a few times. But it sure seems that the rules cover exactly what happened well and it should have counted as the tying goal.
Click to expand...

The snapshots came from the RPI TV highlight reel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_k7TcDi1gc
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Whether it was a goal or not, one thing that truly should come out of this, and there were TWO instances of this in a single week, is that penalties should be allowed to be called as the result of a review of a goal/no-goal. Even if the refs wanted to call no goal with delay-of-game penalty, they could not call the penalty because the rule book does not allow them to do so in this situation because it was not originally called on the ice.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

engineerhockeyfan said:
Thanks for the article Ralph. It is always great to get to know the players a little better.
Click to expand...

Huh, a Buffalo-born goalie's favorite player is Dominik Hasek. How interesting and unexpected :p. I wonder if his least favorite is Brett Hull.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

JCrawford said:
Yep. Here's the Prapavessis shot hitting the post. Net's still on:

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/mxA8kit.png" height=450 width=800>

And the rebound, as it heads toward Melanson - again net's still on:

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/e4hmBKt.png" height=450 width=800>

Snapshots courtesy RPI TV highlight film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_k7TcDi1gc

I'll agree that Melanson's shot came after the net was knocked off. However, the text of the rule allows for a goal to be allowed when a player is "in position to shoot" at the time the net is dislodged. Ultimately can't change the result, but by rights the correct call appears to have been to let the goal stand.
Click to expand...

Goal. Carusone should be flayed for waving it off; this in ADDITION to his 3 consecutive ticky-tack penalty calls culminating in Q's 1st goal. Unbelievable, but all too common for Engineer fans.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

JCrawford said:
Yep. Here's the Prapavessis shot hitting the post. Net's still on:

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/mxA8kit.png" height=450 width=800>

And the rebound, as it heads toward Melanson - again net's still on:

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/e4hmBKt.png" height=450 width=800>

Snapshots courtesy RPI TV highlight film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_k7TcDi1gc

I'll agree that Melanson's shot came after the net was knocked off. However, the text of the rule allows for a goal to be allowed when a player is "in position to shoot" at the time the net is dislodged. Ultimately can't change the result, but by rights the correct call appears to have been to let the goal stand.
Click to expand...

And they say a picture's worth a thousand words. Maybe a point in conference standings, too. :mad:
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

One thing I noticed is that the second picture does not show Melanson in possession of the puck. Even if it's a redirection, you still must show at least some form of possession. These pictures do not.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

As much as I can appreciate Bollywood, they not covering RPI football today? Or did they forget we have a bowl game?
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Placid weekend featuring the sounds of players healing. Maybe we can enjoy another Placid weekend later in the season. ;)
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

FlagDUDE08 said:
One thing I noticed is that the second picture does not show Melanson in possession of the puck. Even if it's a redirection, you still must show at least some form of possession. These pictures do not.
Click to expand...

Are you Willfully ignoring the part of the rule that says or the player must be in position to shoot? Nothing in 26.2 mentions requiring to "show at least some form of possession."
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Ralph Baer said:
Why would Bollywood cover RPI hockey? ;)
Click to expand...

Whether Bollywood would have covered RPI hockey or WRPI would have covered today's RPI football game, I don't know.

The team did play in the bowl game and were defeated, 42-36 in overtime.

Framingham State had the ball first in overtime and scored a touchdown. Since they had not successfully kicked an extra point all day, they went for a two-point conversion and missed, leaving RPI a chance to win if they could score a touchdown and kick an extra point. But, though RPI managed a first down at the 8, they were only able to gain four yards on the next four plays. :(

The RPIathletics website has done a pretty slipshod job of recapping the game, as the recap gives three different scores and the box score is actually the box score of last week's Union game.

The play-by-play available through the d3football website indicates that after scoring a touchdown to tie the game at 20 early in the third quarter, RPI's extra-point attempt was unsuccessful on what was described as a "TEAM rush attempt." I can't imagine RPI would have tried a two-point conversion when a one-pointer would have given them the lead, so I would guess that something went wrong with the snap.

After RPI tied the game at 20, Framingham State's next drive produced a touchdown plus a two-point conversion that gave them a 28-20 lead. Reggie Colas returned the ensuing kickoff 90 yards for an RPI touchdown, but since that left them two points behind, they went for the two-point conversion and failed.

Andrew Franks kicked a 26-yard field goal early in the fourth to give RPI a 29-28 lead, then the Engineers scored again on a 64-yard fumble return by Lanieri, building the lead to 36-28. But Framingham State scored another touchdown and two-point conversion, setting up the overtime.

If RPI could have picked up an extra point after either their third or fourth touchdown, they probably would have won the game.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

JCrawford said:
Are you Willfully ignoring the part of the rule that says or the player must be in position to shoot? Nothing in 26.2 mentions requiring to "show at least some form of possession."
Click to expand...

If you put it that way, just standing to the side of the crease and having the puck go two feet wide of the goal means position to shoot.
 
Re: RPI Hockey 2014-2015: Dedicated to Rich Curadi

Waite21 said:
Whether Bollywood would have covered RPI hockey or WRPI would have covered today's RPI football game, I don't know.

The team did play in the bowl game and were defeated, 42-36 in overtime.

Framingham State had the ball first in overtime and scored a touchdown. Since they had not successfully kicked an extra point all day, they went for a two-point conversion and missed, leaving RPI a chance to win if they could score a touchdown and kick an extra point. But, though RPI managed a first down at the 8, they were only able to gain four yards on the next four plays. :(

The RPIathletics website has done a pretty slipshod job of recapping the game, as the recap gives three different scores and the box score is actually the box score of last week's Union game.

The play-by-play available through the d3football website indicates that after scoring a touchdown to tie the game at 20 early in the third quarter, RPI's extra-point attempt was unsuccessful on what was described as a "TEAM rush attempt." I can't imagine RPI would have tried a two-point conversion when a one-pointer would have given them the lead, so I would guess that something went wrong with the snap.

After RPI tied the game at 20, Framingham State's next drive produced a touchdown plus a two-point conversion that gave them a 28-20 lead. Reggie Colas returned the ensuing kickoff 90 yards for an RPI touchdown, but since that left them two points behind, they went for the two-point conversion and failed.

Andrew Franks kicked a 26-yard field goal early in the fourth to give RPI a 29-28 lead, then the Engineers scored again on a 64-yard fumble return by Lanieri, building the lead to 36-28. But Framingham State scored another touchdown and two-point conversion, setting up the overtime.

If RPI could have picked up an extra point after either their third or fourth touchdown, they probably would have won the game.
Click to expand...

Waite: You have left out the fact that we had a chance to build that 36-28 lead with about 3 minutes left as we drove down to the 23 yard line and set up for a Franks field goal that would have given us an almost unsurmountable 11 point lead. Unfortuantely, one of the most accurate and best legs in the country did not come through with that 40 yard attempt. This was an awesome game against an offensive powerhouse that gained about 500 yards. Overall, we perhaps did not deserve to win giving up that much offense, but we had it firmly in our grasp and as you mention, a converted kick after a TD or that last field goal(in very reachable range for the best kicker in RPI history), and we never have to go to OT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top