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 Pros IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: RPI Pros IV

DrDemento said:
Very fair assessment of york. In spite of my own bias-he really is a number 3 or 4 for them right now. But with a little more time and success I see him as a 2 or even their number 1 goalie (but i am hopeful some other organization sees thTat first and trades for him).
Click to expand...

Totally agree Doc. He needs time in the net.
He showed that he can play in the NHL, but he still needs some game experience.
I still don't like this organization, and would love to see him moved to one that has some consistancy.
I did like the comments about his work ethic and his "battle" level. I think that that is what will get him back to the NHL.
 
Re: RPI Pros IV

turk181 said:
apparently the goal should've been disallowed....not a very detailed explanation though by the AHL front office, why is a dump in that hits a stanchion grounds for a delayed off-sides?...must be more to it http://theahl.com/ahl-statement-regarding-game-3-p177908
Click to expand...
The puck was shot into the zone while there was still a Norfolk player in the zone (hence the delayed offside call). <s>However, he was out of the zone before the puck went into the net, so there should no issue, it should be a good goal.</s> Just kidding, the goal should have been disallowed. Here's the full text of the rule (and a link to the rulebook, pp. 189-190):
AHL Rule 83.4 said:
Disallowed Goal – If the puck is shot on goal during a delayed offside, the play shall be allowed to continue under the normal clearing-the-zone rules. Should the puck, as a result of this shot, enter the defending team’s goal, either directly or off the goalkeeper, a player or an official on the ice, the goal shall be disallowed as the original shot was off-side. The fact that the attacking team may have cleared the zone prior to the puck entering the goal has no bearing on this ruling. The face-off will be conducted at the face-off spot in the zone closest to the point of origin of the shot that gives the offending team the least amount of territorial advantage.

The only way an attacking team can score a goal on a delayed offside situation is if the defending team shoots or puts the puck into their own net without action or contact by the offending team.

Other than in situations involving a delayed off-side and the puck being shot on goal, no goal can be disallowed after the fact for an offside violation, except for the human factor involved in blowing the whistle.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that the Marlies are in danger of being swept, especially since they went 11-2 in the first three rounds.

Also, here's a direct link to the video in question.
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI Pros IV

I never noticed the Norfolk player in the zone while watching it live last night or even in the highlight I posted earlier (#943) but thanks for pointing that out. Yes, he did get back before the puck went in so I'm now wondering why the AHL statement didn't address that.
 
Re: RPI Pros IV

turk181 said:
I never noticed the Norfolk player in the zone while watching it live last night or even in the highlight I posted earlier (#943) but thanks for pointing that out. Yes, he did get back before the puck went in so I'm now wondering why the AHL statement didn't address that.
Click to expand...

The linesman waived the offsides off with the Norfolk player ten feet in front of him in the offensive zone. I don't know how you let a game end like that. I know that they are human and make mistakes, but there are three other officials on the ice and all goals should be subject to replay.
Just awful.
 
Re: RPI Pros IV

engineerhockeyfan said:
The linesman waived the offsides off with the Norfolk player ten feet in front of him in the offensive zone. I don't know how you let a game end like that. I know that they are human and make mistakes, but there are three other officials on the ice and all goals should be subject to replay.
Just awful.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more-but am still very glad did not have that kind of review available in Detroit in 1985;)
 
Re: RPI Pros IV

engineerhockeyfan said:
The linesman waived the offsides off with the Norfolk player ten feet in front of him in the offensive zone.
Click to expand...
He waved off the delayed offside once the Norfolk player was back in the neutral zone.
engineerhockeyfan said:
I don't know how you let a game end like that. I know that they are human and make mistakes, but there are three other officials on the ice and all goals should be subject to replay.
Click to expand...
This is a very strange and rare rule violation. I'd be surprised if any AHL official knew that that goal should not have counted. Without an off-ice official, I don't think that this goal would have been overturned, even with review.
Ralph Baer said:
The AHL admits the error http://theahl.com/ahl-statement-regarding-game-3-p177908
Click to expand...
Post #945 :)
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI Pros IV

irrelevant but didn't Union score an ENG (when a U player was clearly in the zone) in either their 1st or 2nd round NCAA game this year?
 
Re: RPI Pros IV

I'm surprised that the Marlies are in danger of being swept, especially since they went 11-2 in the first three rounds.........Perhaps, though they've been without; Frattin/Kadri & until last night Zigomanis. That's alot of offense. Add in D-man Jesse Blacker who's also missed this round.
 
Re: RPI Pros IV

turk181 said:
irrelevant but didn't Union score an ENG (when a U player was clearly in the zone) in either their 1st or 2nd round NCAA game this year?
Click to expand...
2nd round (against UML). I forget if he was still offside or not, but yes, the puck was clearly shot in as a delayed offside play and the goal should not have counted (Rulebook)
NCAA Ice Hockey Rules SECTION 36d said:
If an attacking player precedes the puck, which is shot, passed or deflected into the attacking zone, but a defending player is able to play the puck, the official shall signal a delayed offside.
...
If the puck enters the defending team’s goal during a delayed offside or immediately after the offside, the goal is disallowed.
Click to expand...
 
Re: RPI Pros IV

turk181 said:
Perhaps, though they've been without; Frattin/Kadri & until last night Zigomanis. That's alot of offense. Add in D-man Jesse Blacker who's also missed this round.
Click to expand...
Understood. I wasn't saying that I thought that they were going to win the series, but when I looked at the game recap, I was surprised that they were down 3-0.
 
Re: RPI Pros IV

turk181 said:
I'm surprised that the Marlies are in danger of being swept, especially since they went 11-2 in the first three rounds.........Perhaps, though they've been without; Frattin/Kadri & until last night Zigomanis. That's alot of offense. Add in D-man Jesse Blacker who's also missed this round.
Click to expand...

I suppose it could easily be 2-1 had OT gone a different way last night. That was possibly the most painful fluke goal I have ever seen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top