St. Lawrence @ RPI 11/3/18 Do Not Forget to turn back the clock!!

[engineerhockeyfan]

Re: St. Lawrence @ RPI 11/3/18 Do Not Forget to turn back the clock!!

When he butterflied, the tops of the goalie’s pads (the part above the knee) formed an inverted “v” and you could clearly see the puck on the ice in the center of it via the overhead shot. What the ref saw from behind the net to make him think it was a goal I haven’t a clue........

I don't know if the puck was in or not. But the referees job is to watch the puck. If he cannot see it, he should blow the play dead. If he points to the net, that means he sees the puck it the net. Once he points, there should be no review, unless the coach asks for it.
I did not get any information that SLU asked for the review. I am sure that he made a mistake, but referees make mistakes all the time. With no coaches challenge, that should have been a goal.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: St. Lawrence @ RPI 11/3/18 Do Not Forget to turn back the clock!!

I don't know if the puck was in or not. But the referees job is to watch the puck. If he cannot see it, he should blow the play dead. If he points to the net, that means he sees the puck it the net. Once he points, there should be no review, unless the coach asks for it.
I did not get any information that SLU asked for the review. I am sure that he made a mistake, but referees make mistakes all the time. With no coaches challenge, that should have been a goal.

Sometimes refs are apprehensive about blowing the play dead because of the "intent to blow the whistle" rule, which nullifies even good reviewed goals, since the rules state the play is over once the whistle goes. It's Mastrangelo behind the goal, whom I haven't seen ref for us before so I'm going to assume he's new, so I'll cut him some slack since there's a bit of a learning curve. The highlights video shows the play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5x5k7yIa9M . Play starts at about 4:33, you can see the puck go across the crease and into the butterflied pads. Now, let's rewind back to RPI's first goal, a similar jam try, where we put the puck under the leg of the goaltender, you have McDonald back there (I know I grumble whenever we get him, but he is an experienced ref), once the goalie lifts his leg a little, he sees the puck, and calls a good goal. Perhaps Mastrangelo thought the exact same thing happened, especially with the nature of a wrap-around. Even going frame by frame I almost missed the puck going across the crease into the pads, and he was still over by the boards (although on the proper side to see it happen) so may also have missed that. For the sake of fairness, because I know the exact same thing could very well happen to us when another team is trying to jam the puck home, he took the time to get it right, which is completely within the rules of the game (and should still be IMO), made the correct call in the end, and I know he's going to learn from this in making future on-ice decisions.

I know the old timers hate the replay and the circumstances behind bringing one up, but it's now a part of the game that we have to live with, and we've seen the repercussions behind its limitations for key plays in many sports. I see no issue with the replay rules as written at this point, and the conduct was proper in my view.

 

[engineerhockeyfan]

Re: St. Lawrence @ RPI 11/3/18 Do Not Forget to turn back the clock!!

Sometimes refs are apprehensive about blowing the play dead because of the "intent to blow the whistle" rule, which nullifies even good reviewed goals, since the rules state the play is over once the whistle goes. It's Mastrangelo behind the goal, whom I haven't seen ref for us before so I'm going to assume he's new, so I'll cut him some slack since there's a bit of a learning curve. The highlights video shows the play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5x5k7yIa9M . Play starts at about 4:33, you can see the puck go across the crease and into the butterflied pads. Now, let's rewind back to RPI's first goal, a similar jam try, where we put the puck under the leg of the goaltender, you have McDonald back there (I know I grumble whenever we get him, but he is an experienced ref), once the goalie lifts his leg a little, he sees the puck, and calls a good goal. Perhaps Mastrangelo thought the exact same thing happened, especially with the nature of a wrap-around. Even going frame by frame I almost missed the puck going across the crease into the pads, and he was still over by the boards (although on the proper side to see it happen) so may also have missed that. For the sake of fairness, because I know the exact same thing could very well happen to us when another team is trying to jam the puck home, he took the time to get it right, which is completely within the rules of the game (and should still be IMO), made the correct call in the end, and I know he's going to learn from this in making future on-ice decisions.

I know the old timers hate the replay and the circumstances behind bringing one up, but it's now a part of the game that we have to live with, and we've seen the repercussions behind its limitations for key plays in many sports. I see no issue with the replay rules as written at this point, and the conduct was proper in my view.

You still don't get it. Once he points to the net, it is a goal. If it is challenged, then review it, and I have no problem with that. But with no challenge, that is a goal. Replay is fine, and I have no problem with it. If he is not sure of his call, he needs to be replaced.
The review process isn't there for referee indecision. He was wrong when he pointed, and he was wrong again when he went to review the play. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. I am just glad that we won the game anyway.

 

[DrDemento]

Re: St. Lawrence @ RPI 11/3/18 Do Not Forget to turn back the clock!!

You still don't get it. Once he points to the net, it is a goal. If it is challenged, then review it, and I have no problem with that. But with no challenge, that is a goal. Replay is fine, and I have no problem with it. If he is not sure of his call, he needs to be replaced.
The review process isn't there for referee indecision. He was wrong when he pointed, and he was wrong again when he went to review the play. That is not an opinion. That is a fact. I am just glad that we won the game anyway.

Indeed, exactly the way I see it. The ref pointed with authority that it was a goal. I could give two hoots whether it is reviewed or not. Upon review there has to be absolutely concrete evidence to overturn the call on the ice. If the ref had made no goal call, then you would have to have the review prove it was a goal. In this case his clear signal was a goal from his vantage point right behind the net. His eyes were in perfect position to make the call. Unless the review showed clear and convincing evidence that his eyes were lying, then that was a goal and should have stood.
Perhaps EHF and I are considered old timers, but we both are very much aware of the rules and how replay is supposed to be used when a call has been clearly made on the ice. I hate all sports where scoring is left to interpretation (judging sports like diving, gymnastics, figure skating, etc.). Video and tape should not be used to interpret. Just to confirm or overturn based on evidence that the call made was CLEARLY made in error.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: St. Lawrence @ RPI 11/3/18 Do Not Forget to turn back the clock!!

Indeed, exactly the way I see it. The ref pointed with authority that it was a goal. I could give two hoots whether it is reviewed or not. Upon review there has to be absolutely concrete evidence to overturn the call on the ice. If the ref had made no goal call, then you would have to have the review prove it was a goal. In this case his clear signal was a goal from his vantage point right behind the net. His eyes were in perfect position to make the call. Unless the review showed clear and convincing evidence that his eyes were lying, then that was a goal and should have stood.
Perhaps EHF and I are considered old timers, but we both are very much aware of the rules and how replay is supposed to be used when a call has been clearly made on the ice. I hate all sports where scoring is left to interpretation (judging sports like diving, gymnastics, figure skating, etc.). Video and tape should not be used to interpret. Just to confirm or overturn based on evidence that the call made was CLEARLY made in error.

The review was indeed very clear that it was not a goal. No interpretation whatsoever. They got it right after the replay.

If someone isn't happy with the fact that the referee is permitted to choose to review goal/no-goal or game misconduct on penalties, then that person should probably write to the ECAC rep of the rules committee, and they'll consider it in two years. Yes, we've won championships and lost rivalry games on missed calls, but why should we be beholden to that in perpetuity? Let's have a fair game within reason for all parties concerned.

 

[jericho]

Re: St. Lawrence @ RPI 11/3/18 Do Not Forget to turn back the clock!!

This portion of the rule book was found on college hockey inc. as I'm not near a computer and my phone has trouble with pdfs...

Video replay. During the season, at a conference's discretion, video replay may be used by the on-ice officials using a monitor at the scorers' table. All goals are reviewed initially by a replay official. Should a situation occur that the replay official believes requires a review (or if the on-ice referee decides to review a play), the replay official will offer information and assist in the review. The on-ice referees will review the play at the scorer's bench and make the decision.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: St. Lawrence @ RPI 11/3/18 Do Not Forget to turn back the clock!!

This portion of the rule book was found on college hockey inc. as I'm not near a computer and my phone has trouble with pdfs...

It's not exactly that now, but rule 93 (pages 82-83) is close enough. It states 11 points where the referee may choose to review, as well as a situational 12th based on game timing. The puck crossing the goal line is most definitely one of them, as well as if the puck crosses before the ref determines play has stopped. Because RPI has an ice level video monitor, the referee may do the entire review with or without the assistance of a replay official, depending on its availability. It's only when you don't have that monitor down there does a replay official have to review it, and then the referee verifies. Here's what it states, at least in terms of procedure; I won't bother putting up the criteria specifics, just the part about who can review what:

Rule 93 - Video Replay
93.1
Video Replay
- Video replay is permissible in any game. In order to reverse
an on-ice ruling, the replay must include conclusive video evidence.
93.2
On-Ice Official Procedure
- The referee may use a video monitor located
at ice level to review any of the criteria in Rule 93.4. If available a video
replay official may assist the on-ice official with the review (See 93.3). The
on-ice official makes the final decision.
93.3
Off-Ice Official Procedure
- Should a monitor not be available to the
referees at the ice level, a video review official may be utilized to make the
determination. All goals will be reviewed by the video replay official. Play
shall not resume before the on-ice official verifies the review. The video
replay official may request to review a potentially non-detected goal.
93.4
Video Replay Criteria
- The following criteria are subject to the use of
video replay. Items 1-11 may be reviewed through either referee discretion
or by a coach's challenge. Items 12-14 include a description of when review
is allowed.
The full criteria is below:

 

[engineerhockeyfan]

Re: St. Lawrence @ RPI 11/3/18 Do Not Forget to turn back the clock!!

So what you are telling me is that the review was initiated by someone other than the referee that pointed to the net?
If that is true, then I have no problem with overturning the goal. As long as it wasn't the referee questioning his own call, I am ok with the decision.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: St. Lawrence @ RPI 11/3/18 Do Not Forget to turn back the clock!!

So what you are telling me is that the review was initiated by someone other than the referee that pointed to the net?
If that is true, then I have no problem with overturning the goal. As long as it wasn't the referee questioning his own call, I am ok with the decision.

It was definitely the referee crew that initiated it, given Mastrangelo went to McDonald at his position right after the goal, and then together they went to the monitor, based on the replay ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLcj-MF-1uE&t=4260 ), so maybe Chip saw the puck in front despite being the trail ref to watch the off-puck play. Not sure if that's going to satisfy you or not, but that's what I see from the evidence.

 

[engineerhockeyfan]

Re: St. Lawrence @ RPI 11/3/18 Do Not Forget to turn back the clock!!

It was definitely the referee crew that initiated it, given Mastrangelo went to McDonald at his position right after the goal, and then together they went to the monitor, based on the replay ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLcj-MF-1uE&t=4260 ), so maybe Chip saw the puck in front despite being the trail ref to watch the off-puck play. Not sure if that's going to satisfy you or not, but that's what I see from the evidence.

That would satisfy me. As I said, it looked like the ref that pointed was the one who initiated the review, and that would have been wrong.
As long as it came from someone else I am ok with it.