The Official "My Team Got Screwed!" thread of the 2022 NCAA Men's Hockey Tournament

[ticapnews]

So officials should treat the best players differently?

Sidney Crosby agrees. That would be terrible.

 

[J.D.]

I am in favor of not televising Jeff Jackson coached teams

 

[J.D.]

Do they have Don Lucia on the line?

 

[MichVandal]

What is the right 0.00?? the light or the clock? They were not the same.

edit So the numerical clock is right, even if the green light to indicate the end was not even close to the same.

apparently.

 

[Savage]

So the green light is perfectly synced with the TV time ... but that's a total coincidence and some mysterious inset time (that apparently runs like a 1980s stopwatch) with no provenance whatsoever is the official time? This is utter BS.

(Also, as with all replay rules in all sports: if it takes 10 minutes to get right, it's too close to call and the call on the field/ice/whatever should stand.)

 

[J.D.]

Willing to wait for Starman's briefing at start of OT. I have no problem with it taking 10 minutes provided they give an explanation.

 

[Wood Stick]

So the green light is perfectly synced with the TV time ... but that's a total coincidence and some mysterious inset time (that apparently runs like a 1980s stopwatch) with no provenance whatsoever is the official time?

Looked like a clock from Lake Placid 1980.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

So the green light is perfectly synced with the TV time ... but that's a total coincidence and some mysterious inset time (that apparently runs like a 1980s stopwatch) with no provenance whatsoever is the official time? This is utter BS.

(Also, as with all replay rules in all sports: if it takes 10 minutes to get right, it's too close to call and the call on the field/ice/whatever should stand.)

Rule 4.2 seems to be pretty clear that they made the right call. Why it took 10+ minutes? That's the better question.

 

[Savage]

TV says they were able to "widen out" to get the play and the scoreboard clock at the same time ... but there's no evidence of this: there's no view of it, they haven't shown the picture used, etc. If it's so incontrovertible, then they should be able to provide the "proof" they used.

[Edit: "puck don't lie", as it were.]

 

[MichVandal]

Rule 4.2 seems to be pretty clear that they made the right call. Why it took 10+ minutes? That's the better question.

So that people know what you are talking about- this is from the NCAA hockey rule book:

4.2 Timing Devices - An electrical clock, or other timing device, shall be provided for the purpose of keeping the teams, game officials and spectators accurately informed as to all time elements at all stages of the game. Time recording for both game time and penalty time shall show time remaining to be played or served. Time displayed on a clock or timing device shall supersede any disparity with lights or horn signaling the end of a period or game. The referee may adjust the game clock to correct a timing error or malfunction

The bold is from me- but as you say, FS23, why in the world did it take that long?

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

So that people know what you are talking about- this is from the NCAA hockey rule book:


The bold is from me- but as you say, FS23, why in the world did it take that long?

I'm guessing if the CCHA debacle had not occurred, it would have been about a 10 second review. However, in the current climate, they wanted to be 10,000% sure that the clock that they were seeing on the one replay was the correct clock.

Kudos to Notre Dame though. They maintained their composure and won it a few minutes later.

At this point, anyone but Denver or Michigan, but I'll be pulling for Western or Minnesota State.

 

[chickod]

TV says they were able to "widen out" to get the play and the scoreboard clock at the same time ... but there's no evidence of this: there's no view of it, they haven't shown the picture used, etc. If it's so incontrovertible, then they should be able to provide the "proof" they used.

[Edit: "puck don't lie", as it were.]

So I'm not going to argue if it "was" or "wasn't." My point is the same one I have been making since replay (in all sports) began. It makes the officials tentative, and should I even say lazy. They know they have backup. I refereed basketball for 17 years and if they had ever instituted replay during my tenure I would have been out of there the next day. I watched the game and the second the puck went in I said "good goal." Didn't they hear the buzzer? We won't argue about the green light (even though on TV they said it was "synched" with the clock). So where is the indisputable "evidence" of no goal? The replay on ESPN with their score banner showed 0.3 seconds left when the puck hit the back of the net. It sure seemed to me that this was "synched." If they went by the "scoreboard" inset clock (the white lights on the black background)...it was OBVIOUS that it was way off, because it was at 0 for like three seconds before the goal was scored, so if that clock was supposedly "synched" then the period would have been over long before any shot had been taken. And I have no rooting interest either way. Something seriously has to be done...humans play...humans should ref. This is ruining sports. It's ridiculous. And the BIGGEST argument against replay? They look at it forever (what was it in this case...twenty minutes?) and they STILL can't get it right. Why? Because it's still HUMANS looking at the replays. If you can't truly "automate" it (have a camera on boundary lines, etc.), then don't go halfway. Don't implement it at ALL.

 

[manurespreader]

I have no problem with that call

I have two major problems with that call. A. it looked to me that the Duluth player was falling down before Halonen made contact with him. Wouldn't that affect what was called. B, by calling what is at best questionable, and by ejecting him, the refs are saying in effect, this game is going to be tightly called,... but it wasn't, and a number of other incidents occurred which could have been called but were not. A couple of Duluth hits in particular.Similar hits have been called for penalties in the past. I'd like it if the refs were more consistent.

 

[pdt1081]

I have two major problems with that call. A. it looked to me that the Duluth player was falling down before Halonen made contact with him. Wouldn't that affect what was called. B, by calling what is at best questionable, and by ejecting him, the refs are saying in effect, this game is going to be tightly called,... but it wasn't, and a number of other incidents occurred which could have been called but were not. A couple of Duluth hits in particular.Similar hits have been called for penalties in the past. I'd like it if the refs were more consistent.

Hitting the player that's already falling down would make it worse, as it's a hit on a player in a vulnerable position.

The official call on the ice was "checking from behind." That's the signal the referee have when he came out from review. It was a hit directly on the number, into the boards. As defined in the rulebook, it's a major. The CCHA wouldn't have even reviewed it unless the right teams were involved.

 

[MichVandal]

So I'm not going to argue if it "was" or "wasn't." My point is the same one I have been making since replay (in all sports) began. It makes the officials tentative, and should I even say lazy. They know they have backup. I refereed basketball for 17 years and if they had ever instituted replay during my tenure I would have been out of there the next day. I watched the game and the second the puck went in I said "good goal." Didn't they hear the buzzer? We won't argue about the green light (even though on TV they said it was "synched" with the clock). So where is the indisputable "evidence" of no goal? The replay on ESPN with their score banner showed 0.3 seconds left when the puck hit the back of the net. It sure seemed to me that this was "synched." If they went by the "scoreboard" inset clock (the white lights on the black background)...it was OBVIOUS that it was way off, because it was at 0 for like three seconds before the goal was scored, so if that clock was supposedly "synched" then the period would have been over long before any shot had been taken. And I have no rooting interest either way. Something seriously has to be done...humans play...humans should ref. This is ruining sports. It's ridiculous. And the BIGGEST argument against replay? They look at it forever (what was it in this case...twenty minutes?) and they STILL can't get it right. Why? Because it's still HUMANS looking at the replays. If you can't truly "automate" it (have a camera on boundary lines, etc.), then don't go halfway. Don't implement it at ALL.

As posted prior, the clock over rules the horn or the light. The refs made the right call given what they heard and saw, but given the clock, it was the wrong call. Which is the whole point of the video review.

 

[MichVandal]

I'm guessing if the CCHA debacle had not occurred, it would have been about a 10 second review. However, in the current climate, they wanted to be 10,000% sure that the clock that they were seeing on the one replay was the correct clock.

Kudos to Notre Dame though. They maintained their composure and won it a few minutes later.

At this point, anyone but Denver or Michigan, but I'll be pulling for Western or Minnesota State.

And that was the only game in this tournament that I wanted Notre Dame to win- although the reality is that I wanted North Dakota to lose. lol. Now for Denver to lose.

In terms of the end of the game and ND recovering- I wonder if they knew quickly that it was not a goal, and was able to move on. The end result was that there was a 25 min gap instead of 15 for the period- which helps both teams going into OT. It would mean more if they were at the West regional....

 

[chickod]

As posted prior, the clock over rules the horn or the light. The refs made the right call given what they heard and saw, but given the clock, it was the wrong call. Which is the whole point of the video review.

I know what the RULE is. But you're telling me that the "clock" (referring to the "scoreboard" clock which they showed embedded on the replay - not the "ESPN" clock) proved that the goal came after time had expired? Where is the proof that the clock was synced correctly? That's my point. Were you there? Did you SEE the clock hit 0 BEFORE the puck went in? When we refereed, we WATCHED the clock when it got below five seconds...we would tap our head to signal the other official to BE ALERT because time was winding down. The OUTSIDE official would make the call, because he/she could see the shooter and the clock simultaneously. I can't recall ever not getting it correct, because we were PREPARED for it. There are FOUR officials on the ice. One of them SAW the puck go in before time expired. That means the puck went in before the CLOCK said "0:00." Period. Relying on the technology doesn't negate that because the technology COULD have been wrong. And if the technology was so great, why did it take 12 minutes (or whatever it was)? This is what I think happened...the video was inconclusive...after all that time they couldn't call it a good goal, so they erred on the "safe" side and waved it off, because there would have been a BIGGER outcry if they called it good. This upsets me even more because I continuously hear the excuse, "We don't want to penalize a team if we're not sure." What about the team that SCORED. Aren't you penalizing them just as much? As I mentioned...humans play...let humans referee. I did this for seventeen years and I am TELLING you that having this hanging over your head MAKES them more tentative and hesitant to make the call, because they know (even if it's subconsciously in the back of their minds) they have "backup." If there is one characteristic you need to be an official, it's decisiveness. You make the call and you live with it. We have taken that away and, IMO, it is ruining sports. I stand by my argument.

 

[MichVandal]

Synced to what? Based on the rule, the horn and the light have to be synced to it, not the other way around. So the clock rules.

And yes, I saw the replay many times were the the clock hit 0.00 well before the shot was even attempted.

Could it be "wrong"? In theory, sure. But in reality, the rules make it a moot point- even if it's wrong, it's still right.

Why it took so long, dunno- I asked that same question before. FS23's theory that they want to be more than 100% correct based on what happened at the CCHA final seems pretty valid- this was a game ending decision, after all.

So you are ok with bad calls just for the refs to be decisive. Which means that you were ok with the puck going in from under the frame of the goal in the CCHA final because it was decisive. Even if it was clearly the wrong thing. Seems to me that in the long term, more people will accept the right call if it takes a long time over the wrong call- especially for a game/season ending decision. The whole point to this rule is to allow the refs to make a call- which they did, with great gusto- and then let the replay confirm or deny that call. I doubt we will ever hear the reason that it took so long, but based on the replays I saw- it was clearly not a goal based on the 0.00 clock as he was rounding the goalie. And since the rule clearly states the clock is always right, well, there you go.

 

[pdt1081]

I know what the RULE is. But you're telling me that the "clock" (referring to the "scoreboard" clock which they showed embedded on the replay - not the "ESPN" clock) proved that the goal came after time had expired? Where is the proof that the clock was synced correctly? That's my point. Were you there? Did you SEE the clock hit 0 BEFORE the puck went in? When we refereed, we WATCHED the clock when it got below five seconds...we would tap our head to signal the other official to BE ALERT because time was winding down. The OUTSIDE official would make the call, because he/she could see the shooter and the clock simultaneously. I can't recall ever not getting it correct, because we were PREPARED for it. There are FOUR officials on the ice. One of them SAW the puck go in before time expired. That means the puck went in before the CLOCK said "0:00." Period. Relying on the technology doesn't negate that because the technology COULD have been wrong. And if the technology was so great, why did it take 12 minutes (or whatever it was)? This is what I think happened...the video was inconclusive...after all that time they couldn't call it a good goal, so they erred on the "safe" side and waved it off, because there would have been a BIGGER outcry if they called it good. This upsets me even more because I continuously hear the excuse, "We don't want to penalize a team if we're not sure." What about the team that SCORED. Aren't you penalizing them just as much? As I mentioned...humans play...let humans referee. I did this for seventeen years and I am TELLING you that having this hanging over your head MAKES them more tentative and hesitant to make the call, because they know (even if it's subconsciously in the back of their minds) they have "backup." If there is one characteristic you need to be an official, it's decisiveness. You make the call and you live with it. We have taken that away and, IMO, it is ruining sports. I stand by my argument.

If you are ever in an arena and can see both the clock on the video board, and the official clock at the same time, you will see there is almost a full second delay on the video board. The video clock starts and stops late. It's visually noticeable when you see both side by side.

 

[Jon]

The NCAA would follow the CCHA championship game debacle with the ejection of MTU's Hobey candidate, the non-synchronized clocks at the end of the third in the Notre Dame/UND game, and the lengthy reviews in the UML/Denver game. As a fan of chaos, what will happen today?