It’s inconceivable one can be called good and the other waved off as no goal.
“When your best friend is the son of God, you get tired of losing every argument.”
― Christopher Moore, Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems word is out in the league that the simple solution to a scoring chance is to push someone from the other team into your goalie.
Only if the "other" team is the Gophers. When it's the Gophers goalie being interfered with, the goal must be granted.It seems word is out in the league that the simple solution to a scoring chance is to push someone from the other team into your goalie.
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
The Huglen no goal seems the most egregious to me. He was flat out checked into the goalie
This article is from CollegeHockeyNews.com
I find it interesting especially the part I bolded at the end of the article.
Nine years later and are things any better?
Well quit disallowing so many goals if you believe too many goals are being disallowed. 🤔
July 16, 2015
NCAA Amends Goalie Interference Rule
CHN Staff Report
The NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel has approved a change to ice hockey rules that will give referees more discretion on calling goalie interference.
The change will be implemented for the upcoming 2015-16 season.
In recent years, there has been a hardline policy in place against goaltender interference, even for incidental contact. Now, referees are given the leeway to judge whether the contact "impacted the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal."
An incident during the NCAA tournament brought the goaltender interference rule under increased scrutiny, even if the change may not directly apply to that situation.
In the first round of the tournament, a goal by RIT against top-seeded Minnesota State was initially disallowed because of goaltender interference. The referees overturned the call when they ruled that it was the defender who initiated the contact with the goaltender, not the offensive player.
The incident, though certainly not the only factor, generated a discussion on the nature of the entire rule.
At Ice Hockey Committee meetings earlier this season, the Committee decided to ask for a change in rule because it believed too many goals were being disallowed, and wanted to make the rule more flexible.
The fact that these refs can’t be logically consistent with infinite slow mo replays at their disposal from multiple angles says everything. And that’s not even getting into their (lack of) calls in real time which just leads to a more boring defensive game where skill players become irrelevant far too often.The Huglen goal is debatable, but the correct call would be a good goal. The Notre Dame goal isn't really debatable at all with the correct call being no goal. Neither are really tough calls for a competent official, and the fact that they still got them wrong after review tells you just how out of their depth these guys are.
@trixr4kids I’ve been saying this for years. They just will not call the hooks, the holds, etc that the NHL has enforced for years. The NHL cleaned up their product, and there were growing pains. The NCAA just will not or doesn’t care.
My feeling is they refuse to call this because the clutching/grabbing is an equalizer. In the NHL, all the teams have good offensive talent, and they're literally selling the product. In college, calling the game properly (calling all the clutch/grab/intereference/etc) would lead to a relative handful of teams winning way more games, which they don't want. They want parity, but without the club of a draft and salary cap to accomplish it.@trixr4kids I’ve been saying this for years. They just will not call the hooks, the holds, etc that the NHL has enforced for years. The NHL cleaned up their product, and there were growing pains. The NCAA just will not or doesn’t care.
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
Obviously biased but I don’t really think that improves the product.
As a fan of hockey, and college hockey in particular, I'd much prefer they actually call that garbage. Take out all the games including the Gophers or teams like the BADgers or Flickertails where I freely admit my biases, I want to see the game reward talent, skill and actual hard work that doesn't involve holding, interference, hooking, etc.
No, I'm not foolish enough to hold my breath waiting for that.
B1G refs... corrupt, or just incompetent?
Pretty good period for the Gophers. I think Bischel heard @eric-vegoe talking about him on the GPL podcast 😉
I mean... No. 1 Star of the Week for the B10...
Also Scooter Brickey was the No. 2 star and I thought this was one of the plays we're trying to remove from amatuer hockey. Maybe @fightclub30 can chime in on this one too.
Certainly looks to me like there is a player skating to the middle with their head down and the defender chooses to pick the head/shoulder area as the principal point of contact, head contact was avoidable (could have easily skated squarely through the body), the offensive player does not suddenly change posture that contributed to the point of contact and the defender followed through with his hands.
https://twitter.com/cjzero/status/1759002862254772470
Gage Ausmus called me out that it's a textbook hit and so I got some NoDak folks coming after me for a brutal take. Looked like a textbook Don Cherry Rock Em Sock Em Hit to me.
That hit is pretty much the exact opposite of "picking the head". He goes directly through his body. He finishes higher than you would like, and that's probably a penalty in today's game, but that's a pretty clean hit on a guy that needs to have atleast a little awareness
I'm interested to see what Fightclub says about the goalie interference calls. The previous three instances before tonight he seemed to say the refs got them right. He is a ref himself after all.
I don't know anything about him. But I worked with the guy who was head ref for the city. We would have morning breaks in the winter where conversations were often about a recent sporting event, often times a high school hockey game. Inevitably someone would question a call by a ref and every time this guy would get worked up defending the call, no matter who made it. Even when talking about Wild or Vikings games, where he was not supervising the refs, he would aggressively defend whatever the ref called, no matter how blatantly wrong the call was. He'd be raising his voice he would get so worked up when others were calmly offering their opinions. It seemed in his mind, if he ever admitted a ref made a bad call, then he could be questioned on one of his calls. (And he was notoriously inconsistent with his calls and would make retaliatory calls against teams that pissed him off.) So I have trouble accepting whatever a ref determines, even though I know this guy was probably the acception. Read the rules and interpret them yourself.
If I recall correctly, Fightclub didn't disagree with the first 3 calls against the Gophs for GT interference. I don't agree. I have skated all my life, and I don't believe Nelson could have avoided contact on one leg in the first one. On the second one, Moore was clearly pushed back into goalie with his legs in snowplow where he could not have avoided contact, and contact was so minor the goalie didn't even protest. On the third one, I thought even though a sliding player tripped him up, Nelson leaned a little more into the collision than he needed. However, when you factor in the goalie went down and laid there like he'd been shot, and then had time to reset, I would still lean towards allowing that goal. But think Nelson could have had less contact.
I could have gone either way with the two on Saturday in the absence of the other three calls setting precedence. But if you allow the goal where ND player is pushed in, then in the same game Huglan goal should count.
The Huglen no goal late in the 3rd period is shown at the 1:50 mark of this video.
Had a busy hockey and family weekend myself, so just getting around to scanning this thread.
With that being the only angle I have seen, that Huglen goal/no goal is a tough, tough call and I am thankful that I am not the one who had to make it.
Huglen comes down the wall, turns, and takes a hard path to the net. It appears he is trying to cut between the goalie and the defenseman across the top of the crease, which is within his right to do so.
The defender moves to defend his established position on the ice, also well within the rules. There is a clear lane to move behind the net, so it isn't like the Defender left him nowhere to go.
For me the contact with the goalie happened when the goalie was in the crease defending the goal. So already I can rule out the goalie for any causation here. I have to look at the was the contact with the goalie caused by the Gopher player taking a hardline to the net and running out of room, or did the defending player cause the Gopher to collide with the goalie.
Just being there isn't causation. If the defending player was there on top of the crease, Huglen would not be allowed to skate through the goalie in the crease to make a path. Defender is allowed to hold his established position, goalie allowed to defend the net and is protected in the crease.
Looking at this full speed, seeing where the low official was standing, I can see why he called what he did. It would've been hard to see what the defender did, and it probably looked like the attacking player was mostly at fault for the contact there.
Taking the benefit of the raised camera angle, and playing at a slower speed I can see the defending player initiate body contact and cause a collision between the Gopher player and the defender. I am also unable to see where the puck is and when (and where) it entered the net. Was it behind the goalie before contact? That seems doubtful, but certainly possible. Is the puck in the process of going past him? Or did he stop the puck and it enters the net as a result of being run over?
I have seen no other angles, and I have no idea what else they were looking at. From that view, I could see an argument being made either way, and I am 50/50 on it.
I don't have a good enough view of the play from this single angle (if this was the only replay view I was given) to determine who was at fault for the contact with the goalie. The defender didn't come out of nowhere, and Huglen made a choice to take a route where there was unlikely to be enough room to go. The defender is allow to defend his position, but doesn't have free reign to throw a guy into his goalie either. And I'd want to see if Huglen used the contact as an opportunity to make additional/egregious contact with the goalie.
@J22 neither are tough calls? I haven't seen the "other" play in reference, but that Huglen call is a difficult call to make based on the information I have seen. I have no idea what review showed, so I cannot comment on that.
That hit is pretty much the exact opposite of "picking the head". He goes directly through his body. He finishes higher than you would like, and that's probably a penalty in today's game, but that's a pretty clean hit on a guy that needs to have atleast a little awareness
This is what it looks like when you go straight through someone. Also professional hockey, where they are given more leeway than just seperating the skater from the puck like in the amatuer game.
https://twitter.com/heatdaddy69420/status/1653221578568769536/video/1
You're putting quite a bit of irrelevant information into your analysis. The defender having established position is irrelevant. There being room behind the net is irrelevant.The Huglen no goal late in the 3rd period is shown at the 1:50 mark of this video.
Had a busy hockey and family weekend myself, so just getting around to scanning this thread.
With that being the only angle I have seen, that Huglen goal/no goal is a tough, tough call and I am thankful that I am not the one who had to make it.
Huglen comes down the wall, turns, and takes a hard path to the net. It appears he is trying to cut between the goalie and the defenseman across the top of the crease, which is within his right to do so.
The defender moves to defend his established position on the ice, also well within the rules. There is a clear lane to move behind the net, so it isn't like the Defender left him nowhere to go.
For me the contact with the goalie happened when the goalie was in the crease defending the goal. So already I can rule out the goalie for any causation here. I have to look at the was the contact with the goalie caused by the Gopher player taking a hardline to the net and running out of room, or did the defending player cause the Gopher to collide with the goalie.
Just being there isn't causation. If the defending player was there on top of the crease, Huglen would not be allowed to skate through the goalie in the crease to make a path. Defender is allowed to hold his established position, goalie allowed to defend the net and is protected in the crease.
Looking at this full speed, seeing where the low official was standing, I can see why he called what he did. It would've been hard to see what the defender did, and it probably looked like the attacking player was mostly at fault for the contact there.
Taking the benefit of the raised camera angle, and playing at a slower speed I can see the defending player initiate body contact and cause a collision between the Gopher player and the defender. I am also unable to see where the puck is and when (and where) it entered the net. Was it behind the goalie before contact? That seems doubtful, but certainly possible. Is the puck in the process of going past him? Or did he stop the puck and it enters the net as a result of being run over?
I have seen no other angles, and I have no idea what else they were looking at. From that view, I could see an argument being made either way, and I am 50/50 on it.
I don't have a good enough view of the play from this single angle (if this was the only replay view I was given) to determine who was at fault for the contact with the goalie. The defender didn't come out of nowhere, and Huglen made a choice to take a route where there was unlikely to be enough room to go. The defender is allow to defend his position, but doesn't have free reign to throw a guy into his goalie either. And I'd want to see if Huglen used the contact as an opportunity to make additional/egregious contact with the goalie.
@J22 neither are tough calls? I haven't seen the "other" play in reference, but that Huglen call is a difficult call to make based on the information I have seen. I have no idea what review showed, so I cannot comment on that.
There's one simple question that needs to be answered in this scenario. Did the defender cause Huglen to enter the crease and make contact with the goaltender? That's not a tough call at all
That's pretty much identical to the hit you're talking aboutThat hit is pretty much the exact opposite of "picking the head". He goes directly through his body. He finishes higher than you would like, and that's probably a penalty in today's game, but that's a pretty clean hit on a guy that needs to have atleast a little awareness
This is what it looks like when you go straight through someone. Also professional hockey, where they are given more leeway than just seperating the skater from the puck like in the amatuer game.
https://twitter.com/heatdaddy69420/status/1653221578568769536/video/1
this is what "picking the head" looks like-
You're putting quite a bit of irrelevant information into your analysis. The defender having established position is irrelevant. There being room behind the net is irrelevant.
There's one simple question that needs to be answered in this scenario. Did the defender cause Huglen to enter the crease and make contact with the goaltender? That's not a tough call at all
How about I cut to the chase:
Interpretations: Rule 83. Goals. A.R. 7:
A1 drives to the net and is tripped. A1 slides into the goalkeeper, propelling the goalkeeper and the puck into the net. RULING: Regardless if a penalty is called, no goal shall be awarded, because the puck has entered the goal cage illegally.
That is what is says in the NCAA rulebook. If you don't like the way these are called, then you are going to have to change what is written in the rulebook.
So if nothing I wrote matters, then all we have to look at is this. And thus, I have no goal.
This goes back to the question, is checking guys into your own goalie a strategy? Fair question.
Had to look it up because I couldn't even imagine anyone could be dumb enough to write that rule. Honestly, that's incredible.You're putting quite a bit of irrelevant information into your analysis. The defender having established position is irrelevant. There being room behind the net is irrelevant.
There's one simple question that needs to be answered in this scenario. Did the defender cause Huglen to enter the crease and make contact with the goaltender? That's not a tough call at all
How about I cut to the chase:
Interpretations: Rule 83. Goals. A.R. 7:
A1 drives to the net and is tripped. A1 slides into the goalkeeper, propelling the goalkeeper and the puck into the net. RULING: Regardless if a penalty is called, no goal shall be awarded, because the puck has entered the goal cage illegally.
That is what is says in the NCAA rulebook. If you don't like the way these are called, then you are going to have to change what is written in the rulebook.
So if nothing I wrote matters, then all we have to look at is this. And thus, I have no goal.
This goes back to the question, is checking guys into your own goalie a strategy? Fair question.
Everytime that I think NCAA hockey officiating can't possibly get worse, I see something like this and realize that I have no idea just how terrible it is.
You're putting quite a bit of irrelevant information into your analysis. The defender having established position is irrelevant. There being room behind the net is irrelevant.
There's one simple question that needs to be answered in this scenario. Did the defender cause Huglen to enter the crease and make contact with the goaltender? That's not a tough call at all
How about I cut to the chase:
Interpretations: Rule 83. Goals. A.R. 7:
A1 drives to the net and is tripped. A1 slides into the goalkeeper, propelling the goalkeeper and the puck into the net. RULING: Regardless if a penalty is called, no goal shall be awarded, because the puck has entered the goal cage illegally.
That is what is says in the NCAA rulebook. If you don't like the way these are called, then you are going to have to change what is written in the rulebook.
So if nothing I wrote matters, then all we have to look at is this. And thus, I have no goal.
This goes back to the question, is checking guys into your own goalie a strategy? Fair question.
If the video is stopped at 1:50 right after the view is no longer blocked by the second Notre Dame player it shows the Notre Dame defender who was beaten by Huglen pushing Huglen from behind into his own goalie.
I appreciate your insists and am not arguing with you I am just stating that if it keeps getting called this way it is a very slippery slope that actually puts goalies in more danger. Like this play show defenders when beat will just push the player who beat them into their goalie and based on the way the rule is written it encourages that they push the offensive player hard so he hits the goalie quickly before the puck crosses the goal line. Is that really what we want to encourage?
When a rule is actually being used against it own intended purpose (protecting the goalie from injury) then the rule isn't doing what it was intended to do.
This is why I brought up this issue weeks ago.
Any thoughts on this?
https://twitter.com/NDHockey/status/1759006753889321264