I completely agree with you on the last 2 plays.
Thank you!
The first one where Nelson goes into the Mich St. goalie. You're a better skater, and have better balance than that. Clearly incidental goaltender interference. No goal, and no penalty, and faceoff goes outside.
The second one where Moore backs into the keeper, again I've got no goal. It appears his skate makes contact with the goalie's stick and hip makes contact with the blocker, and then maybe even head as he turns. He is impeding the goalies ability to defend the goal. Also, he is in the crease and once he is in the crease he cannot screen the goalie. I've got no goal, and faceoff goes outside. He has to know where the crease is, and he is playing on the razor's edge there, if not actually in it.
The third one. He goes directly into the goalie and makes egregious contact. He could've done way more to avoid or minimize contact. He takes a path to the net, yes the defender dove down, but he is cutting hard to the net. Then makes considerable, likely avoidable, contact with the goalie. That looks exactly like the play I outlined above; oh, there is minor contact with a defender here, I am going to use this as an opportunity to pretend I am off balance and plow into the goalie and see what happens. I am even debating a 2:00 penalty in my head if I am honest, but the goal being wiped off is probably punishment enough, especially at 2:44 of the 3rd in a tie game... First period and/or lopsided game and that could very likely be a 2:00 penalty. And I really don't want to hear the argument that the score/time of the game shouldn't matter. Because it absolutely does, and if you don't want it to, I don't think you'll be happy with the results of that.
If you don't like that the officials let it play out, and didn't blow it dead immediately. Blame replay, and blame people whining about "quick whistles". This is what you have now. They let it play out because it may, or may not, affect play. WIS could gain possession of the puck and go the other way, Minnesota might not score. Yes, played continued for several seconds, but the goalie has to be allowed time to "re-compose" or whatever since it was an attacking player who initiated the contact. He rushed to get back into position, and just because he shuffled his feet twice doesn't mean much of anything to me in this scenario. I'd be pretty upset if a Badger did that to a Gopher goalie and the goal was allowed to stand. He also waived it off on the ice. Absolutely no goal.
On the third goal, if the Wisconsin gains possession, cannot clear the zone, and/or more time had gone on I could see more of an argument being made. But looking at the play as presented, I agree with no goal.
I have no problem with no goal on any of these plays, and don't think any are that controversial. Sorry.
After watching all of them several times, the one that really stands out as a terrible call is the last one. Tripped into the goalie, goalie embellishes the hit and lays on the ice for about 5 minutes, then gets up and gets scored on. The goalie needs to make a good faith effort to get up right away.
Yes and no. I would argue the MN player needs to make a good faith effort and not plowing over the goalie as well, and he did not. 2 wrongs don't make a right. And Wisconsin never gained possession.
If he lays on the ice and fakes an injury, we've still got no goal. Should the goalie be punished because he made a rushed attempt and getting up to allow play to continue? I don't think so.
Can't agree with you completely ignoring a blatant crosscheck/interference by the Wisco defender on the 1st play
I completely agree with you on the last 2 plays.
Can't agree with you completely ignoring a blatant crosscheck/interference by the Wisco defender on the 1st play
I took the stance of, if I am looking at this replay, what am I calling? So I am assuming nothing was called on that.
Crosscheck? meh. 20 of those happen a game and go uncalled... Would I like to see more of them called? Absolutely. Is that the current standard across NCAA Division 1? Not from what I have seen.
Interference? I can see more of an argument for that. However we are getting close to the front of the net where inference is almost allowed as players jockey for position. Depending on what else is going on in the game I could see an argument for either side. If it was the second period, and that was the first penalty of the game? I'd hate a penalty call there.
As far as after the goalie contact, I think he is a better skater than that and could've avoid contact. That one foot stays up in the air a little long. Again, I think he is looking for an advantage of appearing to be more off balance than he actually is. He does do a nice job of keeping his arms to the side and trying to slide behind the goalie and minimize contact. However once he takes that path 'behind' the goalie, contact almost becomes imminent when play goes to that side.
I certainly see your argument, and not trying to say there isn't something there, just that I am okay with no goal in this particular situation.
There isn't a right/wrong here as this gets into judgement and grey area in my opinion.
If I'm Motzko, I would be beyond pissed that you ignore a blatant penalty and then assume that my player could've done a better job avoiding the goalie.I completely agree with you on the last 2 plays.
Can't agree with you completely ignoring a blatant crosscheck/interference by the Wisco defender on the 1st play
I took the stance of, if I am looking at this replay, what am I calling? So I am assuming nothing was called on that.
Crosscheck? meh. 20 of those happen a game and go uncalled... Would I like to see more of them called? Absolutely. Is that the current standard across NCAA Division 1? Not from what I have seen.
Interference? I can see more of an argument for that. However we are getting close to the front of the net where inference is almost allowed as players jockey for position. Depending on what else is going on in the game I could see an argument for either side. If it was the second period, and that was the first penalty of the game? I'd hate a penalty call there.
As far as after the goalie contact, I think he is a better skater than that and could've avoid contact. That one foot stays up in the air a little long. Again, I think he is looking for an advantage of appearing to be more off balance than he actually is. He does do a nice job of keeping his arms to the side and trying to slide behind the goalie and minimize contact. However once he takes that path 'behind' the goalie, contact almost becomes imminent when play goes to that side.
I certainly see your argument, and not trying to say there isn't something there, just that I am okay with no goal in this particular situation.
There isn't a right/wrong here as this gets into judgement and grey area in my opinion.
Nelson puts in the work to beat his defender, and even starts to change his course so he will avoid the crease. The defender throws a crosscheck, out of desperation because hes beat, that is well beyond the (100 of those happen every game) variety. Not only am I expecting the goal to count, I would be all over your ass about the obvious penalty.
If I'm Motzko, I would be beyond pissed that you ignore a blatant penalty and then assume that my player could've done a better job avoiding the goalie.
Nelson puts in the work to beat his defender, and even starts to change his course so he will avoid the crease. The defender throws a crosscheck, out of desperation because hes beat, that is well beyond the (100 of those happen every game) variety. Not only am I expecting the goal to count, I would be all over your ass about the obvious penalty.
That's fair, and would be your privilege to do so. I am completely willing to listen to the argument here, because yes, you have one. Just saying what I saw. It wouldn't be the first or last time someone would be all over me about a missed called, actual or perceived. Again, not saying I am right and you are wrong. Just saying what I see. I could very well be wrong. And if that was the case, it wouldn't be the first time, and most likely won't be the last. Other than marrying my wife... my judgement is questionable at best. haha.
Also, the fact that we even agreed on two out of the three, knowing our history, is something worth marking on the calendar... haha. 😆
EDIT: Also wouldn't be the first time Motzko was all over me. Back in 2012~ish, against Omaha, I called a Too Many Men against SCSU while they were on the PP. His face was redder than the sweater vest he had one screaming at me. I am pretty sure his grip bent the clipboard he was holding. He said he was going to look at the tape, and after he saw how bad it was he would make sure I never worked a game again. I started to question myself, if I actually saw it. I went home and watched the game film, and when even the homer color commentary guy Mark Parrish goes "yeup, they had too many guys out there" you know it must be fairly obvious, haha.
I think we usually agree when it comes to discussions about officiating. It's your love of Devyn Dubnyk that always got me going.If I'm Motzko, I would be beyond pissed that you ignore a blatant penalty and then assume that my player could've done a better job avoiding the goalie.
Nelson puts in the work to beat his defender, and even starts to change his course so he will avoid the crease. The defender throws a crosscheck, out of desperation because hes beat, that is well beyond the (100 of those happen every game) variety. Not only am I expecting the goal to count, I would be all over your ass about the obvious penalty.
That's fair, and would be your privilege to do so. I am completely willing to listen to the argument here, because yes, you have one. Just saying what I saw. It wouldn't be the first or last time someone would be all over me about a missed called, actual or perceived. Again, not saying I am right and you are wrong. Just saying what I see. I could very well be wrong. And if that was the case, it wouldn't be the first time, and most likely won't be the last. Other than marrying my wife... my judgement is questionable at best. haha.
Also, the fact that we even agreed on two out of the three, knowing our history, is something worth marking on the calendar... haha. 😆
EDIT: Also wouldn't be the first time Motzko was all over me. Back in 2012~ish, against Omaha, I called a Too Many Men against SCSU while they were on the PP. His face was redder than the sweater vest he had one screaming at me. I am pretty sure his grip bent the clipboard he was holding. He said he was going to look at the tape, and after he saw how bad it was he would make sure I never worked a game again. I started to question myself, if I actually saw it. I went home and watched the game film, and when even the homer color commentary guy Mark Parrish goes "yeup, they had too many guys out there" you know it must be fairly obvious, haha.
If he lays on the ice and fakes an injury, we've still got no goal. Should the goalie be punished because he made a rushed attempt and getting up to allow play to continue? I don't think so.
So then anytime a goalie gets bumped and the opponent has the puck or his team is scrambling he should lay on the ice faking an injury to get a faceoff so his team can get fresh bodies on the ice and get a 50/50 chance of his team getting the puck.
If he lays on the ice and fakes an injury, we've still got no goal. Should the goalie be punished because he made a rushed attempt and getting up to allow play to continue? I don't think so.
So then anytime a goalie gets bumped and the opponent has the puck he should lay on the ice faking an injury to get a faceoff to get a 50/50 chance of his team getting the puck.
Of course, if the Gophers tried that the other team would score and they wouldn't get goalie interference called.
Watching the B1G Hockey in 60 on BTN right now. It is a show with highlights of the prior weeks B1G games. They showed the 1st waved off goal but didn't show the 2nd one...hmm.. Were they told not to show the 2nd one?
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
If he lays on the ice and fakes an injury, we've still got no goal. Should the goalie be punished because he made a rushed attempt and getting up to allow play to continue? I don't think so.
So then anytime a goalie gets bumped and the opponent has the puck or his team is scrambling he should lay on the ice faking an injury to get a faceoff so his team can get fresh bodies on the ice and get a 50/50 chance of his team getting the puck.
You run the risk of the ref not thinking it was intentional or your own player and letting the play go.
For years we've been hearing "go to the net." Now I'm hearing "if you get anywhere near the net you can be pushed into the goalie."
I'm not trying to say that Moore is completely responsible for the goaltender contact. I am saying that IMO, he doesn't do enough to try and avoid contact, and the little bit of contact from the Wisconsin player isn't enough to excuse the contact that is made.
You cant let offensive players run into goalies everytime they get the slightest bit of contact. I don't think this play in particular is a case of either player really doing anything wrong, but the end result is Moore being in a spot that hes not allowed to be. It's also fairly easy to argue this call on either side and have a decent case.
This is a good summary of what I said. The Division I players know what they are doing, and will try to use everything they can to their advantage. Just getting bumped is not an excuse for contact with the goalie.
Do D1 goalies know what they are doing and how to gain advantage too??? (Portillo comes to mind)
on the 3rd one, it was downright embarrassing from the goalie and the official. You have to blow it dead immediately when he goes down if you’re going to call it, not after you see a result you don’t like. And then if you’re waiving it off, it’s 100% goalie interference. You can’t just decide after the fact it ends up in the net that now you don’t like it anymore especially when McClellan lays there like he was hit with a 2x4
That is not the impetus from the NCAA, just FYI.
Also, the establishment of goalie interference leading to no goal, and no penalty is well established. You can have goaltender interference, enough for no goal, but not enough for a penalty. That has been around a long time and nobody is arguing to change that.
And yes, you can decide after the fact that you don't like something you just saw. Isn't that what they specifically developed instant replay for? People already scream at officials for trying to make a decision in an instant, and then if their instantaneous decision is even the slightest bit wrong, oh my goodness, what a terrible human being to make such a horrible mistake.
So do you want instantaneous decisions where there is a chance for error? Or do you want plays to play out, have the chance to look at replay if needed, and have a lessened, but still a chance, to get it wrong?
Just be careful what you wish for is all I am saying.
sorry should've been clearer. I mean in the instance he lays on the ice like he is hurt. thought that was always the impetus with goalies being down was to blow the play dead when contact is made by an attacking player rather than let things go.
Lots of discussion about these no-goal calls. As a few others have said I would go with the last one (WI Nelson) being the one where it was pretty clear in my eyes. EITHER you call a trip/interference on WI or you let the goal stand. Given the very long delay, the goal should stand. You can argue all day about a player 'being a good enough skater' to avoid situations but this is high speed interaction involving a player and a stick in Nelson's feet, throw in an abrupt change in direction in close quarters and most players even at this level do not avoid that contact. I also recall (am I crazy?) that there was a situation involving Close (last year?) where he was told by the ref he had to make an effort to defend his crease by making an effort to push guys out? Was that a dream? If not then no clue what players are supposed to be doing in any of the positions
That Nelson one was so stupid.
'29, '40, '74, '76, '79, '02, & '03
GPL's Resident Cabin Enthusiast & Cadets Hockey Fan
It will be interesting if Bob discusses it any further on is show tonight with Wally
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
The refs are looking at an identical play as the Moore play right now in the Bean Pot. They declared it a good goal. I give up.
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
There is probably a replay algorithm that factors in what team benefits/loses from the decision.
The refs are looking at an identical play as the Moore play right now in the Bean Pot. They declared it a good goal. I give up.
Here is the replay of the "goal". A couple of things you can't see on this clip. First, the goalie gets tangled up with a couple of players right before this clip starts and loses his stick. Then, on the overhead view on TV, Harvards #11 is barely in the crease but his skate touches the pad of the goalie when he is in the crease right before the puck goes in...
NE challenged and the refs upheld the goal call.
https://twitter.com/NCAAIceHockey/status/1754643870594269547
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
The goal is scored with the goalies stick behind the net.
Just put an electronic wheel on the scoreboard that is goal/no goal (50/50) and let the spinning wheel decide. Much quicker than reviews.
For extra drama you could alternate goal/no goal slots all around the wheel.