Well I'll add my 2 cents.  The second goal should have counted.  I agree
that the first was kicked in--that's what I thought had happened when
the ref waved off the goal.  However the official explanation was the
whistle had already sounded.  The second is a mystery.  I saw the
channel 23 replay and it was CLEARLY a goal.  Also this morning's T-U
had an interesting quote from the goal judge.  I have never seen an
on-ice official commented to the media on the game.
    "That goal was definitely in the net," said (goal judge) Reynolds.
"He (referee Fulton) came over and asked me and I told him it was in the
net.  I don't
      know why he asked me if he wasn't going to listen to what I had to
say."

After the controversial non-goal the RPI scoreboard read: Refs  2, RPI
0--an apparent breach of Fieldhouse decorum.

While I don't blame the refs for RPI failing to gain home ice, (the
Engineers dug themselves in a hole with their early season funk) I would
say once again the calls like those of referee Fulton underline the
woeful state of officiating in the ECAC.  I would hope that none of the
ECAC officials get to work the Frozen Four because I would hate to see
the tourney screwed up by the clueless bunch of zebras employed by the
league.  Last night for example Fulton blew the whistle at least three
times before the goalie had control of the puck, that is goaltender
Marsters of RPI.  It has become such an every game occurrence that I
have become numb when I see an obvious poor call by the officials.  I am
willing to wager that every other ECAC H-Ler will agree with my
pronouncement-that the quality of play in the league is mirrored by the
abysmal officiating we are now seeing in the ECAC.
**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************
*************
Brian Morris
So why can't Brown lose to the 13th placed team tonight?
[log in to unmask]
1n Saturday, March 2, 2002, at 11:31 AM, Mark Lewin wrote:

> You almost fanned the flames in an unintentional manner.
> Even watching the replay clips on the local news at 11PM,
> there was nothing conclusive about the would be goal.
> I have no clear cut evidence that it was a goal so I can't argue it.
>
> The near flame was the "real Big Red" comment. I was ready to comment
> that RPI is celebrating 100 years of RPI hockey which makes us the
> "real Big Red".  However, after researching a bit, I see that Cornell
> goes back to 1900 so I lose that one too.
> I guess the best I can do in the "nyah-nyah" department is to say that
> Cornell hockey was nothing until they stole our coach
> (Ned Harkness) back in 1963.  (It's not much of a flame but it's all I
> have at the moment. And if my "Big Red" team doesn't win tonight plus
> get a few breaks from other games, I'll have nothing left to do for the
> next few weeks until it's time for the NC$$ contest to start up
> again ;-)
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: Bill Fenwick <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Bill Fenwick <[log in to unmask]>
> Date:          Sat, 2 Mar 2002 09:41:38 -0500
>
>> Mark Lewin wrote:
>>
>>> The second "apparent goal" was inconclusive. There was a scramble on
>>> the far side if the net. The RPI players started celebrating, the
>>> referee started to signal no goal but the goal judge turned on the
>>> red light. The ref and two assistant referees retired to the sideline
>>> to discuss the situation and then the referee asked the goal judge to
>>> come down to the ice to discuss things.  After all that, the referee
>>> skated to the scorer's table, then the RPI bench and then the Cornell
>>> bench at which point the faceoff was moved outside the Cornell zone
>>> and no goal was posted on the scoreboard.  There was never any
>>> announcement made.  I'd like to be righteously indignant about this
>>> one but honestly, I never saw the puck so I have no idea whether it
>>> went in after the whistle or whether it ever crossed the goal line.
>>
>> Not to fan the flames on this one, but there's a posting on the
>> Cornell forum from a Cornell fan who looked at a video clip, and he
>> said it looked like the puck did go in.  I'm going to guess it was a
>> quick whistle by referee Fulton, since he started to wave the goal off
>> before having the discussion.
>>
>> David LeNeveu was a "surprise" starter for the Big Red (the real
>> ones), as Matt Underhill was supposed to start but took a "hard shot"
>> during warmups and spent the game on the bench.  No word yet on the
>> severity of Underhill's injury.
>>
>> Bill Fenwick
>>
>