so in this case shouldn't this mean it should be a goal. as the replay
clearly showed the puck hit the blade somewhere at a height of the dasher
which is well below 4 ft? and as the blade was basically flat to the ice at
the point it to was below 4 ft. at hsbc the dashers are at 42"...
any in any case you can remove the camera angle from the equation by noting
that the stick was below the letters on the players jersey when the contact
was made... 6ft player on skates bent over feet apart.. that puts 4ft just
about exactly at his cornell letters or above..

so for all the debating there is no way the official had any visual
evidence that was conclusive
that anything occurred over 4ft with what the replays showed..
my question is what were the ref and the replay judge talking about for so
long after the call came down? a 2 minute discussion that had to be about
rules of some kind that explanation could have cleared alot up.. had this
been the nfl or ncaa b-ball it would be discussed to death, but hockey it
will just disappear...

but its no worse a call than the one CU got against Lake Superior in albany
about 10 years ago that also cost them a chance to get to the final
4  where a goal was taken away...

guess we CU fans have too long memories for our own good...


> From '99 Rule Book (obviously obsolete by now, but the best I can do):
>
>A goal scored above the height of 4 feet [1.22 m], shall not be allowed,
>except
>by a player of the defending team. (Rule 16 b)
>
>  ... and 16 d (3)  when the puck is struck above 4 feet directly to the
>goal keeper there shall be an immediate whistle.
>   (followed by 3 phrases defining the ensuing faceoff spot)
>
>... and again under playing rules . . .
>
>Section 18
>  A.R.1: Attacking player A1 is carrying the stick the stick with the stick
>blade above his shoulders. The puck strikes the butt-end of the stick which
>is below the height the height of 4 feet and goes into the Team B goal.
>Ruling: No goal.  When any part of the stick is carried above 4 feet the
>entire stick is considered to be high.
>
>
>  (Cynical comment that should not have been written and you should not
>read: These items are some 25-30 pages apart and must be found, read and
>interpreted we could still be waiting for the ruling.)
>  Boards should extend not less than 40 inches and not more than 48 inches
> above
>thelevel of the ice surface. The ideal height shall be 42 inches. No
>telling what Pro rules say, no telling whether Buffalo rink follows any
>rules . . .  no telling where camera was mounted or even if it was fixed
>in one place . . .      . . .     . . .     . . .  well that should allow
>everyone todraw their own conclusion abou the legality of the goal,
>including the officials who ruled.
>
>  Sorry about interfering with the discussion.
>
>
>Now, about where the yardsticks are initially placed on a football field
>when starting a 4-down series . . .  then measuring to the last gnat's
>eyelash to check for the next first down  . . .
>
>-glen-