I heard TV anouncers talking about this.  They interviewed the ref (or was it the official up above?) who explained the 5 iminute part.  According to the anouncers the various camera angles were inconclusive until they got a look at the last one, and that one they said was conclusive and showed it to be a no-goal.

IMO, if the Ref can "swallow the whistle" (a scenario I disagree with profoundly) to "let the players on the ice" decide the game (like I guess that means whoever is more successful at cheating away from the puck), then when something is this close and it was originally called a goal on the ice, it should stay that way.

OTOH, from my view of the tape of the game (I was at work - Yuck!), in a sense, justice was served for the first two periods since UNH clearly outplayed CU the majority of the time.  CU seemed to think they needed to just play positions and muscle things around and let spectacular goaltending hold the fort while they wore the opponent down.  Can't fault them in a way - its a formula that has given them a lot of success this year.  But UNH managed to score a few goals by being quicker.  CU came on in the third, changing tactics to a degree, but it was too late to save the game.  Makes me wonder if CU had played all out speed from the start if they wouldn't have won.

All of this is tempered by the fact you really can't get a feel for the game watching it on the tube like you can in person.  It will be informative to me to read the comments of those actually there to see if they saw the same thing or not.

Tom Rowe                            UWSP dept of Psych
===================================
Home of Division III National Champion Pointers
89, 90, 91 & 93 and National Runners-up 92 & 98
and likely never again in the final skate
===================================


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Patten [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:11 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: UNH-Cornell: One Period Done
>
>
> 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-
>