Arthur Berman <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>There is one factor in the Vermont/CC goal/no goal issue that we haven't
>discussed.  There was a real threat at the time the goal was "scored"
>that the ice would be unplayable.  I think the officials may have felt
>the pressure to have the game conclude so that any borderline, or
>ambiguous, situation would, perhaps on an unconcious level, result in a
>decision causing the game to conclude so the icemaking plant could be
>repaired.
 
I expected that if the game went on long enough and the ice got bad
enough, then the game would simply have been halted.  But I believe
that decision would probably have been made by the tournament
organizers, and thus, it would not have reflected upon the on-ice
officials at all.
 
Note that it had already been decided to have another intermission
after only ten minutes of the second overtime.  If there was pressure
to end the game in a hurry, this decision would not have been made.
 
I think the simpler and more sensible explanation is that the referees
made the initial call, then after conferring, decided they did not
have enough evidence to overturn the call (or they decided that the
original call was correct).  I do not believe there was any such
pressure on the referees, conscious or not, that entered into the
decisions to call the goal and then not overturn it.
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                 [log in to unmask]           [log in to unmask]
Cabletron Systems, Inc.                                    *HMM* 11/13/93
*****      Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:        *****
***** http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html      *****
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.