Isn't it the case for checking from behind, that it is a 5-minute major and Game DQ automatically? If the call was checking from behind, than there is no choice or option for the referee. Normally referees try to wiggle out of the automatic DQ by calling boarding instead of checking from behind. That is where the real judgment comes in. But if the call was boarding, and then the Game DQ was done separately, then it must have been for a different reason.

Nathan


On 1/19/09 10:22 AM, "Mark Lewin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I understand that the rules are very specific in defining how a game
misconduct differs from a game disqualification under rule 4.  But that was
not my question.  What I am interested in is the criteria used by the
officials to determine whether a game misconduct, a game disqualification or
neither of the above is warranted.

Rule 6 defines the penalties and their "punishments" ranging from minor to
major with misconduct/disqualification.  Boarding (it is written) carries
either a minor or a major. There is no mention of either a game misconduct
or disqualification. As another poster noted, the only reasonable
explanation  for the call was that there was a major for boarding and the
game disqualification was for a different infraction (excessive roughness
rule 6,section 13).

The question I posed was what criteria is used to assess that penalty (it is
an automatic disqualification).  The only "reasonable" answer I've seen so
far is that the referee makes the determination based on the extent of the
injury.  The injured player could be embellishing his injury but the rules
leave it up to the officials to determine that (which, of course, is their
job).

Having watched the replay of the hit on television, it appears that
Burgdoerfer hit the Cornell player 10-15 feet away from the boards.  It
looked like a clean check except that it was in the direction of the
boards.  Unfortunately, the forward got caught up in his skates, went down
as he approached the boards and slammed into the boards shoulder first. He
was down for quite a while. This all happened with less than 10 seconds left
in the game and RPI was down 3-0 so the hit really had no bearing on the
outcome of the game. The referee stood in the vicinity of the injured player
while the trainer came out watching the proceedings while he and other
officials worked to keep players from the two teams from a brawl. The
referee did not call the DQ immediately so apparently he felt that the
injury was real and not embellished.  To my thinking, his call was based on
the fact that the hit was unnecessary at that point in the game, the injury
caused was real and that any other call (major or GM) was meaningless since
the game was over at that point. Burgdoerfer was unfortunate in that the
check was not particularly vicious but circumstances caused the Cornell
player to be out of control at the point he hit the boards and that caused
an injury.  He could have stayed up and been uninjured but, then again, he
could have hit the wall head first and been paralyzed. Burgdoerfer was
penalized because he chose to hit the player in a manner that could have had
major consequences.  I did not see that Burgdoerfer demonstrated an "intent
to injure", but, nevertheless, he put the other player in danger.   Based on
this, I think the referee made a reasonable call.

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 12:44 AM, J. Adam Butts <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The NCAA rulebook is pretty explicit about when a DQ is assessed versus a
> GM.  The penalties are defined in Rule 4.  GM is 4-4b and is basically "get
> out of here" with the player leaving the game being played with no further
> penalty.  A DQ is defined in 4-5 and includes ejections from subsequent
> games in a progressive manner.  DQs can also generally result in further
> penalties assessed by the league.
>
> The NCAA rulebook also has a "Summary of Penalties" section where you can
> quickly scan the different situations that result in one or the other.  If
> you do this, it is immediately obvious that the DQ is the more severe
> penalty.
>
> You will not find boarding under the DQ list; as you pointed out, it
> warrants a minor or major.  However, I imagine the DQ was added under 6-13,
> which allows a DQ to be assessed for excessive roughness.
>
> J. Adam Butts
> [log in to unmask]
>
>