To be perfectly aboveboard, the replay actually showed Burgdoerfer hitting
the Cornell forward in the side, propelling him towards the boards.  So by
the letter of the definition, he was not guilty of checking from behind.  He
also did not charge into him. On replay, it actually looked like a clean
check.  Unfortunately, it was hard enough to cause the forward to lose
balance and go crashing into the boards to cause injury.  The only honest
call the ref could make was boarding (not that refs are necessarily
interested in keeping their calls honest) and the idea of excessive
roughness was the only way a DQ could be justified.

I've not seen or heard anything about the Cornell player who was injured.
Wondering about the extent of his injury.  Anyone from Cornell out there
that has heard something specific?

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM, John Edwards <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Hampton, Nathan E.
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Checking from behind into the boards or the net is a 5-minute major
> and either a Game Misconduct or a Game Disqualification.
>
> You're right, though, that Boarding is the call used to keep a player
> in the game, if the referee doesn't feel that it warrants ejection.
>
> John
>
> --
> John Edwards
> I used to put quotes here.
>