Mike writes:
>
> RPI's Jeff Brick received a minor for "throwing the puck" late in the third
> period of his team's semifinal loss to SLU.  SLU scored on the power play
> to pull within one.  I've never heard of this penalty being called in this
> manner, although it is clearly a penalty.  Rule 6-17a talks about gloving/
> throwing the puck so I suppose it could be possible, but I've never heard
> such a penalty be called "throwing the puck".
 
I was stunned by this one.  Contrary to at least one other posting, this
penalty was called when Brick batted and/or threw the puck forward from
near the SLU blue line (if it was called because a player allegedly threw the
puck away from a ref or linesman the penalty would be unsportsmanlike
conduct).  Given its non-impact on the game (it wasn't, for example,
done to clear a puck out of the crease before the opposition could bat
it in), non-enforcement (I've seen similar events many times without
such a call) and questionable interpretation (I would leave this to
Mike...the man with the rule book and access to replays...is closing
one's hand on the puck required and did Brick do that or simply bat it
forward?), it is hard to imagine any referee calling such a thing, much
less with five minutes left in a playoff semifinal.  Let's face it, like
every sport hockey has two sets of rules, those that are written and
those that are enforced (see the phantom double play in baseball for a
non-hockey corollary)....pulling this one out seems incredibly
overzealous.
 
Having said that, I can't concur with the few people I heard call Murphy
"anti-RPI."  Remember, he's the same guy that called a penalty in OT
which resulted in RPI's game-winner versus Harvard.  If you want to
accuse him of refereeing by the scoreboard (would three late penalties
have been called on RPI if they were losing or tied?) that's a
possibility, but we'd need a lot more evidence.  I think he just
showed poor judgement.
 
To the RPI fans, please don't harass Murphy on his first visit into the
Fieldhouse next year.  Booing him at the start of OT may have felt good,
but it didn't help.  There is no body of evidence that suggests he is
anti-RPI or even a bad referee (other than the throwing the puck I
couldn't disagree with his calls...I didn't get a good enough view of the
other two late RPI penalties to draw strong judgements).  However, if
you harass him, you could make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Despite
the views of some, referees are human.
 
Re: SLU, I think they showed great character to come back.  I thought
they had packed it in with ten minutes left...I was wrong.  Good luck to
SLU in the NCAAs.
 
Re: the Engineers, things bode well.  They are a very young team.  They
also showed great character by coming back from a poor start (with
resulting 2-0 deficit) and by playing so well in OT after they were
stunned in regulation (after a slow start in OT, they outplayed SLU).  I
see only good things for this team if they get a few defensemen...the
rest of the team returns almost intact.
 
Re: the ECAC.  Debate the talent level (fewer "rent-a-players") if you want,
but all those who saw Friday's doubleheader should agree that it was
very exciting.  That's good enough for me - even if my dream RPI-Cornell
matchup vaporized so suddenly.
 
Jon Greene
RPI '82  Cornell '84
[log in to unmask]