So, it seems a relevant question to Andy is did you see any evidence of a
high stick.  For some reason, despite its being mentioned in the original
post you did not address that issue in your post.  Bob Hamilton

From: Andy Weise <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, January 20, 2007 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: BC Protests loss at UVM


>I watched the replays on CSTV over & over and that clearly seemed like a
>goal to me.
>The BC  forward entering the crease (puck was already there, so that wasn't
>an issue)
>looked like he completely whiffed at the puck, shortly before the puck came
>bouncing
>into the crease and  through the legs of Vermont defenseman, inside the
>left post and
>over the line.
>
>This was simply a classic case as to why instant replay should be
considered.
>
>-Andy
>
>
>
>At 11:04 AM 1/20/2007 -0500, =?utf-8?Q?Richard_Henry?= wrote:
>>http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
>>AID=/20070120/SPORTS/701200316/1002&theme=
>>
>>Quting from link above:
>>
>>Then BC thought it had the tying goal at 15:06, a goal that Hansen finally
>>deemed had been propelled over the line by illegal means, a call that
>>prompted York to protest the game.
>>
>>"Scott Hansen explained to me was the goal judge told him it was a high
>>stick," York said.
>>
>>York said Hansen said he didn't see it and that the puck had crossed the
>>goal based on the goal judge's input.
>>
>>"Our protest is that, and (Hockey East commissioner Joe Bertagna) will
>>take it under advisement, the goal judge is strictly there to tell the
>>referee if the puck goes over the red line. That's his only job," York
>>said. "It's not to call penalties, it's not to talk about high sticks.
>