At 10:12 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Greg Berge wrote:
 
>I saw the goal on ESPN2 in a sports bar with no sound, first live and
>then from several replay angles.  Here is what I saw, and
>why I think (despite having rooted for the Cats) that the call was
>correct.
>
>1.  A CC player (the one ultimately credited with the assist), while
>    falling forward in the crease, swats the rebound with his glove
>    and intentionally redirects the puck down towards the goal.
>
>2.  The puck deflects off of Thomas' leg and settles on the ice outside of
>    the goal line.
>
>3.  A VERMONT player attempts to clear the puck but deflects it into
>    his own net off of Thomas' skate / ankle.
>
>Remackle never touched the puck; he was credited with the goal because he
>was the nearest CC player on an own-goal.
>
>The puck was not thrown into the net, nor was it a hand-pass (because it was
>the unfortunate UVM player who touched it after the swat, and not a CC
>teammate).
>
>Therefore, it was a legal goal.
>
>
>Thing is, I have now read several hockey-l posts and heard the ESPN wrap-up
>of the goal and read the Boston Globe review of the game, and nobody else
>on the planet seems to have seen that it was a Vermont player, and not
>Remackle, who put the puck in.  But there was absolutely no doubt in my
>mind on at least 2 of the 4 or 5 angles I have seen the goal from
>(inevitably, all the news and ESPN replays I saw featured the most
>inconclusive of the angles).
 
I managed to get the game on tape and was able to replay the goal several
times.  From what I could see you're right on the money.  Agreed, the ESPN
cameras didn't show the back side of the play too well.  Also, I don't think
the referee could've been any better positioned to make the call.  From
where Remackel (emphasis on the first syllable, not the second like that
goof on SportSmash) was it was fairly clear to me that the UVM defender had
to make the play as he was closer to the goal.  Of course, I'd have loved to
have eavesdropped on the referees' conversation...
 
Another take:  what kind of outcry would we be discussing if the goal had
been disallowed?  Remember, even if the goal had gone upstairs for video
review, the officials would've watched the same replays we all did.  It's
doubtful they'd have seen "conclusive" evidence required to overturn the
referee's call.
 
As for my first look at Vermont, I thought they played a wonderful game and
matched up well against the Tigers.  Not to take anything away from their
team, though, I do think their lack of depth beyond the first line would've
done them in over a protracted overtime.  As awesome a combo as St. Louis,
Perrin and Ruid are, their next three lines did not stack up with CC's, IMO.
Still, I know the Cats' fans will not soon lose the bitter taste acquired
after such an ignoble end to a great season.
 
Of course, Michigan may make this entire discussion moot if they play on
Saturday like they did yesterday.  It's one thing to beat up on UAF and UIC;
it's quite another to manhandle the best of the East...
 
All slams on the ESPN family aside, it was a real privilege to see the games
live in Alaska.  In a sick sort of way, the delays (to me) just added to the
tension and excitement.
 
Getting that VCR programmed for 9:00 Saturday morning...
 
 
 
-----
Mark J. Sonnier, C.P.M.
Purchasing Agent
University of Alaska Anchorage
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.