Didn't realize college hockey had a supreme court. I wonder how much time the players have to contemplate all these moves.

On Mar 25, 2012, at 1:47 AM, Bob Griebel wrote:

> As the referees reviewed it, the announcers repeatedly focused on whether the shooter sweeping through Cornell's crease roughed the goalie.  I didn't think that was the issue.
> 
> Once the puck rebounded into open ice, the next shot entering the crease has to satisfy the requirement that the goalie's right to conduct his business within his crease, his exclusive right of domain, hasn't been infringed by a player of the opposing team entering the crease before the puck.  In this case, the first shooter, who entered the crease by his own action, hadn't yet exited the crease completely.  True, the percentage of body parts still in the crease wasn't great, but he was technically still in the crease when the scoring shot entered AND, in this case, his sweep through the crease definitely impaired the goalie's ability to recover from blocking the first shot and preparing to block the scoring shot in a way that wouldn't have been true if the first shooter hadn't slid through the crease.  Strikes me that the substance is no different than when someone jumps into the crease, mugs or harasses the goalie in a way that denies him his right of exclusive occupancy to prepare for the block, then jumps back out just in time to be technically clear as the shot flies past the goalie who could otherwise have been prepared to block it.
> 
> Is there a Supreme Court case here?
>