[log in to unmask] (Mark Lewin) wrote:
 
>At 09:25 PM 3/14/97 -0500, mike patten (Michael Patten) wrote:
>>Watching the game on Tv and seeing RPI's third goal, does someone have a
>reason as to why it was not disallowed on two accounts??  First it was
>obviously put in by a player laying in the crease with something other than
>his stick (ie his hand). secondly the player was laying in the crease for
>several shots from 5-10 ft out in the slot.
 
>I only listened to the game on the radio (and the RPI school station
>to boot) so I didn't even see the game.
 
And what about our station?   :)  :)
 
>But it is my understanding
>that the goal was reviewed by the replay officials. If they didn't disallow
>the goal, they didn't find the disqualifying evidence as obvious as
>you apparently did.
 
Here's the view from the press box, where I watched the replays and
the replay booth to see what was going on.
 
Eric Healey took three shots at Jason Elliot.  While he took his three
shots, Matt Garver was lying in the crease with two Cornell players on
top of him.  The first two shots went into the players and bounced
back to Healey.  The last shot was also put in.
 
Then all of a sudden, the puck is in the net.
 
John Murphy (the ref) did not immediately signal a goal.  Instead, he
made a "I don't know" shrug.  Then he turned to the goal judge, and
saw the light on, and signalled goal.
 
He then went to the replay for official word.
 
The rule on replay is that the referee MUST ask for the replay
official to rule on it.  Therefore, the initial call had to be a goal.
The question was whether or not it was tossed in with the hand.
 
Obviously, Murphy never saw it go in with the hand, so he went to the
replay official (John Gallagher).
 
Now watching every single angle on the tv monitor right next to me,
there was NO evidence that Garver, the man in the crease, put the puck
in with his hand.  Not one angle showed it in an obvious manner.
Therefore, the rule says that since there is no conclusive proof, then
the original call must stand.  That is EXACTLY what happened.
 
During the second intermission (which was just about 3 minutes later),
Harvard head coach Ronn Tomassoni was by the monitor and was
explaining the call.  He was in the replay booth when it all occurred.
 
That is how he explained also explained it.
 
The man in the crease was never reviewed, because Garver could not get
out of the crease with two Big Red pinning him.  It never played a
factor.
 
>Not that the replays are always conclusive (the winning goal in
>last year's CC-UVM game come to mind) but the ruling is that
>the referee's call stands unless there is clear evidence that
>it was wrong. For some reason, the replay officials didn't
>find that clear evidence.
 
Replays are always conclusive to the viewer of the replay.  It either
shows it or it does not.  In this case, it did not show a hand putting
the puck in the net, therefore it was conclusive to the replay
official that if it was not seen, then it didn't happen.  This is the
one major fallacy of instant replay.
 
The replay official did not find that clear evidence, because it was
not clearly evident that the puck went in with the hand.
 
In the Clarkson-Princeton semifinal, there was also replay used to
determine if Princeton's lone goal was scored with a man in the
crease.  I clearly saw a Tiger in the crease, but the replay official
ruled that he could not get out of the crease.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.