In article <v03007800af4fb80e42a4@[128.253.92.92]>,
mike patten (Michael Patten) <[log in to unmask]> 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.  Shouldnt that qualify as a=
> crease violation as well??  The puck left the crease area at least twice=
> before he pushed it in?  Is it an eirie coincidence that Cornell lost years=
> LSSU game to a goal that would have been allowed by a reply judge and loses=
> a goal this year on a goal that should have been disallowed by a replay jud=
>ge.
>
 
First off:  I am an RPI fan and I think it was an illegal goal.  But I also
think it was allowed for the following reasons:
 
        Although no goal was signalled, no hand-pass was signalled.  So the
replay was merely to determine the 'legality' of the goal.  Not whether there
was a hand-pass or not.
 
        If that's true, I would think that there must be conclusive evidence
that a violation occured. (Innocent until proven guilty, since no 'hand pass'
accusation was made).  Because all of the cameras were on one side of the ice
(at least all the replays that were on TV) it is not clear that there was, in
fact, a hand pass.  In my opinion, there probably was, but as I said it's not
CONCLUSIVE.  You can't SEE the players hand.
        As far as the crease violation goes, it does not apply if the player is
prevented from leaving the crease. (One might argue that the Cornell player
and goalie were preventing him from leaving since he couldn't get up)
        They books read that Healey scored the goal, although I think the
replay makes it clear that he is too far away to have made the shot. Unless:
 
        He made a shot which deflected off a Cornell skate and rebounded under
the downed player.
 
        It may also have been 'poked' or 'kicked' by a Cornell skater, but that
would have lead to the downed player (Was it Garver?) receiving the goal as
nearest skater.
 
        I feel that leads to the following 'official' interpretation:
No hand pass is conclusive, so no call can be made.
The skater (Garver?) is unable to leave the crease, so no call there.
If the ref noted that Healey last shot the puck (which was unclear on th replay)and Garver didn't use a hand, it must have been a deflection which Garver
did not create (thus no goal award).
 
        As it turns out...it didn't effect the outcome, and I found myself
saying that if RPI wins they better win by two.   ;)
 
                Chris Schierer   RPI'95
 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'...deep in their souls, men want to watch stuff go "bang."' -- The Dave
< [log in to unmask] >                        Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1995
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.