Randy writes:
 
"There is one way to know for sure if the puck found in the net was a
game puck.  All WCHA Teams have their own team logo's on their home
pucks that they use for the games.  Unless both pucks were the same
there should be a way to tell if the puck that was found in the net was
a game puck or a plain practice puck."
 
1) On the strange goal Friday night, it was not determined that the puck
was a game or a practice puck.  Supposedly, an unidentified photographer,
(probably from UND, :-) {couldn't resist} ) secured the extra puck and then
declared it to be a practice puck; however, the MTU hockey team was still
did not know one way or the other as of PM yesterday. It was amazing that
the officials for the game did not make sure one way or the other. MTU
game pucks are marked as Randy correctly stated.
 
2) Also in scoring the the strange goal, Romano, who was the linesman,
claimed he saw the puck go in; yet, he didn't make this statement until
after the conference with the end net keeper who didn't see it. It also
was not clear from the game films that the puck went into the net.
 
From my own vantage point, I thought that the shot was a goal but I did not
for sure see it. It is an interesting situation but it really did not
make much of a difference either way. UND took it to us Friday night and
MTU failed to respond. One fluke goal doesn't account for 60 minutes of
sub-standard play.  Fortunately, Saturday night's play was better.
 
In Saturday night's game, I thought the officials minding the penalty boxes
made an earlier mistake before the Prokopetz situation that was more obvious.
When the earlier coincidentals in the 3rd period expired, the game was still
in play. The penalty box crew released both the UND and the MTU to the ice
annouced both teams at full strength. I thought that both players should
have been held until a game stoppage.
 
I have always thought that Grep Sheppard to be a very good referee.  However,
even referees have off games.
 
 
 
Walt Olson
MTU