At 10:22 PM 3/14/98 PST, you wrote:
>Which brings me to the FIRST disputed goal!  I was sitting right behind
>the net, and I have to agree with Mr. Lewin that it was clearly a goal.
 
Don't you just hate it when they call you Mr. Give me a break!!
I'm not THAT old!!!
 
>Oh, but it did!  The light DID flick on for a second or so.  So,
>should't the play have been called dead?  Well, it wasn't, and the
>result was an RPI goal on the other end.
 
I didn't see the light flicker on but enough people did (both on this
list and in the story in the Albany Times-Union) that it must have
and I missed it.
On the other hand, my interpretation of the rules is that the goal
judge is an advisor to the referee. The ref can (and does quite frequently)
overrule the goal judge. Only the ref (or the assistants) can whistle
the play dead. Common sense says that the referee will only rely on the
goal judge if he doesn't feel he clearly saw the goal (or non-goal) itself.
So either Noeth was sure there was no goal or saw the light go on, then off
and took the goal judge's word that there was no goal. I have seen several
occasions in the past where the goal judge anticipated the puck going in
and turned the light on and then back off when the puck didn't go in.
 
BTW, in this morning's T-U, the article stated that an Ithaca TV station
had film of the game and reviewed the disputed goal. The T-U reports
that the film was inconclusive. I would be interested in hearing whether
or not the Ithaca newspapers are reporting the same thing.
 
>Did it cost Cornell the game?  I think it may have cost them the tie,
>and the series will continue tommorrow.
>
In this situation, costing them the tie may cost them the series.
As I said yesterday, there were still 8 minutes left in the game.
And, if I read the ECAC rules correctly, a 1-1 tie after the 3rd period
would still have allowed a 5 minute OT to determine a winner of the game.
So I wouldn't agree that it DID cost them the series. But I do agree
that it completely changed the mode of play for the rest of the game
since it allowed RPI to go into defensive mode for the last 8 minutes
and force Cornell to go into goal scoring mode for that time. If that goal
counts (and therefore, RPI's 2nd goal doesn't), then Cornell must go into
defensive mode (which is their strength) and RPI must go into goal scoring
mode (which is also their strength). So it most certainly did have a
profound effect on the rest of the game.
 
 
Mark Lewin
RPI - class of '69
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.