> 1. The puck did cross the line.
> 2. The impetus of the puck crossing the line "seemed to be" the shot
>    from the northern player.
> 3. Replays were unclear on whether the northern player touched the puck with
>    his hand on the way down.
> 4. The tv explaination that the ref blew the play dead did not wash with
>    either of the announcers.
>
> Can any authorative sources (like perhaps kenny Z) comment?
 
OK, you've brought me out of hiding...  :-)
 
Unfortunately, I wasn't at the game, so I can only comment on what I
saw on TV, and my interpretations thereof.
 
From what I remember, the goal judge signalled that the puck had crossed
the goal line by lighting the red goal lamp.  Let's assume that the
goal judge was correct in his "call", and that the puck did indeed cross
the goal line completely.
 
Now the call depends on whether it was a legal goal or not.  I've already
posted a few articles concerning what constitutes legal and non-legal
goals.  Basically, the puck must enter the net, completely crossing the
goal line.  The impetus for the goal must have come from a "low" stick
of an attacking player, or any shot from a defending player.  The puck
must enter the net before any stoppage of play.  If the goalkeeper is
pushed over the goal line by an attacking player, the goal is disallowed.
 
There's much more to it than that, but I'm trying to be brief here.  Now,
in the NMU/BU game, the player took a shot and fell.  To me, it seemed
like the goalie stopped that shot, but was then pushed over the goal line
by the attacker after he fell and kept skidding towards the goalie, though
I may be completely wrong, since the camera angle was poor, and that's all
I could base my judgement on.
 
The "puck entered after the whistle" ruling seems to be a poor excuse to
me, but again, maybe there was a whistle that no one heard.  Maybe the
ref (Shegos) figured that the goalie had covered the puck originally,
which was actually a "whistle" (a stoppage of play), and therefore, any
play subsequent to that would be "after the whistle", even though there
might not have been any physical whistle.  I may not be making much sense
here, but I'm trying to throw out ideas.
 
If you're asking for my own opinion, then I'd say no, it was not a goal.
Again, I'm only making this judgement based on the limited view I received
on my TV.  It didn't appear that the original shot made it over, but the
"follow-up" collision with the goalie caused the puck to cross the goal
line.  If anyone has more info on that play, I'd appreciate it, since
it's tough to comment on something where my perspective is so muddled.
Then again, to me, officiating is all too much like that.  That's the
part of officiating which I hate the most: the tight scenes in front of
the net.  Unfortunately, those "net scenes" happen to be the most
important part of goal-scoring.  Pretty ironic, huh?
 
---
Kenny Zalewski -- Information Technology Services at Rensselaer
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 65 13th Street, 1st floor, Troy, NY, 12180
[log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask]