I have some comments and questions regarding the penalty in Tuesday's
BC-BU game that led to the final (tying) BU goal.  It was an interference
penalty called on BC's Jeff Farkas at 17:02 of the third period after
a collision in mid-ice with BU's Albie O'Connell.
 
Paul Gentile <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>The tying goal came while B.U. was enjoying a 6-on-4 advantage. Jeff
>Farkas of B.C. got called for interference I think, at what I thought was
>a little over two minutes to go. I forget the nature of the call although
>it did seem valid ... but giving B.U. a power-play at this juncture in the
>game was certainly a goldmine for the Terriers. It also seemed heavily
 
"Edward N. Moller" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I'm not one to get on the officials, but officiating had no effect on
>this game until the overtime period.  Tim Bennedetto called everything
>during the first period, nothing during the second period, and fairly
>evenly in the third period.  For most of the game, his calls were
>consistent for both sides.  But that facemask penalty was completely
>unjustified.
 
At the risk of ruining a mild reputation for objectivity, this BC partisan
must disagree with both gentlemen above.  I thought the penalty call
on Farkas certainly did have a major effect on the outcome of the game,
and that it was not a correct call.  I watched the game on the TV
broadcast, and from the one replay shown (from an end-of-rink angle) I'm
not convinced this was a penalty.  The puck had been dumped into the BU
zone, and BC players were skating to their bench for a change.  Farkas
was sliding through center ice with his eyes on the bench.  O'Connell had
turned to make his way back toward the BU end and encountered Farkas as
O'Connell neared the red line.  From the way I saw it, O'Connell tried
to pass behind Farkas and jump over Farkas' leg and tripped over the skate
all on his own.  I don't believe Farkas even looked at O'Connell or knew he
was there.  As Paul implied, it was perhaps an unusual call this late in a
close game.  (Refs often "put the whistle away" unless a penalty is very
clear in these circumstances.)  The BU post-game radio broadcasters did
refer to this penalty as a very questionable one.
 
This was the penalty that gave BU its chance to get a 6-on-4 opportunity
late in the game, one that they capitalized on with a gorgeous set play
and a fine finishing shot by Sylvia.
 
I don't mean this as a slam on this particular referee, as Tim Benedetto
has worked many games and (mostly) has done well.  And the game result
was affected by lots of factors besides this final power play in the third
period, as always.  But I guess my questions are as follows:
 
1. If others saw the game, or can review the tape, did Farkas try to trip
O'Connell at the last second (which I couldn't tell)?  If he did, then it
was a good call and this question is moot.  Or, did others think this
was a questionable call, particularly at that time of the game and under
those circumstances?  Should a referee "require" a more severe or
obvious penalty before calling one late in the game?  (College refs are
more prone to call late penalties than NHL refs, for sure.)
 
2. More generally, could this have been a case where a referee, who had
called two rough games between these heated rivals, saw a collision between
players and "anticipated" bad intent, and thus called a penalty that might
not have otherwise been deserved?  Benedetto had worked the game between
these two on Sunday, and then again Tuesday.  Both games featured a fair
number of chippy penalties and some majors and DQ's on Sunday.  Referees
are human, after all, and I wonder if the style of the game influences
how these type of borderline penalties are called.  Do others know of
cases like this?  I'm sure that almost all referees think they call every
game well, and are reluctant to admit they may have missed one (I have to
be the voice of reason for my brother when he blows a call as a baseball
umpire but won't admit it.)
 
Ed's comment on the "facemasking" major penalty on Bartlett in the overtime
period being "completely unjustified" may be valid.  Let me point out,
though, that Benedetto had called an identical major for facemasking on
Bartlett during the end-of-game brawl in Sunday's game as well, and that
one was much clearer.  Again, could the history of the previous game have
influenced how this one was called?
 
It was a very good game, as many have pointed out, and BC managed to play
more consistently than in Sunday's game.  I hope McLaughlin continues to
get some chances in goal for BC, because he has done well every time they
have put him in this year.  He stays at home, plays conservatively, and
relies on his defense to clear rebounds, etc.  But that has worked for him,
with the improved BC defense reducing the number of shots on goal.  It is
true that Clemmensen has played most of the games against tougher
competition, but so far McLaughlin has played just as well, and probably
did better than Clemmensen against BU.
 
Compared to Sunday's atmosphere, Tuesday's game in the smaller BU rink
had more noise and more intensity.  That may have been because BC played
a bit better and BU was behind until very late, or it may just be that
the smaller, noisier building helps the atmosphere.  In retrospect, it
seemed that BC sat back a bit on the lead in the third period (shots in
the 3rd were 19 to 4 for BU) and it may have cost them.  Reasoner had a
shot clang off the crossbar midway in the third -- the game was very close
and a tie was not a bad result for either team.  BC will hope to finally
get over the hump and beat BU in the next encounter, at BC in early
January.  Then they can try to meet in the Beanpot for the rubber match!
--------------------               ----------------------
Rick McAdoo                        [log in to unmask]
"Volunteer reporter"               An excited BC fan.  GO EAGLES!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.