Jim Love wrote:
>   No, I understand that the penalty was against the USA - what I don't under-
> stand is why the goal was waved off when scored off a USA defenseman who
> merely *touched* the puck.  As I understand (or think I do) the rules as
> regards play stoppage following a delayed penalty, the team committing the
> infraction must regain *control* of the puck from the opposing team before
> the whistle is blown for a face-off, not just *touch* it.  In that sense I
> agree with your [Dave Cohrs'] next statement:
>
> >The only controversy was whether the official should have blown his whistle
> >as quickly as he did.  But once it was blown, no goal could be scored.
> >_That's_ why the goal was waved off.  Play had already stopped.
>
>    Since CBS choose not to show a replay :-( of this contested goal, my
> impression was that the "goal" was scored on a deflection, i.e., "touch"
> by a USA defenseman off the initial shot.
 
There is a general concensus that Team USA got lucky on the call.  I can't
remember the play exactly, but I recall that it wasn't just a deflection.
It did not look (I saw a replay - I thought CBS did it, but I did have the
game on tape - time permitting, I'll try to check it again tonight) like
the USA defenseman had "control", but I *thought* that the puck was
redirected to the net after the "touch".
 
> If no other Polish player is
> involved before the puck goes in the net, then shouldn't the goal be
> allowed ??  After all, the US never regained "control" of the puck ....
 
This is where the controversy stems from.  The ref probably made a bad call.
It's rare, but I've heard that it does happen.  :^)
 
> I've personally seen a number of such goals scored in similar situations
> over the years, and had to explain to friends that the goal was allowed
> because the defensive team had to do more than "touch" the puck to get
> a whistle and face-off. The key, of course, is the subjective interpretation
> of "control" of the puck ....  All you referees (Kenny ??) out there - how
> do *YOU* interpret "control" in this situation ??  To me, it implies
> uncontested play of the puck *on the stick,* not a carom off a body or yes,
> even a defenseman's stick.  Am I seriously mis-interpreting this rule ??
 
As I stated earlier, the consensus is that the whistle should not have been
blown so quickly.
 
> >BTW, this is completely different from the comment made concerning the
> >pulled goalie.  Anyone have access to an olympic hockey rule book?
>
>    Yes - I only mentioned them together since this was the situation when
> the commentators chose to once again inform us that the Poles could not
> score into their own net.  I'd always guessed that Olympic/International
> Rules were somewhere "in-between" collegiate and NHL rules, but now I'm
> wondering whether they're closer to the spirit of the NC$$ or NHL rulebook.
 
No, I don't have a copy of the International rules, but I would say you
need to rethink the relationship.  There's no straight line connection
between the three.  (More like a triangle.)  :^)
 
 
--
	- Steve
 
Brown '82    GO BRUINS!!!