Good Morning -
 
On Mon, 13 Nov 1995, Thomas Fortier wrote:
>         My perspective from watching many a HE game is that referees have
> been very good about protecting the goalie, and differentiating between
> "running the goalie" and a player's hustle.  Over the past two weeks, I
> have seen an opposing goalie go down twice, one eliciting a penalty, the
> other receiving nothing.
 
  [snip, snip]
 
>         Just this past weekend, in the Nov. 11 game against UNH at Walter
> Brown arena again, another incident occurred in which the opposing goalie
> went down as a result of contact with a charging BU forward, however,
> this one was not blown for a penalty.  After BU had dumped the puck in,
> Chris Drury charged down the ice in an attempt to beat the defenseman to
> the puck.  UNH goalie Trent Cavicchi left the crease and turned his back to
> the charging player as if he were going to block the rebound from going in
> front of the net.  Cavicchi instead decided to freeze the puck, and
> spread his legs out wide to avoid allowing the forward to slip in and
> knock the puck away.  Drury, now moving at full speed, had to make his
> turn to get around the net, and was given only about 3-4 feet between the
> post and Cavicchi's left leg.  Drury inadvertantly brushed Cavicchi's
> pad, and Cavicchi went down.  No call was made, and Cavicchi protested
> vehemently, to no avail.
>
>     IMHO, I believe the officials made the correct call on both plays.
 
  I can't speak to the first incident, since I wasn't there, but I saw
the second in the BU-UNH game, and IMO this description is not entirely
correct.  Watch the WABU tape of the game, as we did after attending the
game, and it's pretty obvious that Drury deliberately pulled the skates
out from Cavicchi, not simply brushed his pad has T. Fortier describes
it.  Drury is attempting to follow the UNH player into the rear boards
behind the face-off circle, but is screened by Cavicchi who leaves the
crease to play the puck.  As Drury moves up on Cavicchi, his stick is
parallel to the ice, waist-high.  Then, as he cuts between Cavicchi and
the net, he drops his stick right at Cavicchi's feet, braces it with his
thigh, and sweeps the unsuspecting keeper right off his feet.  It's no
wonder that Cavicchi complained re: (presumably) a tripping penalty, but
none was called ....
 
  As non-calls go, this was pretty minor, since it didn't affect a scoring
opportunity for either team.  And goalies are certainly aware that roaming
from the crease entails a certain risk of non-incidental contact, so it's
clear that Cavicchi's complaints were as much posturing as anything.  Still,
I'm in total agreement with the general tone of this thread that within the
goalkeeper's priviledged area, he deserves a certain level of protection.
Injuries to goalies seem to be on the rise already this young season (see
LSSU, MTU, NoDak, etc.) and it's up to the officials to enforce the existing
rules re: contact in/out of the crease/priviledged area ....
 
> When said player then brushes the goalie in attempting to play the puck,
> the goalie then goes down and acts as if it were the biggest hit of his
> life.
 
  There are certainly times when theatre classes come in very handy for a
goalie (and swimming classes for certain forwards :-) but IMHO this wasn't
one of them.  There was no intent to injure, but there was most assuredly
intent to trip ....
 
  Cheers from Maryland - Jim
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.