So this is what it feels like to be on the other end of the screwjob.
As we said on Sunday morning, it still feels kind of hollow, but doesn't hurt nearly as much. Go ahead. You can admit it to yourselves. RPI got away with one, stealing a point from Brown like a thief in the night, due to a bad call and perhaps divine intervention - a malfunctioning replay system.
We're not going to sit here and dissect this one. We did this last year at this time, and it was directly related to how the use of replay and breaking down replay. Getting the call wrong when you've got access to replay is simply ridiculous.
But the referees on Saturday night, for whatever reason, did not have access to replay. They got the call wrong - but not egregiously wrong, even though a look at the overhead pretty quickly confirms that it was a goal. Nobody interfering with the netminder. Nobody in the crease. Net was on its moorings when the puck crossed the line, and clearly it was in well before the whistle. It would have been kind of an "own goal" if it had counted, but those are still good goals.
A lot was happening all at once. A player ended up in the net and the net was dislodged as a number of players were crashing. The puck was clearly not in sight of the officials. Plays like that, sometimes, you're going to get the call wrong on the ice. That's all that happened. And under normal circumstances, you'd just go to the replay and get the call right.
There's still plenty that the league needs to do on officiating - the seemingly arbitrary nature of what constitutes a penalty at times is maddening, and it even reared its ugly head during the overtime period against Brown. Seconds before Riley Bourbonnais was called for a seriously weak elbowing call in the extra session, the Bears arguably got away with an interference call that created a 2-on-1 and a scoring opportunity when Parker Reno was taken down between his man and the puck. Not calling it because it's overtime? That's fine. That's possibly even preferable. So why was the call made on Bourbonnais (as seen in the same link)?
Bourbonnais, as time was about to expire in regulation, laid a nice open-ice check on Tyler Bird along the Brown blueline that left the Bears defenseman resting on one knee for a short time. I'd bet anything that the weak call on Bourbonnais in overtime was because Bird didn't pop back up right away, even on a pretty clearly legal hit. This whole "carry over" or "make up" call thing has got to stop. Mess a call up? Move on.
And let's be real for a moment here, too. If this replay malfunction had happened at practically any other rink in the ECAC, the game's post mortem would have read something like this: "RPI argued that they had scored in the extra session, but a malfunction of the replay system in Providence made it unclear whether they had scored or not, and the officials stuck with their initial call on the ice."
It's only because RPI TV does a superior job with their broadcasts and their camera work - which now includes in-net cameras - that we know for a fact that the Bears were screwed over. Brown goaltender Tim Ernst wouldn't have been making sarcastic tweets at the ECAC (since, wisely, deleted) about the play if RPI TV didn't have a high-definition camera over the goal that they could use to let the rest of the world see the replay. That should be a point of pride - and even more so that it's free to the public to watch this outstanding broadcast. If you watch this broadcast regularly, please, make a donation to their cause.
Yeah, if the shoe was on the other foot, we'd be livid, and Brown has every right to be livid. But this is something out of everyone's control. Technology is great when it works, but it's not foolproof. The officials did the right thing. They went to the video tape. It wasn't there. So they huddled. And they got the call wrong. We can be as upset as we want at bad officiating, but there's an allowance for human error, especially when the technology fails.
Some have used this incident to complain that there needs to be a backup available. How? And more importantly, why? When was the last time we heard about this being an issue? 99 times out of 100, they go to the video system, and it's there ready to be used. It's the officials' job before games to make sure that the replay system is functioning. If it was working before the game and they checked, it's a blameless problem. If it wasn't and they didn't check, it's totally on them. But this doesn't happen frequently enough to require schools that have already had to invest in a replay system to also invest in something additional - like having something like RPI TV ready and able to show a replay.
It sucks to lose a point this way, yes. But from our perspective, it sucks to gain a point this way, too. If you want everything to be above board, you have to admit when you've been the beneficiary of the screwjob just as much as you'd complain about it when you're in Brown's position. But we were the beneficiaries.
And now, we move on - the screwjob balance tipped slightly back in our favor for a change. Sorry, Bears. We may not be elephants, but we have a long memory.
Showing posts with label screwjob. Show all posts
Showing posts with label screwjob. Show all posts
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Friday, November 21, 2014
BOHICA
We got two up close and personal examples of Rule 83.5 this past weekend in Troy. One was an exercise in how to apply it. The other was an exercise in how to royally screw things up in ways only the average ECAC referee can.
This is known around these parts as the "Second Union Rule" or the "National Union Rule," as it was adopted following the Union-Michigan State game in the 2012 national tournament where a goal for the Spartans was waved off because Union's Josh Jooris, apparently intentionally according to the NCAA, lifted the net off its moorings just before the puck went in (the "First Union Rule" or the "ECAC Union Rule" provides for all 12 ECAC teams making the post-season tournament).
The rule was redefined as such in the summer of 2012:
First, there's a defined difference between "may award a goal" and "shall award a goal." The referee is given leeway to award a goal but is not required to when this happens with the goaltender in the net. If it's an empty net, he's required.
This is pretty standard, it allows the referees to use judgment when it pertains to the other elements that we're about to discuss.
In order for the goal to be awarded, three things have to be true. First, the goal has to have been dislodged by the actions of a defending player. This would include a defending player pushing an attacking player into the net - the reverse would be cause for disallowing a goal. Second, the puck must have been already shot, or the shooting player must already be in position to shoot, when the net is dislodged. Third, the puck must be determined to have crossed the line where it would have counted had the net been in the proper position.
Let's examine this first in the Princeton game, where a Princeton goal was disallowed.
With RPI leading 1-0, Princeton's Ryan Siiro took a shot toward the RPI cage from the top of the right faceoff circle that was saved by Jason Kasdorf, the rebound falling just to his right. Princeton's Ben Foster worked it free and came around behind the net to the left side.
Foster beat out Jimmy DeVito to grab the rebound, but Craig Bokenfohr and Phil Hampton skated into the area to try and help out - Bokenfohr into the mix with Foster and DeVito, Hampton into the crease. Princeton freshman Eric Robinson arrived late to the party and ultimately checked Hampton into the cage, knocking it loose.
At this point, Foster had the puck to the left of the cage. He passed it to Siiro, who moved into the slot, and Siiro one-timed it into the cage, which was off both of its moorings at that point.
This goal was rightfully disallowed because the circumstances met only one of the three criteria for it to be upheld. Siiro's shot did go where the net would have been, but it was the actions of an attacking player - Robinson checking Hampton - that dislodged the net, and the shot was not imminent when the net was dislodged - Foster had the puck behind the cage and passed it in front only after the net came loose.
Referee CJ Hanafin got this one right from start to finish. He did the right thing by awarding a goal on the ice, then reviewing the play. Under Rule 83.5, this is not a goal, so he disallowed it. For anyone who might still be on the fence, Princeton head coach Ron Fogarty agreed after the game after reviewing video that the goal should not have been awarded. (We like Hanafin a lot because he's an Engineer. Some of us here were crestfallen when we heard he'd become an ECAC referee, but he seems to be raising the bar. He's done well so far and he's been fair.)
Compare this with the disallowed RPI goal the next night against Quinnipiac.
On the power play and with RPI down 2-1, Mike Prapavessis digs the puck out of the corner to the left of the net. He brings it up and around through the faceoff circle and the slot, waiting for his opportunity to catch QU goaltender Michael Gartieg off balance. He gets it when defenseman Connor Clifton, also trying to defend against Prapavessis, falls to a knee and into Gartieg. Prapavessis takes his shot and rings it off the post, the rebound coming straight back out.
Meanwhile, once Clifton and Gartieg collide, QU forward Matthew Peca, standing at the top of the crease, makes a bee-line for the net, sliding into the right-side post to dislodge the net shortly after Prapavessis' shot rebounded off the post. Drew Melanson, now standing over Clifton, does not move with the puck coming directly back to him, and simply puts the puck into the open but dislodged cage.
The goal was awarded on the ice, and it met all three requirements. First, the cage was dislodged by the actions of Peca, who skated straight into the cage unaided. Second, while the shot by Melanson did not come before the cage was dislodged, the rebound from Prapavessis' shot (which happened and hit the post before the dislodging) was coming straight to him already and he did not have to move to take the shot, which occurred a split-second after the net was dislodged. Third, the puck clearly enters the net in a way that it would have been in had the goal been in the proper place.
And despite all of this, the tying goal was waved off. In a search for justification, there are some very, very thin arguments that can be made. All four were posited by our researchers in an attempt to find something that would rationalize the goal being waved off.
1. Melanson is near Clifton just before the latter takes out his own netminder, but he doesn't appear to do anything that would cause Clifton to go down. He does push through Clifton, who is impeding his progress forward, in the bottom of the slot with his stick on the ice. If he'd shoved Clifton into Gartieg, that could be goaltender interference (which was never suggested anyway), but it doesn't seem to be there.
2. While Peca is moving to the net, Melanson's stick is in his vicinity, but it's tough to make even a cursory argument that Melanson did anything to put Peca into the net. It's possible, even likely that Peca was only trying to get himself in a position to defend Prapavessis' initial shot, but he's honestly lucky that he wasn't called for delay of game.
3. One could try to make the argument that Melanson wasn't yet preparing to take his shot at the moment the puck was dislodged, but the shot, based on the trajectory and speed of the rebound and the fact that Clifton and Gartieg were taken out of the play, was clearly imminent at the time the net was dislodged by any reasonable definition of the word.
4. The last question is whether the whistle had blown, or whether there was "intent to blow." That's rendered fairly irrelevant by the fact that the referee behind the net never came close to blowing the play dead (he had his arms at his sides the whole time), and in fact signaled a goal on the ice.
Ultimately, this is exactly the type of situation that the Second Union Rule was intended to fix, and the referees blew it. Compounding the error, it was called a goal on the ice, and then waved off without clear evidence to support a reversal.
By the way, this was not the first time last weekend that Quinnipiac got away with one on a bad call by the referees that directly impacted the scoreline. The previous night in Schenectady, the Bobcats notched the game winner on a play in which the goal-scorer was offsides.
No coach is going to get overly upset over calls that are blown this badly, because most teams still have other opportunities to rectify the problem themselves. Bad calls are part of the game and referees are human, but you'd think they'd at least get the call right with the opportunity to review the play. It's true that the Engineers had other chances before and after this call to get a goal and they didn't. This goal being disallowed wasn't the reason they lost on Saturday. Who knows if QU then goes down and scores off the ensuing faceoff or something. But there's no team that wouldn't prefer to be in a 2-2 situation than down 2-1, and the missed call changes things for the worse for the team being dealt a raw deal. Union in particular had less than a minute to make up for the bad call that put them behind.
So now the league has a team in first place, half of whose wins were assisted by the men in stripes. Are we happy?
This is known around these parts as the "Second Union Rule" or the "National Union Rule," as it was adopted following the Union-Michigan State game in the 2012 national tournament where a goal for the Spartans was waved off because Union's Josh Jooris, apparently intentionally according to the NCAA, lifted the net off its moorings just before the puck went in (the "First Union Rule" or the "ECAC Union Rule" provides for all 12 ECAC teams making the post-season tournament).
The rule was redefined as such in the summer of 2012:
83.5 Goal Cage Dislodged - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.
In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in position to shoot) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.
When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team, the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team.
The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal. This rule also applies to other types of net anchoring systems.So there are a few elements to examine here.
First, there's a defined difference between "may award a goal" and "shall award a goal." The referee is given leeway to award a goal but is not required to when this happens with the goaltender in the net. If it's an empty net, he's required.
This is pretty standard, it allows the referees to use judgment when it pertains to the other elements that we're about to discuss.
In order for the goal to be awarded, three things have to be true. First, the goal has to have been dislodged by the actions of a defending player. This would include a defending player pushing an attacking player into the net - the reverse would be cause for disallowing a goal. Second, the puck must have been already shot, or the shooting player must already be in position to shoot, when the net is dislodged. Third, the puck must be determined to have crossed the line where it would have counted had the net been in the proper position.
Let's examine this first in the Princeton game, where a Princeton goal was disallowed.
With RPI leading 1-0, Princeton's Ryan Siiro took a shot toward the RPI cage from the top of the right faceoff circle that was saved by Jason Kasdorf, the rebound falling just to his right. Princeton's Ben Foster worked it free and came around behind the net to the left side.
Foster beat out Jimmy DeVito to grab the rebound, but Craig Bokenfohr and Phil Hampton skated into the area to try and help out - Bokenfohr into the mix with Foster and DeVito, Hampton into the crease. Princeton freshman Eric Robinson arrived late to the party and ultimately checked Hampton into the cage, knocking it loose.
At this point, Foster had the puck to the left of the cage. He passed it to Siiro, who moved into the slot, and Siiro one-timed it into the cage, which was off both of its moorings at that point.
This goal was rightfully disallowed because the circumstances met only one of the three criteria for it to be upheld. Siiro's shot did go where the net would have been, but it was the actions of an attacking player - Robinson checking Hampton - that dislodged the net, and the shot was not imminent when the net was dislodged - Foster had the puck behind the cage and passed it in front only after the net came loose.
Referee CJ Hanafin got this one right from start to finish. He did the right thing by awarding a goal on the ice, then reviewing the play. Under Rule 83.5, this is not a goal, so he disallowed it. For anyone who might still be on the fence, Princeton head coach Ron Fogarty agreed after the game after reviewing video that the goal should not have been awarded. (We like Hanafin a lot because he's an Engineer. Some of us here were crestfallen when we heard he'd become an ECAC referee, but he seems to be raising the bar. He's done well so far and he's been fair.)
Compare this with the disallowed RPI goal the next night against Quinnipiac.
On the power play and with RPI down 2-1, Mike Prapavessis digs the puck out of the corner to the left of the net. He brings it up and around through the faceoff circle and the slot, waiting for his opportunity to catch QU goaltender Michael Gartieg off balance. He gets it when defenseman Connor Clifton, also trying to defend against Prapavessis, falls to a knee and into Gartieg. Prapavessis takes his shot and rings it off the post, the rebound coming straight back out.
Meanwhile, once Clifton and Gartieg collide, QU forward Matthew Peca, standing at the top of the crease, makes a bee-line for the net, sliding into the right-side post to dislodge the net shortly after Prapavessis' shot rebounded off the post. Drew Melanson, now standing over Clifton, does not move with the puck coming directly back to him, and simply puts the puck into the open but dislodged cage.
The goal was awarded on the ice, and it met all three requirements. First, the cage was dislodged by the actions of Peca, who skated straight into the cage unaided. Second, while the shot by Melanson did not come before the cage was dislodged, the rebound from Prapavessis' shot (which happened and hit the post before the dislodging) was coming straight to him already and he did not have to move to take the shot, which occurred a split-second after the net was dislodged. Third, the puck clearly enters the net in a way that it would have been in had the goal been in the proper place.
And despite all of this, the tying goal was waved off. In a search for justification, there are some very, very thin arguments that can be made. All four were posited by our researchers in an attempt to find something that would rationalize the goal being waved off.
1. Melanson is near Clifton just before the latter takes out his own netminder, but he doesn't appear to do anything that would cause Clifton to go down. He does push through Clifton, who is impeding his progress forward, in the bottom of the slot with his stick on the ice. If he'd shoved Clifton into Gartieg, that could be goaltender interference (which was never suggested anyway), but it doesn't seem to be there.
2. While Peca is moving to the net, Melanson's stick is in his vicinity, but it's tough to make even a cursory argument that Melanson did anything to put Peca into the net. It's possible, even likely that Peca was only trying to get himself in a position to defend Prapavessis' initial shot, but he's honestly lucky that he wasn't called for delay of game.
3. One could try to make the argument that Melanson wasn't yet preparing to take his shot at the moment the puck was dislodged, but the shot, based on the trajectory and speed of the rebound and the fact that Clifton and Gartieg were taken out of the play, was clearly imminent at the time the net was dislodged by any reasonable definition of the word.
4. The last question is whether the whistle had blown, or whether there was "intent to blow." That's rendered fairly irrelevant by the fact that the referee behind the net never came close to blowing the play dead (he had his arms at his sides the whole time), and in fact signaled a goal on the ice.
Ultimately, this is exactly the type of situation that the Second Union Rule was intended to fix, and the referees blew it. Compounding the error, it was called a goal on the ice, and then waved off without clear evidence to support a reversal.
By the way, this was not the first time last weekend that Quinnipiac got away with one on a bad call by the referees that directly impacted the scoreline. The previous night in Schenectady, the Bobcats notched the game winner on a play in which the goal-scorer was offsides.
It's not possible to tell with 100% surety from this camera angle because of people standing on the Union bench, but unless the 5'7" Travis St. Denis (bottom of the screen) has abnormally sized legs, he's totally offside right before he takes a pass he ends up putting in the net for the winning goal.
So now the league has a team in first place, half of whose wins were assisted by the men in stripes. Are we happy?
Saturday, November 15, 2014
Suddenly, A Newfound Respect For Mike Schafer
"You wonder why the guys were pissed at the end at center ice. It's not the kids. They take the lead from us, so yeah, I contributed to it because I'm pissed off at their coach at the end of the game for being such an a**hole." - Mike Schafer, November 8, 2014, after a 1-0 loss at Quinnipiac.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
It Never Gets Old
OK, let's get this out of the way, since everyone's talking about it.
The WaP Screw made its third appearance in as many seasons this past weekend - frequently enough that it now apparently has a name. It's the second time it has popped up in a game against Union, which sucks primarily because losing against Union is annoying.
In fact, this isn't the first time we've lost to Union in the last several years on a questionable call. From what I can recall off the top of my head...
January 16, 2002: Doug Christiansen scores on a net that was clearly off its moorings to put Union ahead 5-4, which would prove to be the final score of the game. This goal would have been legitimate today, but probably shouldn't have counted back then. Referee: Tim Kotyra.
February 7, 2009: Kelly Zajac scores an overtime winner after a Union player shoves a defender into freshman netminder Allen York, putting him on the ice as the puck goes in top shelf. Referee: Bryan Hicks.
November 12, 2010: C.J. Lee gets called for a phantom goaltender interference with 10 seconds left to nullify what would have been a game-tying goal by Nick Bailen. Seth Appert is suspended by the league for the mere act of showing the video replay of the call without commentary. Referee: Bryan Hicks. (As an aside, this also happened in a game against Sacred Heart this season - Lee called for interference that no one but the referee could see to disallow a goal, though RPI was cruising by that point so it was fairly inconsequential. Referee: Tim Kotyra.)
January 26, 2013: Nick Bailen gets called for interference after standing up the man with the puck at the blueline with 1:23 left in a tied game, Union scores on the ensuing power play. Referee: Tim Kotyra.
Well now... pretty sure you know who our favorite referees are.
First off, this isn't a knock on Union, not in the slightest. You get your opportunities, you take them and you walk away. Personally, I prefer to feel like we won fair and square to having to sneak out with a win served up for you by a bonehead call, but a win is a win and you can't fault Union for taking the win.
Bonehead calls can go both ways. I can recall feeling like we stole one in 2007 when Tyler Helfrich scored his first collegiate goal off a puck batted in with a high stick against Sacred Heart in overtime for a 1-0 victory. And of course, perhaps karma is just battering us over the head repeatedly for winning a national championship on a highly questionable goal in 1985 (and if it is... enough already, karma, I think we're square by now.)
And believe me, it doesn't take a loss to recognize awful officiating. RPI beat Boston University 4-1 two seasons ago in a game that was dreadfully officiated (hello, Bryan Hicks!). Heck, there was plenty of grumbling about the officiating this season after the second Mercyhurst game (Hicks again), and the Colgate game two weeks ago (yup), both wins.
Personally, I prefer to know in tight situations whether a win was legit. The night after Lee's phantom interference call, RPI tied Union with a Marty O'Grady goal at 19:59.8 of the third period, and won on a power play goal in overtime off a cross-checking call in the Union zone. I recall examining both the goal and the penalty with a high level of scrutiny - ultimately, I was satisfied (the goal beat the horn, and the penalty was pretty dangerous), but not by much.
These guys don't have some kind of weird vendetta against RPI or something. The Engineers are 13-25-4 all time in games where Tim Kotyra is on the ice, a .357 winning percentage against a .454 total winning percentage without him during that span (since 1999-2000). That's not outrageous. In fact, RPI has a winning record with Bryan Hicks on the ice (9-7-1 since 2008-09), which is better than their overall winning percentage during the same time period.
That's not what this is about. It's about making the right call at crunch time, and these guys just seem to keep turning up like bad pennies. We're not here making complaints about Bob St. Lawrence, Jean-Yves Roy, or Andy O'Brien, and we see these guys plenty, too. Makes you wonder.
Both teams have to play with the referees they are given, but the bottom line when certain zebras are out there is that when you play in close games - and RPI/Union is frequently close, and one or the other has done 11 of them over the years - you are leaving yourself open to having to deal with the consequences of a bad call.
Paul Stewart likes to respond to criticism of referees with something along the lines of "tryouts in August, come lace them up!" In other words, if you personally cannot do a better job, keep your mouth shut.
Sorry, Stewie. This isn't our problem. It's yours, whether you want to admit that it exists or not.
The WaP Screw made its third appearance in as many seasons this past weekend - frequently enough that it now apparently has a name. It's the second time it has popped up in a game against Union, which sucks primarily because losing against Union is annoying.
In fact, this isn't the first time we've lost to Union in the last several years on a questionable call. From what I can recall off the top of my head...
January 16, 2002: Doug Christiansen scores on a net that was clearly off its moorings to put Union ahead 5-4, which would prove to be the final score of the game. This goal would have been legitimate today, but probably shouldn't have counted back then. Referee: Tim Kotyra.
February 7, 2009: Kelly Zajac scores an overtime winner after a Union player shoves a defender into freshman netminder Allen York, putting him on the ice as the puck goes in top shelf. Referee: Bryan Hicks.
November 12, 2010: C.J. Lee gets called for a phantom goaltender interference with 10 seconds left to nullify what would have been a game-tying goal by Nick Bailen. Seth Appert is suspended by the league for the mere act of showing the video replay of the call without commentary. Referee: Bryan Hicks. (As an aside, this also happened in a game against Sacred Heart this season - Lee called for interference that no one but the referee could see to disallow a goal, though RPI was cruising by that point so it was fairly inconsequential. Referee: Tim Kotyra.)
January 26, 2013: Nick Bailen gets called for interference after standing up the man with the puck at the blueline with 1:23 left in a tied game, Union scores on the ensuing power play. Referee: Tim Kotyra.
Well now... pretty sure you know who our favorite referees are.
First off, this isn't a knock on Union, not in the slightest. You get your opportunities, you take them and you walk away. Personally, I prefer to feel like we won fair and square to having to sneak out with a win served up for you by a bonehead call, but a win is a win and you can't fault Union for taking the win.
Bonehead calls can go both ways. I can recall feeling like we stole one in 2007 when Tyler Helfrich scored his first collegiate goal off a puck batted in with a high stick against Sacred Heart in overtime for a 1-0 victory. And of course, perhaps karma is just battering us over the head repeatedly for winning a national championship on a highly questionable goal in 1985 (and if it is... enough already, karma, I think we're square by now.)
And believe me, it doesn't take a loss to recognize awful officiating. RPI beat Boston University 4-1 two seasons ago in a game that was dreadfully officiated (hello, Bryan Hicks!). Heck, there was plenty of grumbling about the officiating this season after the second Mercyhurst game (Hicks again), and the Colgate game two weeks ago (yup), both wins.
Personally, I prefer to know in tight situations whether a win was legit. The night after Lee's phantom interference call, RPI tied Union with a Marty O'Grady goal at 19:59.8 of the third period, and won on a power play goal in overtime off a cross-checking call in the Union zone. I recall examining both the goal and the penalty with a high level of scrutiny - ultimately, I was satisfied (the goal beat the horn, and the penalty was pretty dangerous), but not by much.
These guys don't have some kind of weird vendetta against RPI or something. The Engineers are 13-25-4 all time in games where Tim Kotyra is on the ice, a .357 winning percentage against a .454 total winning percentage without him during that span (since 1999-2000). That's not outrageous. In fact, RPI has a winning record with Bryan Hicks on the ice (9-7-1 since 2008-09), which is better than their overall winning percentage during the same time period.
That's not what this is about. It's about making the right call at crunch time, and these guys just seem to keep turning up like bad pennies. We're not here making complaints about Bob St. Lawrence, Jean-Yves Roy, or Andy O'Brien, and we see these guys plenty, too. Makes you wonder.
Both teams have to play with the referees they are given, but the bottom line when certain zebras are out there is that when you play in close games - and RPI/Union is frequently close, and one or the other has done 11 of them over the years - you are leaving yourself open to having to deal with the consequences of a bad call.
Paul Stewart likes to respond to criticism of referees with something along the lines of "tryouts in August, come lace them up!" In other words, if you personally cannot do a better job, keep your mouth shut.
Sorry, Stewie. This isn't our problem. It's yours, whether you want to admit that it exists or not.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Appert Suspended One Game by the ECAC
Straight from the horse's mouth:
Now, after looking for "ECAC Hockey Policies and Procedures," it was nowhere to be found. We did, however, find the ECAC East's bylaws. The ECAC East is a Division III conference still directly connected to the actual Eastern Collegiate Athletic Conference (ECAC Hockey split from the actual ECAC in 2004). They have a Section 5 called "Conduct and Ethics." It stands to reason that it's probably pretty much the same thing.
Here's the transcript. The first mention happened while Nick Bailen and John Kennedy were being interviewed, with Appert sitting nearby.
Perhaps it was later in the press conference, when Appert sat down at the dais.
Later, Appert talked more about his reaction.
Meanwhile, apparently Nate Leaman is allowed to trash talk Appert in his own press conference from that night while avoiding the obvious.
Then, of course, Leaman not only whines about the press coverage the next night - the press coverage after a victory - he withholds his team from the media. And nothing.
But hey. At least he didn't make the league look bad.
It's time for the ECAC to man up. The video seems to indicate that RPI was deprived of not one but two goals which probably should have counted this weekend. Union should have had the benefit at the end of Saturday's game of having the video to check to make sure the goal should have counted. There. Is. A. Problem. Sticking your head in the sand and putting your crosshairs on those pointing out the problem instead of fixing it is exactly why this league is becoming more and more of a laughingstock in the college hockey world.
If this leads to some kind of positive action by the league on fixing the officiating problems that have plagued the ECAC for years - problems that Paul Stewart was supposedly brought in to bring to heel THREE years ago, then this suspension is worth it. If not, it's just another indication of the downward spiral. Who's the martyr going to be, Mr. Hagwell? Seth Appert or Paul Stewart?
ALBANY, N.Y. -- ECAC Hockey today announced that Rensselaer head coach Seth Appert has been suspended one game as a result of his post-game actions after a game at Union, Friday November 12.OK. Yes, most of us saw this coming.
The League action was taken in accordance with Section VI. (Conduct and Ethics) of ECAC Hockey Policies and Procedures.
Appert will miss Rensselaer’s game Friday, November 22 versus Connecticut.
Now, after looking for "ECAC Hockey Policies and Procedures," it was nowhere to be found. We did, however, find the ECAC East's bylaws. The ECAC East is a Division III conference still directly connected to the actual Eastern Collegiate Athletic Conference (ECAC Hockey split from the actual ECAC in 2004). They have a Section 5 called "Conduct and Ethics." It stands to reason that it's probably pretty much the same thing.
League DisciplineSo basically, don't ever make the league look bad.
The ECAC commissioner is permitted to assess penalties (i.e., suspensions) on coaches and student-athletes for abusive or racial language, physical action with the intent to injure, negative language toward officiating in public forums (i.e., media) or other incidents, which the Commissioner deems as detrimental to the image of the League.
Here's the transcript. The first mention happened while Nick Bailen and John Kennedy were being interviewed, with Appert sitting nearby.
Ken Schott, The Daily Gazette: Nick, we'll start with you on the controversial ending. What did you see?That looks pretty benign to me. Is this suspension based on showing a video of what actually happened, with no comments? Yes, it's obvious he was of the opinion that the wave-off was bogus. But he left it to the media to make that decision for themselves. They saw his reaction, they know how he felt from that alone. Are we going to suspend people for ever disagreeing with the referees? Does the simple showing of a video make the league look bad? If so, the league has to ask itself... WHY? Why does it make us look bad?
Nick Bailen: I just saw a lot of guys in front, and apparently we had goalie interference, but we can't put everything on that it was just... we should have won it earlier in the game and not given up so many (power plays). We had a good chance, we capitalized, it's just unfortunate that the calls didn't go our way at the end, but we can't blame everything on that.
Schott: What did you think of the call? You guys are celebrating for a couple seconds and then you guys come to find out it's waved off.
Seth Appert: You guys take a look and see. They're not going to comment on the call, but here it is if you want to watch it.
(places laptop on dais)
Appert: There's no comments. Refs make good calls, they make bad calls. We can all watch it and see if there's any interference.
(plays video)
Appert: So I don't think they'll have to answer any more questions on that again.
Schott: Are you... do you think you're going to get fined...
Appert: Back to them.
Perhaps it was later in the press conference, when Appert sat down at the dais.
Schott: Seth, are you concerned you might hear from the league about showing the video?Appert was rather standoffish during this exchange. There was a good five seconds of silence after he said the ref should be concerned about it - a comment that could possibly have been the ultimate trigger. But why shouldn't the ref be concerned about blowing a call that cost a team the opportunity to play for one, and possibly two points in overtime?
Appert: Why? Is there a policy that you can't show video?
Schott: I'm just asking.
Appert: I think the ref should be concerned about it.
Sean Martin, Albany Times Union: Did you talk to him? What did he say?
Appert: Apparently, we hit the goaltender.
Martin: With what?
Appert: We hit the goaltender into the post and knocked the post off, or something of that nature. Not sure.
Later, Appert talked more about his reaction.
WNYT Reporter: Coach, I know I haven't covered you or RPI for all that long, but the way you reacted to the call, do you remember a time in your career reacting like that to a certain call?He's right - the Engineers did take too many penalties on Friday, and limiting them on Saturday helped them win, but let's be real. The disallowed goal would have made it 2-2. Did they play a perfect game? No. Could they have gotten the goal earlier? Yes. They didn't. But they did get it before 60:00, which is all that was asked of them. To disregard a terrible call just because they could have scored another goal in the preceding 59:52 is a joke. Yale lost 4-3 on Sunday when they could have won 6-4 if they'd scored 3 more goals earlier in the game, right? Same stupid argument.
Appert: I'm sure I get emotional sometimes. I try not to. I try to be less emotional as I'm getting older and feeling much older. I want to keep the bench calm and we're doing a better job of that in the last year and a half. I think I react emotionally when you know the call is wrong. And it's not why we lost, I want to make that abundantly clear. Full credit to Union, I would appreciate it if everybody would put that in their story. I give full credit to Union, to Nate (Leaman) and his staff for the victory. Absolute full credit. The goal is not why we lost. But...
Ed Weaver, The Record: ...that's why you're not in overtime right now.
Jason Klump, College Hockey News: Why did you lose, then?
Appert: We lost because we were in the box too much.
Meanwhile, apparently Nate Leaman is allowed to trash talk Appert in his own press conference from that night while avoiding the obvious.
Schott: We got to see a video of it, and for us it was tough to tell. We were surprised Seth would actually show us the video of the play.Well, first, that's wrong, although I'm sure Leaman hadn't been around for the Appert press-conference. Second, dodging that question's pretty much proof positive that he knows they got the benefit from a lousy call.
Nate Leaman: Whatever. That wasn't the game. I thought the game was [Allen] York... I thought we had some chances to make it 3-1, and some chances to make it 2-0, and I think York held them in there.
Klump: If that goal hadn't been waved off, would you have been asking why it wasn't?
Leaman: That's not the game. You guys are making that call the game, that's what [Appert] wants, he wants that call to be the game, that's what he wants to sell to his team.
Then, of course, Leaman not only whines about the press coverage the next night - the press coverage after a victory - he withholds his team from the media. And nothing.
But hey. At least he didn't make the league look bad.
It's time for the ECAC to man up. The video seems to indicate that RPI was deprived of not one but two goals which probably should have counted this weekend. Union should have had the benefit at the end of Saturday's game of having the video to check to make sure the goal should have counted. There. Is. A. Problem. Sticking your head in the sand and putting your crosshairs on those pointing out the problem instead of fixing it is exactly why this league is becoming more and more of a laughingstock in the college hockey world.
If this leads to some kind of positive action by the league on fixing the officiating problems that have plagued the ECAC for years - problems that Paul Stewart was supposedly brought in to bring to heel THREE years ago, then this suspension is worth it. If not, it's just another indication of the downward spiral. Who's the martyr going to be, Mr. Hagwell? Seth Appert or Paul Stewart?
Friday, November 12, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
