Reversed goal slowed down - You decide

Submitted by Quail2theVict0r on April 9th, 2011 at 11:35 PM

So I took a video of the goal, slowed it down and to me I clearly see the puck cross the line AND THEN you hear the whistle blow. I don't buy the "intent" clause. That's some BS. This is a goal:


Monocle Smile

April 10th, 2011 at 2:51 AM ^

There this thing called EVIDENCE. As in a physically detectable event. This is why officials have whistles in the first place. Now that small, variable delay is unquestioned and set in stone (you can't unblow your whistle) rather than utterly reliant on the official's "affidavit" on his own perception, not to mention honesty.


April 10th, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^

I would add the college hockey rule where you give a power play to a team that scores on a delayed penalty, one of the worst rules in sports. I know the intent is to increase scoring. come on, they should just adopt the NHL rules of the trapezoid. 

If we had the NHL delay of game penalty, we would have had a couple more power plays. UMD kept knocking the puck out of the rink in their own zone in the third period. 


April 10th, 2011 at 1:03 AM ^

until you hear the whistle in every sport but hockey (and baseball, durp), in hockey its play until the ref meant to blow his whistle.


stupid, stupid, stupid


April 10th, 2011 at 1:40 AM ^

The whistle isn't the issue. The puck was under the goalie for a good couple seconds, ref decides play is dead, puck gets hacked out a bit before he actually blows the whistle. It is nothing like the goal last year, where a clearly free puck was blown dead by a ref in bad position. This ref saw the whole thing and decided the play should have been dead before it got hacked in. Can you imagine the outrage here if it was the other way round? If Hunwick was sitting on a puck for a couple seconds and some UMD player hacks it out on his third or fourth whack? We'd be outraged that UMD got a goal on a technicality because a lazy ref didn't stick a whistle in his pasty-hole fast enough.

It's the way the rule is written, and it's not actually that stupid - there shouldn't be some magic quality about the whistle. The play shouldn't be dead because the whistle is blown, rather the whistle is the referee's way of indicating that something has happened that requires play to stop - in this case, the ref saw something requiring play stoppage (puck trapped by goalie) and he stopped play at that point. This is exactly the sort of play for which the intent rule was written.

If you're going to argue, argue about whether the goalie had the puck long enough to stop play, not the exact moment the whistle blew - or we're the ones arguing to win based on a technicality.

It sucks, but its the way the rule is written. If you're going to complain, complain about the fact that Michigan was badly outshot, badly outplayed for most of the second period, and came out in the OT extremely sloppy and with no energy.

Monocle Smile

April 10th, 2011 at 1:54 AM ^

If Hunwick was sitting on a puck for a couple seconds and some UMD player hacks it out on his third or fourth whack? We'd be outraged that UMD got a goal on a technicality because a lazy ref didn't stick a whistle in his pasty-hole fast enough.

Not only do I not recall Michigan ever getting bailed out in a high-stakes game by a shady disallowed goal, but I'd much, much rather have that happen than give officials unlimited impudent discretion over the score of the game.

If you're going to complain, complain about the fact that Michigan was badly outshot, badly outplayed for most of the second period

Yeah, being down a man for damn near a whole fucking period is no excuse for getting outplayed. If we were a real team, we could beat UMD 4-on-5 every time.


April 10th, 2011 at 2:09 AM ^

No you wouldn't rather have that happen. You're legitimately pissed off because Michigan lost a NC game, and you would be in that situation too if it meant Michigan lost. Do you think the goalie had the puck long enough to blow the whistle, or not? That's what's relevant.

And we were down a man for a period because we took stupid penalties, some of which were necessary because we were getting outplayed (shorthanded breakaway). A couple of them were cheap (boarding call) but most were legit. We shouldn't give UMD 4 power plays, let alone 9.

Besides, Michigan played pretty damn well on the PK. It was 5-on-5 where UMD dominated for most of the game.

Monocle Smile

April 10th, 2011 at 2:10 AM ^

But it's a much, much different kind of pissed than I would otherwise be. It's the difference between being pissed about losing and being pissed that the game was a circus.

We shouldn't give UMD 4 power plays, let alone 9.

We don't give other teams power plays. The refs do. Apparently embellishment calls don't exist anymore, either...just for that one game a couple of days ago.

Do you think the goalie had the puck long enough to blow the whistle, or not? That's what's relevant.

Well, no. What I think doesn't matter. What the ref thinks matters. And he has unlimited impudent discretion over this particular call that ultimately has the greatest influence over the outcome of the game, thanks to this rule. Like M-Wolverine says, ruling a live play dead is exponentially worse that letting a dead play go on a few more seconds.


April 10th, 2011 at 2:24 AM ^

It's still a relevant question. Because if you think the goalie had the puck trapped, then you are essentially arguing that the amount of time it takes the ref to lift the whistle to his mouth and blow should determine the outcome of the game.

If the goalie had the puck trapped, then , basically, you're arguing that the ref made the wrong call (blew the whistle too slow) but that wrong call should stand.

Now, the "trapped puck" thing is a bit subjective so you may legitimately think he didn't have the puck long enough. But that's why they wrote the intent rule in the first place, so that the play ends when the ref has judged it to end. If the play was exactly the same, but the whistle was audible when the puck was still under the goalie, would you really feel that much better about it?

Either way, Michigan didn't play a great game tonight. I would have loved to have that goal, but no way is this as bad as the Miami wave-off last year - that was a travesty.

Monocle Smile

April 10th, 2011 at 2:54 AM ^

If the play was exactly the same, but the whistle was audible when the puck was still under the goalie, would you really feel that much better about it?

Any sane person would feel better about it! This HAS to be a joke. As I said below, now you have a defined, physically detectable event that draws the line, not a fluid concept of "intent" that is detectable to no one but the official.

Monocle Smile

April 10th, 2011 at 11:29 PM ^

but it's a different kind of pissed.

I was pissed last year not because I thought the ruling should have been reversed, but because:

1) The official demonstrated that his IQ is no greater than my shoe size. I mean, the guy blew the whistle when ZERO players on the ice acted like the puck was trapped...including the goalie, who was stil scrambling madly while looking for it.


I'm pissed about the most recent call MORE because:

1) Disallowed goals appear to be the bane of Michigan's existence. It certainly seems like they plague us considerably more than other teams. This was a straw that broke an already broken camel's back.

2) The rule that allowed the officials to disallow the goal demonstrated precisely why it's the worst rule in sports. Let's look at what physically happened around the time each puck went into the net:

Last year: Whistle before puck crosses goal line.

This year: Whistle after puck crosses goal line.

Yet both goals were disallowed! Why the hell do referees have whistles, then? What's the point of replaying goals? There's no longer any kind of standard. The point of the whistle isn't total's consistency (clear, defined line between goal and non-goal apparent to any layman) and accountability. The "intent" rule has neither.


April 10th, 2011 at 10:21 PM ^

And that's fair. But that's the relevant question, not "how long did it take the ref to get the whistle to his face".

What makes you think it was quick (again an honest question, as I'm not a player)? The replay seems to show the puck under the goalie for at least a solid 2 seconds, maybe three. It's not a slow whistle, definitely, but you see quicker ones in every game.


April 10th, 2011 at 2:03 AM ^

Then why'd they need to go to replay?
<br>It's not when the whistle blew, true. But the whole idea of not blowing it too fast is to NOT blow it when you don't know if it's trapped. Because the damage done by ruling a live play dead is far worse than another second of a truly dead play.
<br>I still haven't seen an angle that shows it definitively trapped. But the ref has a better angle. But if he was so sure about it...why the replay? And if he wasn't...why was he calling it no goal before the replay?


April 10th, 2011 at 2:08 AM ^

How many whacks do you get before it's trapped for sure? I've definitely seen faster whistles. If I had to guess, I'd say the ref said "I called it dead because I thought it was trapped". The replay officials may have been checking to see if that was a reasonable determination, because it certainly went in before the whistle was audible. We like to assume the refs are morons or the fix is in, but I'm pretty sure they could tell that the puck was in before the whistle.

I'd hazard to guess that if the ref's assertion (the puck was trapped) was shown definitively to be false by the replay, the replay official may have overturned it and allowed the goal.

Clarence Beeks

April 10th, 2011 at 3:01 AM ^

It couldn't have been overturned, no matter who called for the review, so why would that be relevant?  The fact that they even went to the review is indicative of the low quality of these officials, which should never happen in a Frozen Four, but does because of an antiquated NCAA rule (which is another issue altogether that the NCAA needs to address ASAP).

Clarence Beeks

April 10th, 2011 at 3:09 AM ^

The only officials who could officiate in the Frozen Four were Hockey East and ECAC officials because there is a rule that officials and teams cannot be from the same conference.  In my opinion, that's a big problem that manifested itself in this Frozen Four, primarily because of the substantial difference in style of play (i.e. physicality) between CCHA / WCHA games and Hockey East / ECAC games.

Clarence Beeks

April 10th, 2011 at 3:15 AM ^

Yeah, it's not a rule that's limited to hockey, but it is extremely magnified in hockey because of the fact that there are so few conferences and because there is such a drastic difference in style of play between the "eastern" conferences and the "western" conferences.  In addition, the rule inherently implies that the NCAA believes that its officials are biased and cannot be absolutely impartial, which, seriously, is a terrible implication for the NCAA to make.

King Douche Ornery

April 10th, 2011 at 9:09 AM ^

With hockey being a limited participation sport--maybe the best answer is to have national referees--guys who referee not by conference but by rotation thoughout the conferences?

But that won't help last night's non goal.

This sitution is ramped (amped?) up due to the magnitude of the game and that playoff goals are harder to come by. Disallowed goals are HUGE when the typical score seems to be low and the goal differential between teams is minimal.

I thought it was a very iffy call. The puck was clearly trapped and you had a mass collision of numerous bodies around the net. Being a guy who thinks referees control way too much in games, I would have allowed it in real time, THEN gone to a replay if there was a question. The "intent" to whistle thing is stupid. Either the whistle has blown or it has not--that should be the determination.

One thing that bothers me is commentators are always talking about players and coaches being "up for the moment"--able to do their best under the pressure of high-stakes games. And time and again it appears refereeing remains consistently, well, inconsistent, if not sub par.

In the end, though,  I do think the team that played better overall hockey won the game, and we ALL know this year's Michigan team overachieved like a mutha just to get there.

In other words--and I didn't even drink last night--I'm chasing my tail looking for explanations. It's really odd that berenson has had so many UBER talented teams that have fallen short (that one year when UM entered the CCHA tourney with something like a 36-2 record, got bounced by LSSU and then flopped in the NAA comes to mind), yet probably the weakest unit he has taken to this stage almost won it all.

Clarence Beeks

April 10th, 2011 at 1:42 PM ^

I agree, they need to do something.  I just don't know what.  In general, I just don't think NCAA referees are up to par with the talent of the game being played today.  With the increased number of top-flight NHL prospects playing in the NCAA, it really is something the NCAA needs to do something about.


April 10th, 2011 at 10:26 PM ^

Do we know for a fact that it's not overturnable? Is it overturnable if the on-ice ref changes his mind about when he wanted it called off (shouldn't it be, since he's the one that determines his intent in the first place)?

I mean there are basically 3 options:

1) The play was overturnable by some means and the refs were looking for something

2) The play was not overturnable but the refs though it was because they are dumb (maybe they were checking the rules?)

3) The replay officials were trying to determine when the on-ice ref intended to blow the whistle - which, WTF, but maybe.


Monocle Smile

April 10th, 2011 at 11:05 PM ^

The refs were probably looking to see whether the puck went in before the whistle, which is totally asinine because by the rules, the whistle means jack shit.

Is it overturnable if the on-ice ref changes his mind about when he wanted it called off?

This, for the hundredth time, is why this is the worst rule in sports. You might as well not play hockey...goals are plausibly entirely in the hands of the officials without a concrete standard. Zero accountability.

I'm going with option 4: the refs were discussing how in the hell they were going to smuggle the guy who blew the call out of the rink without being assassinated.


April 10th, 2011 at 1:58 AM ^

Yeah, it is a dumb rule because it ensures that nothing is verifiable by replay.  Everything becomes discretionary based on the ref's determination of when he intended to blow the whistle.  While playing to the whistle may lead to a few more whacks at the goalie (as an old goalie I hated that), it is a more consistent rule.

Also, in this case, even though the goalie had the puck under him, he was in the process of falling backwards, exposing the puck which (along with the puck ending up in the net) indicates a lack of control.


April 10th, 2011 at 3:05 AM ^

ANyone who went to the game--how were the fans? On TV they seemed better than the UND fans (obv) but it's difficult to tell from a television shot.


April 10th, 2011 at 3:25 AM ^

This blog needs a resident NCAA expert. Or one for each sport.  These arguments suck. They divide the fanbase, and I understand everyone's mad because of the game, but wouldn't it be nice if someone could chime in and explain the exact bylaws being questioned?

I volunteer...someone else.


April 10th, 2011 at 6:53 AM ^

Rule 5, Section 3a of the NCAA Ice Hockey 2010-12 Rules and Interpretations:


"As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the referee may intend for the play to be stopped slightly before the whistle actually being blown. For example, the fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line before the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the referee determined that the play had stopped."


April 10th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^

Yeah, I was involved in ice hockey officiating for quite some time before I gave it up after college. I started reffing when I was 12, and got into it through my dad, who had been involved with the upper reaches of USA Hockey from the 70s up through a few years ago (he still does some work with the national high school officiating organization).

My theory basically boils down to, if the call went the other way, what would I think? If Duluth had scored a goal and they counted it, I would have been livid, so I figure I can't get too angry at them disallowing it for Michigan. However, last year's Miami game, if Miami had scored like that, I would have been ok (well, as ok as one can be with an OT loss in a regional final) with it.


April 10th, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^

I think some of the calls against Michigan were ticky-tack, but technically penalties (i.e. we can argue if the refs should have "let them play", but not that no reasonable ref would ever call action X a penalty).

At least one penalty on UMD (the hitting after the whistle shot on Hagelin) was pretty lame as well - it looked awful, but a good part of that was on the ref for blowing the whistle really late.


April 10th, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^

there are two teams playing a game. the refs are there to moderate it, not control it. the teams will keep playing until the moderators of the game tell them to stop. both teams were still playing. the teams don't know to stop when you think about blowing the whistle. /rant


April 10th, 2011 at 4:02 AM ^

The ref that boned the call is Tim Benedetto  A quick google seach will show you that most fans in Hockey East think he is pretty much an all-around horrible ref who continually embarasses the conference. 

Michigan Arrogance

April 10th, 2011 at 8:34 AM ^

You wanna know what I think? I think the ref should have blown the whistle when the puck was under the goalies pads for 2-3 full seconds.


But he didn't.


Until he decided he did after watching the replay on TV. As if he wasn't there to begin with. WTF.


April 10th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^

I don't care how poorly Michigan played or how well MDU played, do the freakin math. We get that goal, the game ends in regulation 3-2! Game over, Michigan wins! Intent??!! What bullshit!!