Saturday, December 08, 2007

"That Shouldn't Be A Goal"

Well, I learned my lesson about saying nice things about WCHA officiating.

Here's a YouTube video of DU's first goal last night:

Crash and Burn

I guess you've got to give credit to the FSRM crew for not being biased, but really, I think they just couldn't come up with a way to try and justify that as a goal. I'd love to hear referee Randy Schmidt's explanation of why that was a goal, because I'm pretty sure he's the only person in the world who felt that way.

16 comments:

Cristen said...

What's great is that they looked at it a couple times reviewing the goal, and they still messed up the call. It makes me want to run into them and see if they notice...

Anonymous said...

I hope Schmidt gets a summons to the league office on that one, that was a brutal call

Kris said...

Very reminiscent of Mankato during the Backes days (not particularly pointing out Backes but the teams he played on in Mankato). They loved running into the goalie and then as he is in a pile on the ice scoring. Oh yeah DU used to like to do that too at the same time. Well at least Mankato has changed, but I guess something never will.

Donald Dunlop said...

Its part of the WCHA referee's new extended "even it up" policy. Several weeks ago an SCSU player interfered with Jon Olthuis which resulted in a Bluffskies goal. Schmidt is just fixing Shepherd's fuck up from that game.

Good job Randy!

Anonymous said...

First off, obviously the end result was completely unfair to SCSU. Second, we all know WCHA refs suck. Those things duly noted, I wonder if the refs got stuck between a rock and a hard place on this particular play. For whatever reason, they didn't call the interference. They also didn't think the puck went in the net. Had they known it was in the net, they may have called the interference. But then, 20-30 seconds later, the DU players (or maybe even one of the linesmen) convince Schmidt that the puck was sitting in the goal. Assume that to all be true. Given this initial incompetence of the non-call, what is Schmidt to do now? Clearly, he must review the play. But it's not like he can suddenly call goalie interference two minutes after the play ended, can he? And if he's reviewing a play where a call wasn't made, and the puck is in the net, he can't simply refuse to count the goal, can he?

Putting yourself in Schmidt's shoes a few seconds after the non-call, what would you do differently? Make the painfully delayed call in the name of ultimate equity? Refuse to review the play when you have good reason to believe your bosses will see the replay of a puck in the net that you never saw and refused to think about?

I don't know.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't they call a non-penalty man in the crease to not allow the goal?

WinTwins57 said...

Well, at least Motzko and the Huskies will get an apology! Does this seem like a joke to anyone else??

From SC Times: WCHA commissioner Bruce McLeod met with Motzko before Saturday's game and spoke about the disputed first goal Friday. The league will issue an apology on Monday regarding referee Randy Schmidt's decision to review a goal by Jesse Martin and allow it despite the presence of Kyle Ostrow in the Huskies' net, apparently interfering with Weslosky.

Chris said...

Schmidt most definitely could have waved the goal off and called a penalty on Denver after reviewing the tape. I've seen it done before in the WCHA.

He also had the option of not calling a penalty and just waving the goal off.

Minneapolis said...

Yes this officiating never used to bother me so much but after watching the sioux gopher game on saturday they missed a game changing goal. There was a gopher player offsides by atleast 5 feet. I now have no trust in our officials.

Boosh said...

Apparently on the Goofer call, a Sioux player knocked it back in the zone, and by the rules that doesn't count as an offside. I'm not a walking rulebook, so you might want to check it out, but I read a few people advocating that point of view on USCHO. Lots of little things like that get by most of our eyes and we think the officials are dumbasses, but they really only tend to screw up the big things that actually matter.

Anonymous said...

A few years ago (I think 3) when UAA was at DU, there was a more controversial call made. UAA netminder made a save, the ref said no goal and play continued for several minutes. DU threw a fit, they reviewed it (which was inconclusive) and gave DU the winning non goal. I received an email from the league saying they blew the call, but UAA didn't get said "apology". Sheesh.

Anonymous said...

There seems to be some confusion about the WCHA Replay System. It is only a single camera above the goals and it is only used to determine if the puck crossed the goal line. Clearly the puck was in the net so a goal was awarded.

As for the UAA controversy from three years ago...who cares? It was three years ago.

Deejer said...

Anon at 12:02 PM:
If the camera they use is right above the goal, that camera would have captured a DU player fully in the net (not pushed) before the puck crossed the goal line. In that case the ref has unrefutable evidence that the goal should not have counted because the other DU player had a face full of netting, thus obviously being in the crease.

The camera wuold have caught the illegal scenario of the player planted in the net, so why didn't he make the proper call?

Anonymous said...

Anon at 12:02:

So wrong you are about the replay system. They have used it many times to determine if a player had a skate in the goalie crease area out front of the goal line, and they have used it for "goalie interference" (see this exact video) interpretations many other times regarding player/goalie contact. Get your facts straight.

Anonymous said...

Motzko's coaches show could be interesting tongight if he's asked about it. I doubt he fly's off the handle or anything but he might have something to say about the "apology"

dggoddard said...

From:

http://fanlogs.com/siouxafar.26.permalink

"Video replay will be used throughout the WCHA this season to review goals. It was used in an experimental manner last year in Denver and Colorado Springs and met with great success. Though it would normally require a three year evaluation period, the WCHA petitioned the NCAA to allow video replay and it is allowed for in this year's rule book. Other leagues will be watching the WCHA to note the system's success.

Starting the last weekend of October, each rink will have a replay person and monitor. The replay person will be in the press box and will operate the replay monitor located in the penalty box area. Only the referee may call for a replay and the replay person will display the desired footage on the on-ice monitor. The replay person will not provide and input on the replay and cannot suggest a replay. Coaches and players cannot call for replays. Finally, the replay system will only be used to review goals, not penalties or any other plays.

Replays should be non-intrusive, taking 30-45 seconds unless there's a malfunction. A new system this year, there may be some technical difficulties, but those will be resolved."