ND Blown Call

[skateshattrick]

I thought it should have been a goal - which is what Sheppard called it. The video replay official disagreed. Either way it was a very close play and not an obvious call like the WI game referred to earlier.

It was called a goal by Todd Anderson. Sheppard was the replay official that reversed Anderson's call and disallowed the goal.

[Frontroguy]

I'll disagree. I think it was the right call. The forward clearly kicks the puck (albeit towards his stick rather than towards the goal) and the angle of that action results in the puck going into the net. I realize that the rule states it needs to be directed toward the crease, and it was "sort of". I think the question is would you allow it if it was the game winner with 0:03 seconds left? I think not, because it was debatable. While this call clearly influences the outcome of the game, it did not "give" a win or a loss. The key piece is that the BC defenseman ties up the ND forwards stick and drives him to safety. If he failsin that endeavor it is a tap-in goal that would stand regardless.

I think they blew the call, and that the call on the ice should have stood.

But in looking at the posts on this thread, we are all looking at the same replay, and coming up with different interpretations of the event. That leads me to believe that the rule needs to be changed, redefined, or something along those lines. There should not be as much room for interpretation as we are having now...

[The Whistler]

Considering all of the illegal interference that never gets called in front of the net, let the players kick the puck in.

[Ray77]

I think they blew the call, and that the call on the ice should have stood.

But in looking at the posts on this thread, we are all looking at the same replay, and coming up with different interpretations of the event. That leads me to believe that the rule needs to be changed, redefined, or something along those lines. There should not be as much room for interpretation as we are having now...

After watching that goal, I took a step back and started to think about this rule. I have played hockey since I was about 5 years old, and played through the college level. This rule always seemed "right" to me, and thinking about it I guess I don't know why. Maybe the reason was just because that's how it always has been - you can't score a goal by kicking the puck in, and everyone accepted that as how it was. But the more I think about it, the more this seems to be a dumb rule.

Imagine if it was illegal to kick the puck at all...you can't kick the puck to your stick, you can't kick the puck to a teammate. If you do, they blow the play dead and there's a faceoff. What is OK about kicking the puck at any time during a game, but it is not right or not legal if you kick it into the net? It makes sense to me that you can't use your hands to score or carry the puck - if you could the only way to stop someone would be to tackle them - but why can't you kick the puck into the net?

If a defenseman ties up the forward's stick in front of the net, is there something wrong with them kicking the puck into the net? I, for one, think that this rule needs to be changed. We allow goals that ricochet off of a player's equipment. Heck, it's even a goal if the puck goes off the player's skate as long as he doesn't make a "kicking motion". So a player can change the angle of his skate to guide the puck in, as long as he doesn't kick at it. It just makes sense to me that if a goal is scored in any way except by throwing the puck in with your hand, it should be a goal.

And realistically, how many goals during the course of the year would this affect? This year UND played 43 games. I'd venture to say that if kicking the puck in was allowed, this would affect maybe 5 goals max for or against the Sioux in a season.

[sagard]

Considering all of the illegal interference that never gets called in front of the net, let the players kick the puck in.

I'm with you. Goals are tough. Let the soccer goals (which are typically skill) count.

[Southernmn]

After watching that goal, I took a step back and started to think about this rule. I have played hockey since I was about 5 years old, and played through the college level. This rule always seemed "right" to me, and thinking about it I guess I don't know why. Maybe the reason was just because that's how it always has been - you can't score a goal by kicking the puck in, and everyone accepted that as how it was. But the more I think about it, the more this seems to be a dumb rule.

Imagine if it was illegal to kick the puck at all...you can't kick the puck to your stick, you can't kick the puck to a teammate. If you do, they blow the play dead and there's a faceoff. What is OK about kicking the puck at any time during a game, but it is not right or not legal if you kick it into the net? It makes sense to me that you can't use your hands to score or carry the puck - if you could the only way to stop someone would be to tackle them - but why can't you kick the puck into the net?

If a defenseman ties up the forward's stick in front of the net, is there something wrong with them kicking the puck into the net? I, for one, think that this rule needs to be changed. We allow goals that ricochet off of a player's equipment. Heck, it's even a goal if the puck goes off the player's skate as long as he doesn't make a "kicking motion". So a player can change the angle of his skate to guide the puck in, as long as he doesn't kick at it. It just makes sense to me that if a goal is scored in any way except by throwing the puck in with your hand, it should be a goal.

And realistically, how many goals during the course of the year would this affect? This year UND played 43 games. I'd venture to say that if kicking the puck in was allowed, this would affect maybe 5 goals max for or against the Sioux in a season.

Good argument..............in every situation, it is legal to use a kick to move the puck.........except when you kick into the net.

[jloos]

It was called a goal by Todd Anderson. Sheppard was the replay official that reversed Anderson's call and disallowed the goal.

I was paying real close attention

This was a close play. However, the rule is supposed to be like the NFL rule (my understanding anyway) and it should have only been ruled a no goal unless it was obviously the wrong call on the ice.

I do not see how this could be. Sheppard should receive the pink slip the second he steps off the short bus on his way back from Denver.

[Lives-to-play-hockey-06]

Just a question...

Who is going to suspend (or fire) Greg Sheppard for his blown call in the championship game of the frozen four? Didn't Randy Schmidt get suspended (and never reffed again if I recall?) for a similar call earlier this year when he disallowed a goal in a Wisc. vs Denver game? The WCHA needs to crackdown on their officials and get rid of guys like Sheppard!!

Your thoughts??

He did kick it in.

Intent doesn't matter, he made a kicking motion.

[Mikey]

Anyone have the actual rule?

From the 2006-2008 NCAA Men's and Women's Ice Hockey Rules And Interpretations:

SECTION 18. a. A goal is scored when the puck passes between the goal

posts initially propelled legally by the stick of a player of the attacking

team, entering from the front, and below the top of the net and completely

across the goal line with the goal frame in its proper position. If the puck

was touched last by a defending player before it entered the cage, the

goal is allowed, unless otherwise identified in Rule 6-18-c-10.

A goal shall be allowed if the puck has been directed into the goal by an

attacking player with the skate, unless a distinct kicking motion is used.

When administering this rule, the puck must initially be legally propelled

by a stick.

It's on page 68 FWIW.

[franchise]

He did kick it in.

Intent doesn't matter, he made a kicking motion.

Actually.......He intended to kick it in, but didn't.

That puck was well on it's way before he kicked and missed.

Goal should have counted and it's a 3-2 game and who knows from there.

Sheppard blows another one.

He took one away in the State HS semi that I thought should have counted too.

[The Whistler]

He took one away in the State HS semi that I thought should have counted too.

He should be tarred and feathered for that.

[mikejm]

He should be tarred and feathered for that.

He should probably be tarred and feathered merely on principle. Perhaps daily; certainly weekly.

An aside: I still think Todd Anderson called a couple very good games in Denver. I'm starting to change my mind as to his abilities.

[Lives-to-play-hockey-06]

Actually.......He intended to kick it in, but didn't.

That puck was well on it's way before he kicked and missed.

Goal should have counted and it's a 3-2 game and who knows from there.

Sheppard blows another one.

He took one away in the State HS semi that I thought should have counted too.

He was standing to the side of the net and the puck hit his skates, he tried kicking it to his stick but he couldn't get his stick on it. The puck went directly off of his foot and into the net and he made a forward motion with his foot.

<<That puck was well on it's way before he kicked and missed.>>

Why would someone kick at a puck that was going in?

[Ray77]

He was standing to the side of the net and the puck hit his skates, he tried kicking it to his stick but he couldn't get his stick on it. The puck went directly off of his foot and into the net and he made a forward motion with his foot.

<<That puck was well on it's way before he kicked and missed.>>

Why would someone kick at a puck that was going in?

Especially since everyone knows that if he would have made contact and kicked it in, the goal would have absolutely been disallowed. Turns out it got disallowed anyways, but there woudn't have even been a debate if he would have made solid contact when he kicked at it.

[The Whistler]

He should probably be tarred and feathered merely on principle. Perhaps daily; certainly weekly.

An aside: I still think Todd Anderson called a couple very good games in Denver. I'm starting to change my mind as to his abilities.

So what excuse does he have for the way he officiates WCHA games? OH, back to tar and feathering Sheppard again.

[LeftyZL]

He should probably be tarred and feathered merely on principle. Perhaps daily; certainly weekly.

An aside: I still think Todd Anderson called a couple very good games in Denver. I'm starting to change my mind as to his abilities.

Anderson was ok until the penalty filled 2nd period of the championship game. He calls a back-to-back penalties on Notre Dame, gives one right back to BC. All of a sudden, Notre Dame is carrying the play, Gerbe(I believe) tackles the d-man at the point with a shot to the head, and Anderson just stares at the play with no call.

That's the problem with him, and most other refs, in this league: Consistency. He called obvious and ticky-tack stuff leading up to that play, but for whatever reason, let that one go.

[Rick]

I didn't even notice the ref's in any of the other games. Then, when we had a full WCHA crew in the championship game, we started seeing the camera on the ref's as much as it was on the players. I mentioned that to Bruce McLeod and told him the CCHA and Hockey East have passed us by. He told me I have a perverted view of the WCHA. I'd suggest you send him an e-mail if you think he and Shepherd are taking the league in the wrong direction. bmcleod@du.edu

[GF_siouxfan]

bmcleod@du.edu

remember that

[Goon]

I didn't even notice the ref's in any of the other games. Then, when we had a full WCHA crew in the championship game, we started seeing the camera on the ref's as much as it was on the players. I mentioned that to Bruce McLeod and told him the CCHA and Hockey East have passed us by. He told me I have a perverted view of the WCHA. I'd suggest you send him an e-mail if you think he and Shepherd are taking the league in the wrong direction. bmcleod@du.edu

It would have been nice to see this unfold. McClown is on crack if he thinks his band of idiots are good at what they do.

it will be interesting to see if Randy Schmidt is back next season.

[jojordan23]

There was no way that shouldn't have been a goal. They said the rule is a kicking motion towards the goal line. The commentators said they got a note from greg sheppherd explaining his call. that he made a kicking motion with the right skate. The way he was standing to make a kicking motion towards the goal line with his right skate he would of had to kick it with the outside of his skate. (didn't happen) Way to go Greg Shepherd! I knew the WCHA officials could affect the outcome in one more game this year. Figure'd it would probably be a Shepherd. Didn't expect it to be Greg.

First, I too felt it should have been a goal, and wanted it to be counted. But you said in your own post here why it was disallowed, according to the rule book. You said that the rule is a kicking motion towards the goal line, which it was. No, he didn't try to kick the puck into the net, but, once the puck hit his skate, Lawson's foot moved towards the goal LINE, but it wasn't towards the line that is located between the pipes, it was was towards the LINE outside of the net. Now, I am not defending Greg Shepard in any way, shape, or form, I want him gone from his job, actually. But, by the rulebook's wording, isn't this the correct call? Or am I just trying to impress people with pulling an explanation for this out of my a$$?

[siouxforeverbaby]

First, I too felt it should have been a goal, and wanted it to be counted. But you said in your own post here why it was disallowed, according to the rule book. You said that the rule is a kicking motion towards the goal line, which it was. No, he didn't try to kick the puck into the net, but, once the puck hit his skate, Lawson's foot moved towards the goal LINE, but it wasn't towards the line that is located between the pipes, it was was towards the LINE outside of the net. Now, I am not defending Greg Shepard in any way, shape, or form, I want him gone from his job, actually. But, by the rulebook's wording, isn't this the correct call? Or am I just trying to impress people with pulling an explanation for this out of my a$$?

I hear what you are saying, but then they need to clarify that in the rule book. And essentially if you are skating towards the net if you are shooting at it, aren't your skates always moving towards the goal line. Unless they mean that you have to completely stop before shooting the puck?