Instant Replay - State

mnpokecheck · Post by **mnpokecheck** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:38 am

State Tournament Fans - what do you think about instant replay? Minnesota High School Hockey unveiled instant replay for reviewing goals during the tournament. I attended the evening session. First use was EP's first goal. I thought the goal looked good and those around me seemed to agree (we had no players or teams in this tournament, just fans). After review goal was reversed - no goal - a player was in the crease. This seemed to be a good use and I was satisfied - except for the delay and the ensuing jubiliation/dismay depending on the team. Ok - got it right good! Second use - Stillwater scores in third period - ref was right at pipe stretching to look in but didn't signal, looks back at goal judge - no signal then delay and light, ref signals goal. Goal is reviewed and determined that goal was good - again great good use of replay. But wait as the explaination is passed to coaches the EP Coaches are animated - after discussion, the Ref re-reviews goal and determines no goal. An illegal hand-pass (I didn't see it, if there was one). Lots of delay and more jubiliation/dismay times two. Ok - got it right? I hope so. To see 2 goals reviewed and conclusively decided, and in one case conclusively determined to be both a goal and no goal left me questioning whether we are ready for instant replay. It seemed at these times that the game was more about the referees and minor officials than the players. I hope long term the MSHSL gets the protocols worked out. Any reviews of goals in the afternoon session?

hubbaa · Post by **hubbaa** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:14 am

throw it out. the game is played by humans that make mistakes and coached by the same. the ice, boards, nets etc are not perfect either. it's an imperfect game that deserves to be reffed by imperfect people. it is part of the game and would be an injustice to all involved to change it, unless of course if we adjust the players accordingly. like taking out the human aspect and creating a bunch of cyborgs and we will call it girls hockey.

mnhockeygal · Post by **mnhockeygal** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:24 am

How was the hand pass reviewable if it occurred prior to goal and has nothing to do with whether or not puck crossed goal line???!!! So what if a Stillwater girl grabbed and held a EP defenseman who WOULD have knocked the puck away from the girl who scored but reffed missed the penalty, are we now going to call that penalty???? Someone please explain this! This is another prime example of the bullying of the jackazz Morris. How they allowed him to dictate that decision and make another review is beyond comprehension. Good thing it didnt matter....

MNhockeyfan09 · Post by **MNhockeyfan09** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:13 am

It was pretty sad to see the Ref succumb to the whining of the EP coaches especially after the play was already reviewed and called a goal. Was he told/asked to look at the replay again for a hand pass? What was he looking for the first time? I think the Ref didn't do a good job of "being in charge". Is a Puck still a puck if its blue?

mnhockeygal · Post by **mnhockeygal** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:09 am

EXACTLY!!!! I still would like someone to answer how they got away with reviewing for a hand pass??? Whether it happened or not is moot, as far as I know they can only review for a goal or man in crease. Someone please explain.

hockeydad · Post by **hockeydad** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:33 am

from the MSHSL web site: Procedure A Video Replay Official will be located in a secluded area of the building with an unobstructed view of the ice surface. Only MSHSL-authorized officials may enter this secluded area. Any review of a goal scored will take place prior to the next start of play. The review of a potential goal will take place at the next stoppage of play. A shot on net — ruled by an on-ice official during play as a non-goal — that is reviewed at the next stoppage of play and is subsequently determined to be a goal will have the following effect on the game: <sum> All penalties called between the time that the shot was taken on net and the next stoppage of play will be served. <sum> If a goal was scored at the other end of the ice between the time that the shot was taken on net and the next stoppage of play, it will be disallowed. <sum> Time will be put back on the scoreboard to reflect the exact time the goal was scored. When a play is to be reviewed, the public address announcer will say: "A play is under video review." During the period of video review, all replays of the goal or potential goal will not be shown in the building. When the Video Replay Official makes a decision, an on-ice official will indicate the decision by pointing to the face-off spot. General Information Both the on-ice officials and the Video Replay Official will have the prerogative to decide to review goals or potential goals. One of the following criteria must be met for video replay to be used: <sum> A puck crossing the goal line; <sum> A puck in the net before the goal frame is dislodged; <sum> A puck in the net before or after expiration of time at the end of a period; <sum> A puck directed into the net by hand, skate or other illegal means; <sum> A puck deflected into the net by an official; <sum> A puck hit into the net by a high stick; <sum> To determine if an attacking player is illegally in the goal crease. The Video Replay Official must determine that the video reviewed is conclusive. In the event that video cannot be used for review purposes, or if the Video Replay Official decides that the available video is inconclusive, the on-ice officials will make the final determination.

ARM · Post by **ARM** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:43 am

Based on the MSHSL procedure as posted by hockeyday, I see no specification for disallowing a goal if a hand pass occurred earlier in the flow of play. I also see no mention in the procedure of allowing a second review after the official points at the face off dot. IMO, Stillwater's second goal should have been allowed to stand. On the very first review, the officials nearly forgot that they had a delayed penalty before the disallowed goal was scored. (EP did eventually score on the resultig PP after someone remembered that a Pony player now had to go to the box.) As for "in the crease", the puck was in the crease, so I thought it was all good and the original goal should have stood. The net effect was that the officiating team in quaterfinal #3 looked totally clueless all night. I believe the same result could have been accomplished quicker and more easily without replay. We don't need to introduce technology to get even worse calls.

mnhockeygal · Post by **mnhockeygal** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:50 am

Thanks very much for the info - good stuff. Its simply amazing the guy once again is allowed to run roughshod over the officials. However, the bigger issue is how they allowed him to sway them to do something not even in the damn rules! !!! Amazing!

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:23 am

Personally, I hate the delay of these reviews, and I think it disrupts the flow/momentum of the game. I do however want to see it be used as intended if it is used. According to the earlier post, it would seem as if the hand-pass wasn't part of the standard review rules.

nutz4puck · Post by **nutz4puck** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:55 am

As an official shouldn't you know the rules? I've spent plenty of time refing youth games, granted I don't know all of the rules and there's no replay...but if the official goes to the bench to explain the result of the replay then the coach then asks about a hand-pass before the shot...wouldn't a qualified official say that they must have missed the hand-pass call and that they can't review for a call that they missed? Or since its new have a list of things that replay can be used for? While it obvious many don't like EP (whether its jealousy/envy, or justified) I would think 99% of all coaches in the state would mention the hand-pass to an official. If the official decides to use the review for something its not intended for and overturn a call...I'd call that good a good move by the coach and a poor job by the official. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... tz4puck</A> at: 2/24/06 11:59 am

FACMAN · Post by **FACMAN** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:29 pm

Nutz, You could not be more correct. 100% of all coaches, who saw a hand pass before a goal, would mention it to the refs. It probably wasn't reviewable the second time, but that's the refs job to decide, not the coach's. The refs were clearly not accustomed to using replay and it was all very clumsy. I hope MSHSL and the refs spend some time before today's games and figure out how to use the replay as it was intended.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:41 pm

Well said. I often ask for calls that weren't made too - but rarely do I see them overturn a goal after the fact. I think the point is that there should be a list of how replay is to be used. How far back into a sequence can you go, and it would seem only to the last point of contact of the puck prior to the goal being scored.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:22 pm

On today's TV coverage they just went over the replay policy and showed the decisions made last night in the EP-SW game. In both cases the play ended up being called correctly after replay got involved. That's what replay is for and they got it right.

mnpokecheck · Post by **mnpokecheck** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:45 pm

Saw the same TV coverage - not sure they did. A hand pass is not the same as batting a puck directly into the net. While a hand pass should be whistled, I don't know how you can review it afterward.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:52 pm

The point is that the correct call resulted. What bothers me is nobody seems to care about the second goal RV scored. I saw the replay at Xcel and since on TV, it hit the crossbar and didn't go in. AHA asked for it to be reviewed and the officials refused. In a one goal game I would think that was a little more important, instead everyone is worried because a correct call was made but they don't think they should have been allowed to make that decision.

mnpokecheck · Post by **mnpokecheck** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:10 pm

I didn't see afternoon games - Roseville goal probably should have been reviewed - seems like that situation is the purpose of replay. I think the issue is at what point and under what conditions is a replay used. Then what is reviewable. A player could have an uncalled infraction such as checking, holding, .... contributing to a goal - would these be subject of a replay? No, unless it was directly interferring with the goalie. What about off side coming into zone before a goal? No. Hand pass? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... kecheck</A> at: 2/24/06 2:13 pm

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:18 pm

Right - the issue is a standard of "reviewable" calls being enforced. I don't blame EP for making the Hand-pass argument - I woudl have too - the point is what parts of the game (or a scoring sequence) are reviewable. I'd start asking for reviews on everything missed well before a goal or the act of the puck being directed into the net if they will allow this... I didn't see the RV/AHA goal, but it sounds like it should have been reviewed.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:26 pm

The goalie made the save, the puck jumped straight in front of her and a SW player batted it down to another player who hit shot the puck of post posts with the puck ending up just inside the line. There was more than enough to review and the hand pass was right there, not back at the blue line. Again, the right call was made and replay worked.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:28 pm

But is that within the list of rules they have for reviewable calls?

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:42 pm

The reason they reviewed it could have been 1) to see if it actually went in 2) was there someone in the crease 3) was there goaltender interference. Once it gets upstairs they can look at how the puck went in, it all happened with a few feet of the goal line and a hand pass is as legit a reason to call it back as kicking it in, even it it wasn't the original reason to look at it.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 3:02 pm

Right, but... Did the hand pass direct the puck into the net? No. Yes - it set up the play, but no it wasn't the direct cause of the goal (motion that put it in). I agree that the goal should have been disalowed by the official prior to the replay, but I'm uncertain as to if anything other than what they specify in the guidelines should be allowed to nullify a goal when reviewed for other set purposes. One thing that we have to keep in mind here too about refs, is that they are watching so much around the net at the time this pass occured that they simply couldn't likely have seen this during the play itself. They have to be watching crease/goalie interference, net for goal, net being off, etc. too.

blankpaper1234 · Post by **blankpaper1234** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:16 pm

i think review is a great thing, that should be used in any important game. ex.section championships and all state games. in section 5AA championship Holy Angels vs. Burnsville.. down to the last second, the puck was said to be in the net by the other burnsville girls but the ref said it wasnt and it was waved no goal,then when the goalie moved, long behold the puck lay right across the line in the net, but the ref had already called it the way he did. If that would have been reviewable, the score might have been 5-5, and gone into overtime.. burnsville may have come out on top.. with the chance at state tournament, or it could have went to Holy Angels.. just like it did.. we'll never know.

ghshockeyfan · Post by **ghshockeyfan** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:28 pm

the part of the replay rule that I like is that they can review players in the crease

mnhockeygal · Post by **mnhockeygal** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:07 am

Nutz - Great point. As for Morris, seen way too many successful bullyings with ref. But your right, thats far more on the ref than anything. Seing the replay yesterday just affirmed the ridiculous handling of the entire play. First off, it seemed clear to me the puck was batted not hand passed. Since it was batted down and then some shot it in, review or no review there shouldnt have been anything called - its a goal. Did anyone see that diff? The FAR bigger issue is, its now been confirmed by listing their rules for review, that a 2nd review clearly shouldnt have taken place! whether there was a handpass or not is completely irrelevent - you cant review for that. Again I will state my orig point - what if EP D was tackled in an obvious intereference that prevented her from easily clearing the puck - you gonna review for that too??? Terrible job by the official.

xk1 · Post by **xk1** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:02 am

When one player bats the the puck down in the offensive zone and another player on the same team touches the puck it's a hand pass. The most interesting thing about this debate is that for the first time in use of instant replay, people are complaining because it was used to get a play right, which I believe, is what instant replay is for. When it comes to officials getting the call right, the means justify the end. One can only wonder what some peoples opinion might be had EP scored the winning goal aganist SW in similar situation and the goal was allowed to stand after replay.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Instant Replay - State

Instant Replay - State

Re: Instant Replay - State

Re: Instant Replay - State

Re: Instant Replay - State

Re: Instant Replay - State

Re: Instant Replay - State

Stillwater vs E.P. Reviews

Re: Stillwater vs E.P. Reviews

Re: Stillwater vs E.P. Reviews

Re: Stillwater vs E.P. Reviews

replay

Re: replay

Re: replay

Re: replay

Re: replay

Re: replay

Re: replay

Re: replay

Re: replay

Re: replay

Re: replay

..

Re: ..

Re: Stillwater vs E.P. Reviews

Re: Stillwater vs E.P. Reviews