Instant Replay - State

[SEhockeyDAD]

Rochester Mayo/Lourdes has a gripe about reviews; why wasn't it used in their game against Coon Rapids? A goal in the 3rd period that would have tied it 3-3 was disallowed, and Mayo's coach wasn't told why. An assistant coach was told much later that a foot directed it in, but one of the players told us later that she didn't think it happened that way. Wouldn't it have been reviewed if it happened in a later game? Another time, Mayo's coaches kept trying to get the refs' attention when they should have had a 5-3 power play, but CR had 4 defenders on the ice. They begged for a video review after that, but didn't get one. <br><br>I'm not saying that the game's outcome would have been different with reviews of the plays in question, because CR is obviously a very good team. Its just disappointing to see reviews take over parts of some games and not being used when we wish it was. <p></p><i></i>

[xk1]

Well, this debate will get new life, SSP just tied Warroad on a play that replay appeared to show that the whistle (abeit premature) had blown before the puck was knocked in. The on ice officials never looked at the replay. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... xk1>xk1</A> at: 2/25/06 2:16 pm<br></i>

[ghshockeyfan]

Interesting in that they did realize that whistles are not reviewable in their "list" of things they can look at.<br><br>I'm uncertain as to how the final decision was made on this one though as it appeared that a premature whistle was blown.<br><br>The end result was that it should have been a goal and the whistle was early. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... ckeyfan</A> at: 2/25/06 2:16 pm<br></i>

[Warroad11]

The thing is reguardless if it is a early whistle or not, and I agree it was, the play is done. There is no question it was blown early but the play should have been done and play stoped meaning no goal. The refs in this game should be ashamed of how bad they called this game for both teams. A championship game shouldnt have so much spot light put on the refs makeing calls like this. Congrats to the girls on a very good showing and congrats to SSP on not giveing up and comming back to win even if I dont agree with how the tieing goal was scored <p></p><i></i>

[xk1]

I think they need to add to the list that an offical can ask the replay offical to help resolving a play rather than attempt to define each and every thing that can be reviewed, there will always be situations not covered. For championship play I think all goals should be reviewed if you are going have reviews at all. That's what most sports do. As it is, what happened was fair within the guidelines set forth by the MSHSL.<br><br>Also you have far more faith than I that the officials released what the reasons for review were. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p100.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... xk1>xk1</A> at: 2/25/06 2:35 pm<br></i>

[hockeywild711]

As stated by mnhockeygal the goal should have never been disallowed. The officials messed up. I can't put it any plainer than this. The review cannot be initiated by a coach, it has to come from an on ice or replay official in the booth and thats not what happend. A hand pass is not reviewable. The second review was initiated by the EP coaches. It was a good call on there part, and any coaching staff would have done the same thing in there place. But the fact remains you cant do that and the officials both on and off the ice did not follow the rules. Not saying the game would have turned out differently but they did get the call wrong. <p></p><i></i>