HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Weekend_Warrior wrote:MAHTOMEDI WERE CHEATED!

In the last second of the third, the kid from Mahtomedi clearly got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn sounded. It should have been a goal!

I don't understand why when they reviewed it, they kept looking at whether the puck crossed the goal line before time ended. Because that isn't what is important. The important thing is like I said.. whether he got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn blew. And the answer to both questions is yes.. he got the shot off in time.

It's the same concept as in basketball.. if someone throws the ball up before time runs out and/or ref blows the whistle/horn sounds.. it's ruled a basket.

So why wasn't this same concept applied here - what am I missing?

Honest to God, I am so upset right now that I have sworn off the rest of the tournament. I wait for this all year because I love to see these kids play their hearts out. And it just makes me so upset to see the refs take a game away from these kids like that.

Weekend_Warrior wrote:

Ken Dryden wrote:

Weekend_Warrior wrote:MAHTOMEDI WERE CHEATED!

In the last second of the third, the kid from Mahtomedi clearly got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn sounded. It should have been a goal!

I don't understand why when they reviewed it, they kept looking at whether the puck crossed the goal line before time ended. Because that isn't what is important. The important thing is like I said.. whether he got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn blew. And the answer to both questions is yes.. he got the shot off in time.

It's the same concept as in basketball.. if someone throws the ball up before time runs out and/or ref blows the whistle/horn sounds.. it's ruled a basket.

So why wasn't this same concept applied here - what am I missing?

Honest to God, I am so upset right now that I have sworn off the rest of the tournament. I wait for this all year because I love to see these kids play their hearts out. And it just makes me so upset to see the refs take a game away from these kids like that.

It ain't like basketball...the puck has to be COMPLETELY across the line before time expires for it to be a goal...makes no difference when he took the shot.

I'm sorry, but it does. If there's an empty net on the opposite side of the ice, and someone clears the puck from one end of the ice and the horn sounds just before it slides into the net.. it would be ruled a goal, my friend.

If not, then it sure as hell should be!

Pinky wrote:

Weekend_Warrior wrote:MAHTOMEDI WERE CHEATED!

In the last second of the third, the kid from Mahtomedi clearly got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn sounded. It should have been a goal!

I don't understand why when they reviewed it, they kept looking at whether the puck crossed the goal line before time ended. Because that isn't what is important. The important thing is like I said.. whether he got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn blew. And the answer to both questions is yes.. he got the shot off in time.

It's the same concept as in basketball.. if someone throws the ball up before time runs out and/or ref blows the whistle/horn sounds.. it's ruled a basket.

So why wasn't this same concept applied here - what am I missing?

Honest to God, I am so upset right now that I have sworn off the rest of the tournament. I wait for this all year because I love to see these kids play their hearts out. And it just makes me so upset to see the refs take a game away from these kids like that.

HAHAHA, this paragraph just made my day. Thanks for the laughs WW

Weekend_Warrior wrote:If there's an empty net on the opposite side of the ice, and someone clears the puck from one end of the ice and the horn sounds just before it slides into the net.. it would be ruled a goal, my friend.

MNHockeyFan wrote:

Weekend_Warrior wrote:If there's an empty net on the opposite side of the ice, and someone clears the puck from one end of the ice and the horn sounds just before it slides into the net.. it would be ruled a goal, my friend.

Like in football, "the receiver was in-bounds when the ball left the quarterback's hands - it would be ruled a touchdown! If not, then it sure as hell should be!"

Weekend_Warrior wrote:

MNHockeyFan wrote:

Weekend_Warrior wrote:If there's an empty net on the opposite side of the ice, and someone clears the puck from one end of the ice and the horn sounds just before it slides into the net.. it would be ruled a goal, my friend.

Like in football, "the receiver was in-bounds when the ball left the quarterback's hands - it would be ruled a touchdown! If not, then it sure as hell should be!"

Are you retarded? Those situations aren't similar at all!

Pinky wrote:

Weekend_Warrior wrote:MAHTOMEDI WERE CHEATED!

In the last second of the third, the kid from Mahtomedi clearly got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn sounded. It should have been a goal!

I don't understand why when they reviewed it, they kept looking at whether the puck crossed the goal line before time ended. Because that isn't what is important. The important thing is like I said.. whether he got the shot off before time elapsed and the horn blew. And the answer to both questions is yes.. he got the shot off in time.

It's the same concept as in basketball.. if someone throws the ball up before time runs out and/or ref blows the whistle/horn sounds.. it's ruled a basket.

So why wasn't this same concept applied here - what am I missing?

Honest to God, I am so upset right now that I have sworn off the rest of the tournament. I wait for this all year because I love to see these kids play their hearts out. And it just makes me so upset to see the refs take a game away from these kids like that.

HAHAHA, this paragraph just made my day. Thanks for the laughs WW

EHSHack wrote:Weekend warrior, shut it your a rube.

Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck croaases the goal line or touches the ground. Not when time expires.

HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck AFTER the puck leaves the stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.

Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck croaases the goal line or touches the ground. Not when time expires.

HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck AFTER the puck leaves the stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.

hockeydad wrote:You know, I've tried coming up with a witty, sarcastic post that makes fun of Weekend Warrior and his ignorance of the rules of hockey.

I've tried three different things, and erased all three.

It's just too easy to poke fun of him.

As Ron White would say

"You can't fix stupid."

hockeydad wrote:You know, I've tried coming up with a witty, sarcastic post that makes fun of Weekend Warrior and his ignorance of the rules of hockey.

I've tried three different things, and erased all three.

It's just too easy to poke fun of him.

As Ron White would say

"You can't fix stupid."

BigWorm wrote:

Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck croaases the goal line or touches the ground. Not when time expires.

HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck AFTER the puck leaves the stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.

All I have to say is it is the rule, it's not like they made it up today, the rule has been like that in hockey for a very long time. You may think the rule should be changed, but the review showed it should not be allowed under current rules. It is what it is.

Weekend_Warrior wrote:

BigWorm wrote:

Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck croaases the goal line or touches the ground. Not when time expires.

HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck AFTER the puck leaves the stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.

All I have to say is it is the rule, it's not like they made it up today, the rule has been like that in hockey for a very long time. You may think the rule should be changed, but the review showed it should not be allowed under current rules. It is what it is.

You show me the actual rule in the book and I'll go away. But your source has to be legit. It can't be a phony link

Weekend_Warrior wrote:

EHSHack wrote:Weekend warrior, shut it your a rube.

How old are you - 15?

Ken Dryden wrote:

Weekend_Warrior wrote:

EHSHack wrote:Weekend warrior, shut it your a rube.

How old are you - 15?

Unfortunately (or fortunately if you are a Hawk)...dems da rules man. I don't make the rules but hockey has been that way for a loooonnnng time - forever comes to mind actually. It does make it pretty cut and dried for the replay officials...no need to worry about when it left a stick, was it touched or not, etc.

BTW...go NORTH!

No Political Connections wrote:Looks like they robbed him of his education as well...... "were cheated??"

Great game though, can't wait for the finals.

Weekend_Warrior wrote:I don't care what anybody says.. if the puck is in the air, the play should be considered live until the puck crosses the goal line or touches the ice. Not when time expires.

HOWEVER, if someone interrupts the initial flight motion of the puck (deflection/tip of the stick/skate) AFTER the puck leaves the shooter's stick and the time expires, THEN it should not be ruled a goal.

hockeydad wrote:Hey... Let's not be too hard on the kid. The rules can be confusing. After all, it was a little more than a week ago that three certified officials in a high school playoff game didn't know that a penalty shot that

Still, you would think when presented with such overwhelming numbers, he'd have just given it up.

(sigh)