HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Looks like the Bears won. Refs screwed this one up BIG time.

biscuit in the basket wrote:Looks like the Bears won. Refs screwed this one up BIG time.

True. Next time if the refs can help the Bears hit them wide open nets like they're supposed to, things will go down the right way. I hate when the refs force the Bears to not score. It's so unfair.

If you had a photo taken from the other side of the rink or from behind teh goal line, which is where I was sitting, you would see the net was off by quite a bit well befor the puck went in. the near post in these photos was not dislodged, but the far post, next to Wolters, was a good six inches in front of the goal line. The ref made the right call. As a matter of fact, in the first photo, you can see he has the whistle in his mouth to make the call.

That is crazy. I would love to see it from the other side. Maybe the ref has the whistle in his mouth because the puck is going in the net. Which player knocked the net off?

sllek - Well, I don't have any other photos, so if someone else does, I'd love to see them. However, I was at the game too. I had a great view of the net, and how everything went down, and I do not think the net was off until after the puck was in.

I saw the ref in the first picture. Just because he had the whistle in his mouth, doesn't mean he was about to call the net movement. It just means he was ready for anything. And, the fact of the matter is that he didn't make the call until AFTER the clock ran out. If the net was dislodged longggggg before the puck was in, why didn't he make the call sooner?

And, if it is true that the net was dislodged before the goal, how did it happen? Was it intentional? Should there have been some sort of delay of game penalty or penalty shot??? I think so.

it still should have been a penalty or penalty shot because HM was the cause of the dislodgement.

1parent wrote:That is crazy. I would love to see it from the other side. Maybe the ref has the whistle in his mouth because the puck is going in the net. Which player knocked the net off?

If the net truly was dislodged before the goal, then it was HM's fault, and was intentional.

But like I said, I don't think it was moved until AFTER Birki's goal. Literally a second after birkinbine scored, Wolter ran into the net, causing the movement. We scored, we won, we got screwed.

got some wrote:We scored, we won, we got screwed.

Aawwww.

That's cool you guys won though! Who are you playing in state Thursday, did you guys get the #1 seed then?

You had 30 some shots that should have went in, you didn't take care of business and you had the chances. Quit worrying about 1 shot and worry about the other 29 and why you didn't get it done on those.

Calm down boys
Hill is well known for getting "the calls" their way all year long.

got some wrote:sllek - Well, I don't have any other photos, so if someone else does, I'd love to see them. However, I was at the game too. I had a great view of the net, and how everything went down, and I do not think the net was off until after the puck was in.

I saw the ref in the first picture. Just because he had the whistle in his mouth, doesn't mean he was about to call the net movement. It just means he was ready for anything. And, the fact of the matter is that he didn't make the call until AFTER the clock ran out. If the net was dislodged longggggg before the puck was in, why didn't he make the call sooner?

And, if it is true that the net was dislodged before the goal, how did it happen? Was it intentional? Should there have been some sort of delay of game penalty or penalty shot??? I think so.

You're right, the referee could simply be anticipating a play and have the whistle in his mouth. The MSHSL, however, teaches its hockey officials that they should not, unlike basketball officials, have the whistle in their mouths until they see something that requires a whistle. As I saw the play, the referee immediately gave the "no goal" signal. You may have seen it differently. We're talking about a second or less here and human reaction time needs to be considered. I wish there were photos or video from a different angle to shed some more light on the play. I do think it is significant that there was virtually no argument from the White Bear players or coaches on the play. Most teams would be screaming long and loud if they had a potential section game winning goal disallowed by a call that was as horrible as some on this board seem to think this one was.

sllek wrote:

got some wrote:sllek - Well, I don't have any other photos, so if someone else does, I'd love to see them. However, I was at the game too. I had a great view of the net, and how everything went down, and I do not think the net was off until after the puck was in.

I saw the ref in the first picture. Just because he had the whistle in his mouth, doesn't mean he was about to call the net movement. It just means he was ready for anything. And, the fact of the matter is that he didn't make the call until AFTER the clock ran out. If the net was dislodged longggggg before the puck was in, why didn't he make the call sooner?

And, if it is true that the net was dislodged before the goal, how did it happen? Was it intentional? Should there have been some sort of delay of game penalty or penalty shot??? I think so.

You're right, the referee could simply be anticipating a play and have the whistle in his mouth. The MSHSL, however, teaches its hockey officials that they should not, unlike basketball officials, have the whistle in their mouths until they see something that requires a whistle. As I saw the play, the referee immediately gave the "no goal" signal. You may have seen it differently. We're talking about a second or less here and human reaction time needs to be considered. I wish there were photos or video from a different angle to shed some more light on the play. I do think it is significant that there was virtually no argument from the White Bear players or coaches on the play. Most teams would be screaming long and loud if they had a potential section game winning goal disallowed by a call that was as horrible as some on this board seem to think this one was.

The screaming would do no good since we all know the refs were pulling for the Hill victory.

Hockeyfan#8 wrote:

sllek wrote:

got some wrote:sllek - Well, I don't have any other photos, so if someone else does, I'd love to see them. However, I was at the game too. I had a great view of the net, and how everything went down, and I do not think the net was off until after the puck was in.

I saw the ref in the first picture. Just because he had the whistle in his mouth, doesn't mean he was about to call the net movement. It just means he was ready for anything. And, the fact of the matter is that he didn't make the call until AFTER the clock ran out. If the net was dislodged longggggg before the puck was in, why didn't he make the call sooner?

And, if it is true that the net was dislodged before the goal, how did it happen? Was it intentional? Should there have been some sort of delay of game penalty or penalty shot??? I think so.

You're right, the referee could simply be anticipating a play and have the whistle in his mouth. The MSHSL, however, teaches its hockey officials that they should not, unlike basketball officials, have the whistle in their mouths until they see something that requires a whistle. As I saw the play, the referee immediately gave the "no goal" signal. You may have seen it differently. We're talking about a second or less here and human reaction time needs to be considered. I wish there were photos or video from a different angle to shed some more light on the play. I do think it is significant that there was virtually no argument from the White Bear players or coaches on the play. Most teams would be screaming long and loud if they had a potential section game winning goal disallowed by a call that was as horrible as some on this board seem to think this one was.

The screaming would do no good since we all know the refs were pulling for the Hill victory.

And everyone complaining does no good as well.

Forget all about it. The game is long over now and Hill is in the tournament.

Besides, White Bear probably would have been beaten by Stillwater in the championship game.

Hill-Murray has a 50 year tradition of winning hockey. No. St. Paul, Maplewood, Oakdale, White Bear Lake and Stillwater have a 50 year tradition of whining and sniveling about it. Both are alive and well.

stpaul wrote:Hill-Murray has a 50 year tradition of winning hockey. No. St. Paul, Maplewood, Oakdale, White Bear Lake and Stillwater have a 50 year tradition of whining and sniveling about it. Both are alive and well.

But the "incident" will follow you forever.
Now that's a reputation to be proud of.
Don't kid yourself folks, it's not isolated, and not a "mistake".
Makes Tartan look angelic.

Feel free to defend your team stpaul, PPG, and others in denial.

But Thor, the bad people are gone now. And it only took Lectner 3-4 years and 1 State Championship to make up his mind.

As a self-appointed volunteer coach for WBL, it doesn't do ANYONE good at this point to argue for or against the disallowed goal..... It's over and done with. Let's just keep working!!!!

It's completely assanine to chastise both WBL or Hill for being the types of teams they are.

Not every programs makes it to state.

My goodness, if anyone follows youth hockey, it's pretty clear that a program such as Wayzata, for example, is one of the most successful in the state. Virtually every level has a top 10 team, if not top 5, yet the high school program hasn't sniffed the state tourney in years. They have to fight thru Benilde, Eden Prairie, and 'Tonka. Jefferson has to fight thru Edina, Burnsville, Holy Angels.....

My point is that it's so tough to get to state, that we should just enjoy the game of HS hockey, and we shouldn't go nuts over the fact that Max Birkenbine clearly scored a goal that shouldn't have been disallowed!!!

stpaul wrote:Hill-Murray has a 50 year tradition of winning hockey. No. St. Paul, Maplewood, Oakdale, White Bear Lake and Stillwater have a 50 year tradition of whining and sniveling about it. Both are alive and well.

C'mon. You didn't even mention Hill-Murray's 50-year tradition of recruiting.

Give credit where credit is due.

Hill-Murray recruits for all of it's students - including average kids, academic all-stars, musicians, actors and hockey players. It costs $10,000 per year to go there. They better have a good product to sell or they would go out of business. I know first hand that they do.

Tell me who's that bad guy here?: Little Johnny is good hockey player. He, his parents and Bill Lechner would all like him to enroll at Hill-Murray. Maybe Johnny's parents went to HM & love the place. Maybe not. His parents pay the tuition and Johnny goes to HM. He has a chance - no guarantees - to make the team, play on a winner and play at state. In the mean time he gets a great education with 7 period days, lots of homework, high expectations, religion, service requirements, discipline and one of the best coaches in the state. The taxpayers don't pay a nickel for the education or the hockey.

You all want Johnny to go to the giant suburban high school because he played for the youth association in that suburb, as if they own him. You think there's something devious about Johnny, his family or HM if he doesn't.

You can substitute Cretin-DH, St. Thomas, Holy Angels, Benilde-SM, Totino-Grace, Roch. Lourdes, etc. etc. into this argument. It does seem to be a bigger deal out here in the north & east SP suburbs than elsewhere. I'm not sure why.

By the way, "the incident", that according to Thor is going to haunt us forever, is part of that discipline that I mentioned above. Unfortunately, alcohol and drug abuse by teenagers isn't isolated to any school or hockey team, even at "angelic" Tartan.

stpaul wrote:Hill-Murray recruits for all of it's students - including average kids, academic all-stars, musicians, actors and hockey players. It costs $10,000 per year to go there. They better have a good product to sell or they would go out of business. I know first hand that they do.

Tell me who's that bad guy here?: Little Johnny is good hockey player. He, his parents and Bill Lechner would all like him to enroll at Hill-Murray. Maybe Johnny's parents went to HM & love the place. Maybe not. His parents pay the tuition and Johnny goes to HM. He has a chance - no guarantees - to make the team, play on a winner and play at state. In the mean time he gets a great education with 7 period days, lots of homework, high expectations, religion, service requirements, discipline and one of the best coaches in the state. The taxpayers don't pay a nickel for the education or the hockey.

You all want Johnny to go to the giant suburban high school because he played for the youth association in that suburb, as if they own him. You think there's something devious about Johnny, his family or HM if he doesn't.

You can substitute Cretin-DH, St. Thomas, Holy Angels, Benilde-SM, Totino-Grace, Roch. Lourdes, etc. etc. into this argument. It does seam to be a bigger deal out here in the north & east SP suburbs than elsewhere. I'm not sure why.

By the way "the incident", that according to Thor is going to haunt us forever, is part of that discipline that I mentioned above.

Thank GOD for that!! We all pay enough taxes as it is.

When I saw that people were still commenting on this thread it made me sick. Seriously, all you WBL fans stop complaining. I saw pictures of this play, and in my honest opinion, it looks like a wbl player was knocking the goal off as the shot was in the air. The refs don't have a personal bias towards any team. Just because your team didn't win and there was a close call at a critical point in the game doesn't mean it's time to take of that guy's head. WBL had an average team this year and didn't deserve to make the tourney, albeit in my opinion, nobody in this section does. Even if WBL would have won this game and by some miracle beat Stillwater, they would be crushed by Eden Prairie this thursday just as Hill-Murray will. It's over and done with so SHUT UP!

thorhockey wrote:Calm down boys
Hill is well known for getting "the calls" their way all year long.

I think Johnson must have had some help in their game against Tartan because there is no way a #8 seed could have ever beat a #1 seed.

unless the #1 seed was just a terrible hockey team and got lucky in a few games.

Hockeyfan#8 wrote:

sachishi4 wrote:

this looks familiar

Maybe you could get a picture from this year not last year idiot!

ask you shall receive