Instant Replay

Lumberjack · Post by **Lumberjack** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:44 pm

I've been watching the evening session and have noticed atleast 3 goals waived off for various reasons. I was hoping to get some feedback on what people think of goal review in high school hockey.

The Best 4th Liner · Post by **The Best 4th Liner** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:16 pm

Terrible, no need those man in the crease calls needed to be changed.

Neutron 14 · Post by **Neutron 14** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:21 pm

The rules are the same for everyone, and I'd much rather have it black and white than have the Ref's use their "judgement". I think its working, and well at that.

mohunk · Post by **mohunk** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:13 pm

1996 would have had a different champion with the camera as the refs/goal judge missed Duluth East's goal vs Apple Valley in ?which? overtime in the semifinal game. Kept Spehar et al. out of the finals. I like the review.

gino2516 · Post by **gino2516** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:24 pm

The calls i thought were pretty good. on the first goal waved off in the GR game the player clearly interfered with the goalie, the other one was iffy

KnightTime11 · Post by **KnightTime11** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:29 pm

as a Moorhead alum, class of 2005.... I say get the call right.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:13 am

They used it to wave off 4 goals tonight but didn't use it to give Faupel his when clearly the ref screwed that one up. If you're going to use it, use it both ways.

Also a skate n the crease not anywhere near the goalie or the play should not warrant a man in the crease call, especially when there's replay to determine if it affected the play. The NHL changed their rule, high schools should too.

gopherhockey33 · Post by **gopherhockey33** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:15 am

to bad buddy you guys lost get over it!!!

hast-h-fan · Post by **hast-h-fan** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:26 am

goldy313 wrote:They used it to wave off 4 goals tonight but didn't use it to give Faupel his when clearly the ref screwed that one up. If you're going to use it, use it both ways.

Also a skate n the crease not anywhere near the goalie or the play should not warrant a man in the crease call, especially when there's replay to determine if it affected the play. The NHL changed their rule, high schools should too.

Yes I was surprised they didn't give him that goal. No doubt he kicked it but there was not enough clear evidence that he didn't touch it with his stick. Too bad though.... refs blew it! AGAIN

carpenterguy · Post by **carpenterguy** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:08 am

As far as I remember the 96 game wouldn't have been overturned. You need solid evidence and I don't think the replay showed that. I could be wrong, but it's water under the bridge now.

slapshooter · Post by **slapshooter** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:52 am

KnightTime11 wrote:as a Moorhead alum, class of 2005.... I say get the call right.

That's why they added IP in the first place!

S S

BIAFP · Post by **BIAFP** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:22 pm

The 1996 five overtime game would not have even had a review as there has to be a goal signaled to review and it never happened.

minnesotahockey1 · Post by **minnesotahockey1** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:25 pm

They have already made so many good calls due to the Instant Replay it'd almost be insane not to have it. Without it GR wouldve burried Burnsville in the first period just by bad calls.

Also, in the Warroad game the outcome would have been much different if Marvin's goal in the first wasnt called off (which was a good call to call it off) because it woulve been 3-0 not just 2-0 after the first. Big difference.

BIAFP · Post by **BIAFP** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:28 pm

slapshooter wrote:
KnightTime11 wrote:as a Moorhead alum, class of 2005.... I say get the call right.
That's why they added IP in the first place!

S S

If they had it available in 2005 then Moorhead would have lost by one instead of two

mikemodano09 · Post by **mikemodano09** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:18 pm

maybe the coaches should get 1 challenge per game... huh huh?? and if they lose the challenge there goes their timeout... might spice it up a little

KnightTime11 · Post by **KnightTime11** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:24 pm

BIAFP wrote:
slapshooter wrote:
KnightTime11 wrote:as a Moorhead alum, class of 2005.... I say get the call right.
That's why they added IP in the first place!

S S

If they had it available in 2005 then Moorhead would have lost by one instead of two

You don't know that. Bariball would have had to work a little harder if the net wasn't empty.

formerallstar · Post by **formerallstar** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:10 pm

For the state tournament there should definitely be instant replay........

however i think the man in the crease rule should be changed to the NHL rules where it is only waved off if he is interfering with the goalie

BIGSEXY · Post by **BIGSEXY** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:27 pm

formerallstar wrote:For the state tournament there should definitely be instant replay........

however i think the man in the crease rule should be changed to the NHL rules where it is only waved off if he is interfering with the goalie

Thank you!!!

slapshooter · Post by **slapshooter** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:06 pm

KnightTime11 wrote:
BIAFP wrote:
slapshooter wrote: That's why they added IP in the first place!

S S

If they had it available in 2005 then Moorhead would have lost by one instead of two
You don't know that. Bariball would have had to work a little harder if the net wasn't empty.

BIAFP doesn't know anything but he posts on here anyway!

S S

AngusYoung · Post by **AngusYoung** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:59 pm

slapshooter = pot
BIAFP = kettle

pot calling kettle black in the above post.

boblee · Post by **boblee** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:03 pm

I say get rid of it.

BIAFP · Post by **BIAFP** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:07 am

boblee wrote:I say get rid of Slapshooter .

Zamman · Post by **Zamman** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:02 am

BIAFP wrote:
slapshooter wrote:
KnightTime11 wrote:as a Moorhead alum, class of 2005.... I say get the call right.
That's why they added IP in the first place!

S S

If they had it available in 2005 then Moorhead would have lost by one instead of two

But the fact is they would have still lost.....

And then the mysterious no goal call of 2004 would have the changed the outcome of the first quarterfinal....But this is why they have added the instant replay.

slapshooter · Post by **slapshooter** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:18 am

Game wasn't over at that point Zamman!

AHA was on their heels!

Tainted win at best!

S S

BIAFP · Post by **BIAFP** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:33 am

All games in the show go down in the record books as a W or L

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Instant Replay

Do you favor goal review in HS hockey?

Instant Replay

7,185th post by SS since Feb 27th 2002

Re: 7,185th post by SS since Feb 27th 2002

Re: 7,185th post by SS since Feb 27th 2002

7,202nd post by SS since Feb 27th 2002

post 7225

Re: post 7225

Re: 7,185th post by SS since Feb 27th 2002

7,227th post by SS since Feb 27th 2002