BGhockeyfan94 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 6:35 pm
Overturned by having our foot in the crease while the goalie was halfway outside the crease. Still 1-0.
I thought the rule was changed in recent years such that merely standing in the crease was not sufficient to overturn a goal. ??
I thought so too, but that's what they announced. I could see maybe goalie interference with his foot being in the crease, but I don't think the crease matters for goalie interference for college hockey.
…
The current version of the rule begins
73.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that
an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should
not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In
other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease
may, in appropriate circumstances, be allowed. …
If what was announced is the true reason the goal was overturned, Willy would have raised a ruckus. There must have been some actual interference. Is McInchak the ref? https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/26/ ... -game.aspx
BGhockeyfan94 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 6:35 pm
Overturned by having our foot in the crease while the goalie was halfway outside the crease. Still 1-0.
I thought the rule was changed in recent years such that merely standing in the crease was not sufficient to overturn a goal. ??
I thought so too, but that's what they announced. I could see maybe goalie interference with his foot being in the crease, but I don't think the crease matters for goalie interference for college hockey.
…
The current version of the rule begins
73.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - This rule is based on the premise that
an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the crease, should
not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed or disallowed. In
other words, goals scored while attacking players are standing in the crease
may, in appropriate circumstances, be allowed. …
If what was announced is the true reason the goal was overturned, Willy would have raised a ruckus. There must have been some actual interference. Is McInchak the ref? https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2013/11/26/ ... -game.aspx
My best guess is Tech challenged for goalie interference and they said there was contact with our guy having a skate in the crease, so the goal was overturned. But then they just botched the announcement.
Yeah the message is clear, don't penalize tech. We get hit from behind, worse than the penalty they called to give them a 2 man advantage, and there is no call.
Looks like they are reviewing it. Should be a 5 minute power play for BG.
Rule 66.1 "Spearing includes all cases in which a spearing gesture is made, regardless of whether contact occurs." Tech player did not make contact, but he attempted it.
BGhockeyfan94 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 7:30 pm
Looks like they are reviewing it. Should be a 5 minute power play for BG.
Rule 66.1 "Spearing includes all cases in which a spearing gesture is made, regardless of whether contact occurs." Tech player did not make contact, but he attempted it.
There are several penalties that include “attempting.” I’ve never seen it called In my 26 seasons of BG hockey.
BGhockeyfan94 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 28, 2026 7:30 pm
Looks like they are reviewing it. Should be a 5 minute power play for BG.
Rule 66.1 "Spearing includes all cases in which a spearing gesture is made, regardless of whether contact occurs." Tech player did not make contact, but he attempted it.
There are several penalties that include “attempting.” I’ve never seen it called In my 26 seasons of BG hockey.
This one doesn't even have "attempt" in the rule, its the gesture of spearing. If what he did was not the gesture of spearing, then I don't know what is and they need to remove that part from the rule.
