November 30, 2009
Vermont Tops Yale on Controversial Goal
CHN Staff Report
BURLINGTON, Vt. — In a goaltending duel, in a rematch of last year's NCAA First Round game, a controversial video review goal gave Vermont the win this team, 1-0, over Yale on Monday.
Neither of the two goaltenders from that NCAA game played in this one, but it didn't stop them from trading big saves. Yale freshman Jeff Malcolm thought he made all of them, too, but one, with 4:25 left in the second period, was called a goal after a lengthy video review.
The goal was Vermont freshman David Pacan's third in as many games — and it gave Vermont senior Mike Spillane the 28-save shutout win.
Malcolm made at least two saves and about six players were battling for the puck in the crease. The referee immediately signaled no goal, but decided to take a look at it anyhow. When the fans behind the replay area at ice level began cheering, it was easy to tell the official had changed his mind.
"We had a lot of pressure in front of the net and the puck was just bouncing," Pacan said. "I just shot the puck and it bounced again and off the bar and in. So, it was a lucky goal but I think we did real good down low to get that goal."
What seemed to be at issue was either the net being moved at the time the puck went over the goal line or the whistle coming after the goal had been scored. Only the first case can be reviewed. When asked for a statement from the referee, all that was mentioned was the puck crossing the goal line.
“There was a crossing pass and then I made a save,” said Malcolm. “He [Pacan] flipped up the rebound and it went behind me. I think [Jeff] Balch caught it and threw it under me.”
“There was a scramble in front and a shot hit the crossbar and dropped,” said Balch, a freshman Yale forward. “I grabbed it. If it went over the line, it was after the net had been moved.”
The Catamounts improved to 6-5-1 (4-4-1) with the win while the Bulldogs dropped to 5-3-2 (2-1-2 ECAC).
The Catamounts went 6-for-6 on the penalty kill and blocked 17 shots, including nine in the final period.
"I don't think we started off great tonight," Vermont head coach Kevin Sneddon said. "I thought we were a little bit flat, but we did a great job of staying focused and sticking with our systems, and not having individual efforts. That's one of the most potent offenses you'll ever see and we shut them down. So, very pleased with our effort defensively; offensively, we did some nice things, we just maybe didn't capitalize as much."
Spillane kept the game scoreless in the opening period when he made a spectacular save on a shorthanded bid by Yale senior Marc Arcobello with 45 seconds left. Spillane sprawled out across the goal line to make a stick save on Arcobello's wrap around attempt.
Yale's best opportunity to tie the game started with 40 seconds to play in the second period. A second straight Vermont penalty gave the Bulldogs a 5-on-3 power play for 1:21. However, the Catamounts were able to keep the nation's top ranked offensive team off the scoreboard.
"(Drew) Mackenzie, (Patrick) Cullity and (Brian) Roloff killed the first 59 seconds of the 5-on-3 at the end of the period and then we stuck with the same three because they just looked like they knew what they were doing very well," Sneddon said. "They were in sync together. That was obviously the turning point I felt in the game. We knocked that down, we knocked down the 5-on-4, and I think we gained energy from it."
Just over three minutes into the final period Yale had another chance for the equalizer. Yale sophomore Nick Jaskowiak fired a one timer from the right circle but Spillane went post to post to make the save.
"Obviously anytime you get a shutout it's not just you," Spillane said. "I think the last 5-10 minutes of that third period we really showed how good we can be when we want to lock it down."
Yale coach Keith Allain was happy with his team overall, but not the final result or the goal.
“It’s tough to pitch a shutout and lose. Jeff looked confident, he came out on top of the crease,” Allain said. “This was a great test for a young goalie and I thought he came out with flying colors.”
Yale still had many chances to go into the second intermission even. Despite being outshot 11-8, the Bulldogs created two great ones at the seven and eight-minute marks. Andrew Miller’s shot from the right circle and Brendan Mason’s mini breakaway were both stopped by Spillane.
At the other end, Malcolm was standing on his head to stop numerous odd-man rushes. Two minutes into the third with UVM on the power play, he stopped Chris McCarthy, the first of three great stops in the final period.
“It was a heck of a hockey game. We played really well,” said Allain. “We didn’t execute as well as I’d like on offense.”
Dec 1 2009, 3:09 pm
Misleading headline; goal was not controversial. Video review was quick and obviously it was clearly a goal since referees originally signaled no goal and reversal can come only upon conclusive evidence. The referee needed very little time watching video to rule the goal was legal. Everyone needs to be careful that any goal under review isn't automatically labled "controversial." With all due respect to Yale player quotes, players, like fans and referees, can be deceived in what they think they saw but what a replay reveals to be completely different. To say this goal was controversial is to imply Vermont did not deserve it or legally score it; such was not the case.
CHN EditorDec 1 2009, 3:28 pm
Actually, saying it's "controversial" does not imply it's not deserved, at all. ... Simply because of what you noted that Yale believes, that alone makes it controversial. There's no judgment as to the validity of their claims.
GoonDec 1 2009, 9:42 pm
Is there any video available on the goal?
puckfanDec 2 2009, 5:49 pm
The goal was not controversial; if anything, the Yale players' comments were controversial, since the comments wend against video evidence. Their comments are understandable particularly if they have not seen replays. If a replay indicates clearly that the goal is good, it is not controversial; any comments or actions by either team after that might be controversial; the goal, no. Again, assuming the referees overturned their on-ice decision of no goal because the evidence was clear that the puck went into the net legally removes the controversy as regards the goal. While "saying it's 'controversial' does not imply it's not deserved at all" might technically be true, perception is reality and the perception of this headline is Vermont got a lucky break on a "controversial" goal when the goal itself (again, assuming the referees did their video review properly) was not controversial. Editors and writers must have judgment in determining if something is truly controversial.
Comment on this Article
