Page 2 of 2

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:59 pm
by NDSportsFan
I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the officials that they did the best job they could, and made the calls they thought were right.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:01 pm
by gfhockey
I reviewd the tape. RR 2nd goal wasnt offside. Ud have to replay it in extra extra slow motion to even see if there was a chance laducer was.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:02 pm
by TheGuy
"Are you serious? Have you seen the video? The replay shows the goalie moving the puck up, the 6th attacker is on the ice for a maximum of 5 or 6 seconds, (it doesn't take long for them to go down and score)...It was Not 20 seconds as you claim. They come right down and score! Now, If you've ever reffed, which clearly, with the borderline retarded claims that are mad on here, none of you have, but you would know in a quick transition like that was, there's no way you have the time to count the players. It's unfortunate."

The 20 seconds I am referring to includes not only the scoring of the goal but also the celebration in the corner and the high five train going to the bench, which all 6 GPR players skated single file in front of the refs. 20 seconds may be inaccurate but not by more than 3 or 4 seconds. Whatever the time was it doesn't change the fact that the refs saw the 6 men and failed to reverse.

If none of the officials truly saw this then why did it take minutes of discussion to figure out the right call? Here's how the conversation should have gone if no one saw 6.
Ref 1: I saw 5
Ref 2: I saw 5
Linesman: I saw 5 too.
Ref 1: OK its a goal then.

Approximate time of conversation 10 seconds. It shouldn't have taken 5 minutes to make that call if they truly didn't see 6 guys at any time.

Also don't accuse me of being "borderline retarded." You are the one who couldn't even read my first post properly and notice that the 20 second estimate was from the time he set foot on the ice to the time the coaches pulled him off.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:08 pm
by gtown #1
the games over complianing about it wont get the outcome changed. RR had a chance to beat GPR but they got out played and out classed.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:20 pm
by gfhockey
this game will be remeberd for a while jsut like walskis game is. u will here about this a lot.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:03 pm
by Jefferson Clark
Everyone is sure there wasnt a delayed penalty? i dont think graftons coach would let them send another skater out there without causing a rucus and calling him back at such a crucial part in the game then again maybe he was concentrating on the play i am not sure.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:21 pm
by gfhockey
The refs arms arent up so i take it there wasnt i remember that there wasnt too.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:28 am
by Unity77
TheGuy wrote:The main issue here is the fact that the officials saw the infraction and failed to make the call. They had at least 20 seconds to see that extra man from the time he jumped on the ice to the time the GPR coaching staff ripped him off. The last 5-8 seconds they had the RR bench telling them to look and count. There is no way they misssed it. They just didn't have the cajones to reverse the call.

Second issue I have is the fact that I heard GPR coach say he didn't know what happened and he didn't know if they had too many or not. If this is the case why was his staff in such a hurry to yank the extra skater off during the celebration of the goal? He and his staff knew from the get go they had too many and now are pleading ignorant. That is not the kind of people I want leading and being role models for young men.

Something should be done here. At least for his own sake GPR coach could admit he knew and own up to his action. Ultimately I would like to see RR crowned as Co-champion.


:roll: Of course you would like to see RR crowned as Co-champion. I would like to see GPR crowned Co-champion of the 2006 state tournament because everyone knows that they should have been in it. heck, GPR should be crowned co-champion of the 2007 state tournament due to an awful call with about a minute left in regulation. That bad call led to an eventual South goal with 6 seconds left on the clock.

The thing is that RR didn't lose the game because of the refs missed call; they actually had plenty of time to win. GPR, on the other hand, actually lost the game in 2006 and 2007 because of the refs.

Give it a rest already.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:00 pm
by Sioux4ever
Jefferson Clark wrote:Everyone is sure there wasnt a delayed penalty? i dont think graftons coach would let them send another skater out there without causing a rucus and calling him back at such a crucial part in the game then again maybe he was concentrating on the play i am not sure.


Not to argue this topic any longer, but I thought I would end the dispute on your "delayed penalty" question. Even if there was a delayed penalty, the 6th attacker can not touch the ice until the goalie is completely in the door to the bench. They do not allow an early exchange like when players change. There was no delayed penalty.

Grafton had 6 guys on the ice, referees didn't see it, or didn't want to admit to seeing it. Goal Counts. Game is now over.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:39 pm
by ndfan
This was part of Tom Dennis Editorial today in the Grand Forks Herald. All leave a link to the rest of his comments.

Yes, it's true that a YouTube video shows that Grafton-Park River had a sixth man on the ice when the team scored the game-tying goal. It's also true that the rules for high school ice hockey in North Dakota prohibit that number of players.

But there's another important rule in that rulebook, and it's one that outranks the five-man and virtually every other rule. It states that the referee's judgment is final; and, it's the applicable rule in this case.

Even when the referee is “wrong,” in other words. Even when the referee is “wrong,” he or she is still “right.”

That's the rule. In the eyes of hockey, the need to give each game a final, timely and on-the-spot decisionmaker outweighs the need to make sure every call is technically correct.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/article ... on=Opinion

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:01 pm
by goodstuff
i agree they should have called but then again another player could have gone on early for a pull of the goalie
but i think there was to many men

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:38 pm
by thenatural
it was still a good game though, no matter how it ended.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:19 am
by demon_fan14
this whole dillema about the extra man on the ice is worthless and needs to stop. Does a reff ever miss a tripping call? ya all the time. this is just another time that a call was missed. IMO grafton outplayed rr and deserved to win that game neway

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:44 am
by NDSportsFan
Some of the other websites that offer readers to comment on the game have went overboard with the negative commentary. Thanks to all the members here who have been able to have a good discussion about it without all the other vile stuff. Honestly we try to hold ourselves to a higher standard here and it's appreciated by myself.

Thank you

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:30 pm
by Hinsa
Last 3 posts deleted. Not the place to spread rumors....

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:03 pm
by ndfan
Hinsa wrote:Last 3 posts deleted. Not the place to spread rumors....

It's not a rumor anymore, people did break into Grafton High School looking for the trophy

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:17 pm
by HockeyHigh
ndfan wrote:
Hinsa wrote:Last 3 posts deleted. Not the place to spread rumors....

It's not a rumor anymore, people did break into Grafton High School looking for the trophy

Wait, what? How?
Haven't heard this 'story' before.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:02 pm
by ndfan
Somebody had put on here a few days ago that they had heard people had tried to break into Grafton High School looking for a certain trophy. It was deleted cause it was considered rumor, but heard from more then a few more people in Grafton about it today. From what I've heard nothing was stolen though.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:08 pm
by HockeyHigh
A Rumor, according to dictionary.com is:
1. a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts: a rumor of war.
2. gossip; hearsay: Don't listen to rumor.

So is there any confirmation/certainty, or else the mods are right that it's just a rumor.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:44 am
by ndfan
Big game trophy hunters?
By Stephen J. Lee, Herald Staff Writer
Published Saturday, March 08, 2008


Three juveniles have “been referred to Walsh County juvenile authorities for burglary,” according to the Grafton (N.D.) Police Department, after the Grafton High School and the Grafton Centennial Center — the city’s hockey arena — were broken into last weekend.
The buzz at both Grafton High School and Grand Forks Red River High School is that the three juveniles are from Red River and were trying to nab the state high school boys hockey trophy won Feb. 23 by Grafton-Park River over Red River in a controversial game.

The Grafton-Park River team scored a goal to tie the game in the third period with what appeared to be an extra skater on the ice, an event later shared across the Internet from a fan’s video. The Grafton-Park River team went on to win 3-2 in three overtimes. State high school officials ruled because game officials missed seeing the extra skater, the game’s result would stand.

Reports of both burglaries, which an investigation found to be related, were made to police Monday, according to the police department.

A Grafton police spokesman would release no information Friday about where the juveniles are from, or what they are alleged to have done.

Grand Forks Schools interim superintendent, Ron Gruwell, also had little to say.

“This is not a school issue. It’s a police issue. I have no comment. It’s young people doing stupid things.”

Two Grafton hockey players told WDAZ-TV on Friday they had been told the juveniles were Red River students who tried to steal the hockey trophy.

Grafton Athletic Director Matt Fetsch said the trophy is safe in the high school’s trophy case.

The juveniles who broke into the high school could be seen on the school’s surveillance videotape, Fetsch said.

Grafton-Park River’s hockey coach, Jay Haugland said he first heard about the burglaries Friday.

Police said the investigation is ongoing.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:48 am
by Saucesauer
Just relized somthing, and it may have been posted here before but about 15-20 years ago in a state champ game RR scored the game winning goal with 6 skaters and a goalie on the ice same thing happened to them this year...hmmm what goes around comes around??? how many old timers remember that game??? my uncle was telling me about it but with the media than it wasnt as well publicised as this one is today!!!

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:36 pm
by Sioux4ever
Saucesauer wrote:Just relized somthing, and it may have been posted here before but about 15-20 years ago in a state champ game RR scored the game winning goal with 6 skaters and a goalie on the ice same thing happened to them this year...hmmm what goes around comes around??? how many old timers remember that game??? my uncle was telling me about it but with the media than it wasnt as well publicised as this one is today!!!


That is interesting. What year? Who were they playing? Red River won state championships in 87, 88, 89, 90, I think, which would be right in your 15-20 year mark. I know it wasn't 87, so that leaves 88, 89, 90. If you uncle was telling you about it, he probably remembers the game and the teams playing.

Re: evidence

PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:17 pm
by fargohockey1093
there is ALWAYS going to be bad calls. one time it goes one way the next time it goes the other. If it would have happened to GF they would have argued against it