East Coast Narch Winternationals

**FatAndSlow** · 02-19-2008, 11:58 PM

I read on the Narch website that the Mens Platinum Final wasn't played due to protest. It was NorCal Riots vs LA Pama Chupacabraz, with LA Pama protesting. Anyone know what happened?

**towson9** · 02-21-2008, 12:29 PM

originally the score was posted on narch.com that nor cal won the game 2-1, than the next day it was taken down and had pama protesting the game .. thats the only news i have on it, dont really know the reason behind the protest though .. maybe an illegal player, that would be the only thing i can think of, anyone know the real answer?

**socalhockey** · 02-21-2008, 12:41 PM

Pama protested the championship game and the protest
was accepted so the game is not over. Pama had a delayed penalty called on them for a "hold", Nor Cal Riot pulled their goalie for a 5 on 4. They had possession for a while, took it behind their net, and attempted a breakout pass. The pass hit a Pama player in the shaft then deflected off a Nor Cal Riot player into their own net. Should've been a goal, there was not a whistle until after the puck scores. The refs called it a goal, then waived it off and put Pama on the kill with a 1-1 score. Nor Cal scored on the power play and won the game. With the protest being accepted the game will start at the point of the protest. The score will be Pama 2 and Nor Cal Riot 1 and on the power play with 2:48 left in the game.

The remainder of the game will be played at the regional in San
Jose, the Riots home court.

**ohno** · 02-21-2008, 02:02 PM

I'm pretty sure that is not the way the game will be completed. If the referees determined that the "deflection" of the puck was "possession", then the play would have been dead at that point. If that is the case, you cannot allow the goal. It would be a face-off at center with the score still 1-1, PAMA down a player for the holding penalty.

**Phelan96** · 02-21-2008, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by ohno

I'm pretty sure that is not the way the game will be completed. If the referees determined that the "deflection" of the puck was "possession", then the play would have been dead at that point. If that is the case, you cannot allow the goal. It would be a face-off at center with the score still 1-1, PAMA down a player for the holding penalty.

The puck hitting the shaft of a stick is not posession, therefore it is a goal, score should be Pama 2-1 with the NorCal on the PP with however much time was on the clock at that point.

**ohno** · 02-21-2008, 04:42 PM

Not exactly, but I'll give you this.

Correct...it is not possession. But, if the reason the goal was not allowed was that the referee deemed it was possession then the play is dead at the point of "possession". Therefore, whatever happened subsequently couldn't have happened if the whistle was blown. The key here is, why was the goal disallowed? The other thing that needs to be determined is what was actually protested? There are specific guidelines to a game being protested.

**quick_dry** · 02-21-2008, 06:13 PM

RULE 409 - CALLING OF PENALTIES

409(c)(c) If the penalty to be imposed is a minor penalty, and a goal is scored on the play by
the non-offending team, the minor penalty shall not be imposed, but major and match
penalties shall be imposed in the normal manner regardless of whether a goal is scored or
not.

NOTE 1: The puck must have come into the possession and control of an
opposing player or has been "frozen". This does not mean a rebound off the goaltender,
the goal or any accidental contact with the body or equipment of an opposing player.

NOTE 2: If after the Referee has signaled a penalty but before the whistle
has been blown, the puck shall enter the goal of the non-offending team as the direct
result of the action of a player of that team, the goal shall be allowed and the penalty
assessed in the normal matter.

Notes 1 and 2 seem pretty clear that it was a goal if that is the point of rule that they were appealing on.