Griffin Cook goal controversy

[DoctahLexus]

Well Twitter is using the cook goal as the next big controversy in the dive saga. Ty Xanders is saying it shouldn't have been allowed with many in agreement. While I do hate the dangers posed by the dive which I think far out weigh the positives, they have called situations where the guy is pushed in the back during the dive consistently. It was basically a repeat of the tehoka goal that they allowed. Apparently anything goes if you're cross checked in the back. It's honestly not too different from last year except last year you had to leave your feet only after being pushed in the back. Now we see guys leaving their feet and then getting redirected which is way too dangerous for goalies but also more the fault of the defensive guy than the offense. Any thoughts?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[upperdeck]

by the new rule it shouldnt have counted.

 

[JeremyCuse]

Cook was pushed and he was redirected toward the goal. Same thing happened to us last week. Alberici can btch all he wants hes wrong.

 

[RoysRunts]

Goal counted end of story

 

[Whitey23]

 

[Whitey23]

 

[JeremyCuse]

That cannot be correct, if that were true every defender would just shove the diving attackmen into the goalie.

 

[MadNY3]

That cannot be correct, if that were true every defender would just shove the diving attackmen into the goalie.

I think fueling the issue is the refs didn’t throw a flag, which they should’ve done. Goal allowed, controversy avoided.

 

[JeremyCuse]

I think fueling the issue is the refs didn’t throw a flag, which they should’ve done. Goal allowed, controversy avoided.

I think they actually did call a push but it was waived off due to the goal.

 

[MadNY3]

I think they actually did call a push but it was waived off due to the goal.

Ah. If they did, I missed it. I though Army went nuts because there was no flag and the goal was allowed...

 

[JOC44]

Wasn’t it on the Solomon goal that they threw a flag and picked it up?

 

[JeremyCuse]

Ah. If they did, I missed it. I though Army went nuts because there was no flag and the goal was allowed...

I think Army wanted a flag on Cook which is why Alberici blew his stack. Thought they did flag army on the push.

 

[DoctahLexus]

Ah. If they did, I missed it. I though Army went nuts because there was no flag and the goal was allowed...

I believe that is why he was going completely nuts. That was a crazy no call and you would think if they didn't call the push they would wave off the goal. Doing neither was crazy

 

[bjred]

No surprise McEwen is at the center of this, he's the Doug Gottlieb of SU lax. This is what he's quoting. The only problem I have is he's only taking 5 seconds of one angle where it's hard to tell if the ball has crossed yet or not.

 

[MadNY3]

I believe that is why he was going completely nuts. That was a crazy no call and you would think if they didn't call the push they would wave off the goal. Doing neither was crazy

That was my take...

 

[Orangtiz]

But the folks in West Point arent too happy...

 

[DoctahLexus]

No surprise McEwen is at the center of this, he's the Doug Gottlieb of SU lax. This is what he's quoting. The only problem I have is he's only taking 5 seconds of one angle where it's hard to tell if the ball has crossed yet or not.

View attachment 154667

Hmmm wonder why he didn't say a similar thing about Spencer's goal (picture below shows contact with goalie before ball in the goal). Oh right he's biased and acts like he isn't.

 

[WoodyUK]

Loved Cooks goal but his but his trail foot was in the crease before the ball broke the line I think!

 

[orange79]

All this back and forth just reinforces my initial take when I heard this rule had been approved - this is going to be extremely difficult (if not all but impossible) to call correctly (and more importantly, consistently) as written when you are talking about referees watching at game speed with no replay.

 

[JeremyCuse]

All this back and forth just reinforces my initial take when I heard this rule had been approved - this is going to be extremely difficult (if not all but impossible) to call correctly (and more importantly, consistently) as written when you are talking about referees watching at game speed with no replay.

Exactly, if they just left well enough alone we wouldn't have these issues. Rule committee meets every two years I believe so I am sure it will be taken back out again.

 

[PhatOrange]

I thought I was going to like the rule but after seeing 2 goalies get hurt in successive weekends I'd like to see it taken back out.

 

[ForCuseSake]

I never understood the point of this rule - was it to bring back the dive when driving from X??

Because I can't think of another way to attempt a diving shot when you're not diving toward the goalie or cone or cylinder or whatever the farque they call it.

Cook clearly attempted to dive parallel to the goal line (pretty ballsy move, btw) and was back checked into the goalie.

They got rid of one subjective rule ("Timer On") and replaced it with an equally subjective, if not dumber, rule that risks players' legs knees and heads.

 

[ivorytower]

I do question that goal as well. . Dislike the reintroduction of the crease dive for all the reasons mentioned. Surprised at NCAA rules committee. Think it was irresponsible on their part and counter to player safety , any penalties are insignificant to any injury that might occur. Our goalies and their knees have already been collided with several times in scrimmages and games.

 

[GoSU96]

Look at the video and you can seek the goalie has been coached to come out and make contact with the offensive player early and away from the goal mouth to draw the penalty. He's more in a checking position then trying to defend a shot.