Spring Break
League rules unfairly for teams
Dan Kukla
Issue date: 11/6/09 Section: Sports
Cheaters never prosper, unless they play in the CCHA. That's what college hockey fans learned Halloween weekend via a league ruling that was all trick and no treat.
Bowling Green used an ineligible player to win an overtime shootout against Nebraska-Omaha, a detail the four referees did not see until after the game ended. The real crime, however, is that the league refused to punish the Falcons or reward the Mavericks once the error was caught. Instead of taking the extra standings point away from Bowling Green and giving it to Nebraska, CCHA officials decided to let the result stand.
"I think that's a terrible precedent for a league, and I think the integrity of the league's at stake when you make that sort of decision," Nebraska-Omaha Athletic Director Trev Alberts told the Omaha World-Herald. "You're actually encouraging member institutions to cheat, as long as they don't get caught before the game is declared over."
Let's start with the facts.
After playing to a 3-3 tie in both regulation and overtime, Friday's contest between Bowling Green and Nebraska-Omaha went to a shootout. Jordan Samuels-Thomas, who was whistled for a roughing-after-the-whistle penalty with 16 seconds left in the game, scored the Falcons' winning shootout goal. According to NCAA rules, any player who gets called for an OT penalty cannot participate in the shootout.
In a statement released by the CCHA Saturday, the conference declared that an "error in rules enforcement during the course of the game, while unfortunate, can only be corrected during the course of the game. Once the game is concluded, there are no further actions that can take place to correct the situation."
According to CCHA Rule V.8, protests arising from decisions of game officials or from errors or misinterpretations of the rules will not be considered - and according to NCAA Rule 6-SECTION 39, protests are not recognized or allowed.
OK, now its time for my opinion: that is a load of garbage, especially on a night that is supposed to be about passing out candy.
Bowling Green used an ineligible player to win an overtime shootout against Nebraska-Omaha, a detail the four referees did not see until after the game ended. The real crime, however, is that the league refused to punish the Falcons or reward the Mavericks once the error was caught. Instead of taking the extra standings point away from Bowling Green and giving it to Nebraska, CCHA officials decided to let the result stand.
"I think that's a terrible precedent for a league, and I think the integrity of the league's at stake when you make that sort of decision," Nebraska-Omaha Athletic Director Trev Alberts told the Omaha World-Herald. "You're actually encouraging member institutions to cheat, as long as they don't get caught before the game is declared over."
Let's start with the facts.
After playing to a 3-3 tie in both regulation and overtime, Friday's contest between Bowling Green and Nebraska-Omaha went to a shootout. Jordan Samuels-Thomas, who was whistled for a roughing-after-the-whistle penalty with 16 seconds left in the game, scored the Falcons' winning shootout goal. According to NCAA rules, any player who gets called for an OT penalty cannot participate in the shootout.
In a statement released by the CCHA Saturday, the conference declared that an "error in rules enforcement during the course of the game, while unfortunate, can only be corrected during the course of the game. Once the game is concluded, there are no further actions that can take place to correct the situation."
According to CCHA Rule V.8, protests arising from decisions of game officials or from errors or misinterpretations of the rules will not be considered - and according to NCAA Rule 6-SECTION 39, protests are not recognized or allowed.
OK, now its time for my opinion: that is a load of garbage, especially on a night that is supposed to be about passing out candy.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Interested Alum
posted 11/06/09 @ 4:20 PM EST
I couldn't agree more with the author. Apparently the CCHA has no problem with cheaters if they do it well enough to avoid detection. This raises the question, "How can we cheat?" Why not? If there is no penalty for cheating, by definition, it's OK to cheat. (Continued…)
Post a Comment