Tie Declared!!!!

Nature Boy

New member
Calling a tie after 7 overtimes was the right decision and I applaud the officials who called it. The students' safety means more than a trophy.
And if the kids who had barely played that game were all in danger I would agree with you. But there were fresh kids on the benches.

AGAIN, what would you have done if that had been an earlier round game?:wallbang:

Why is this question so tough for the tree-huggers to answer?
 

CatAlum

Active member
One team advises the OHSAA that it can't continue. The other team is brought in and the coaches/AD's/OHSAA have a conversation. The OHSAA suggests some alternatives, like playing one or two additional OT's (the approach that many have advocated..."this is it boys...one more OT and then it's over...we'll call it a tie at that point"). The spent team says, no, we will forfeit if required to play on. The other team, placed in a very uncomfortable situation where bad PR could result and having no time to think it over, is prevailed upon by the OHSAA to accept a tie instead of a forfeit win.

That's the basic outline of what occurred.
 

Nature Boy

New member
One team advises the OHSAA that it can't continue. The other team is brought in and the coaches/AD's/OHSAA have a conversation. The OHSAA suggests some alternatives, like playing one or two additional OT's (the approach that many have advocated..."this is it boys...one more OT and then it's over...we'll call it a tie at that point"). The spent team says, no, we will forfeit if required to play on. The other team, placed in a very uncomfortable situation where bad PR could result and having no time to think it over, is prevailed upon by the OHSAA to accept a tie instead of a forfeit win.

That's the basic outline of what occurred.
If that is what happened, shame on the suits for not having another alternative. AGAIN, what would they have done if this occurred in an earlier round game? Do they really have no contingency plans for that?
 

CatAlum

Active member
If that is what happened, shame on the suits for not having another alternative. AGAIN, what would they have done if this occurred in an earlier round game? Do they really have no contingency plans for that?
Well, it all makes sense to me. The one team won't come back onto the ice...it's a matter of safety for them. I understand it completely. They've drawn the line in the sand. You can't force them back out onto the ice (or question their decision) and they've indicated that they will accept the consequences (a forfeit). So the administrators either declare it a forfeit or coerce/cajole the other team to accept half a trophy. The second team probably could have gotten stubborn and said..."no, we want the whole trophy" and prevailed in that...or they could decide...you know, it just isn't it worth it to us to get the whole trophy in this manner.

So, the spent team's story is ultimately not very interesting. They played two lines as long as they could and ran out of gas. The interesting part of the story is what the OHSAA decided to do about this (in the moment) and what the second team decided while under the gun...being prevailed upon to be nice guys.
 

Nature Boy

New member
Well, it all makes sense to me. The one team won't come back onto the ice...it's a matter of safety for them. I understand it completely. They've drawn the line in the sand. You can't force them back out onto the ice and they will accept the consequences (a forfeit). So the administrators either declare it a forfeit or coerce/cajole the other team to accept half a trophy. The second team probably could have gotten stubborn and said..."no, we want the whole trophy" and prevailed in that...or they could decide...you know, it just isn't it worth it to us to get the whole trophy in this manner.

So, the spent team's story is ultimately not very interesting. They played two lines as long as they could and ran out of gas. The interesting part of the story is what the OHSAA decided to do about this (in the moment) and what the second team decided while under the gun...being prevailed upon to be nice guys.
"not very interesting" is one way to describe this. Sad would be another. I wonder how Northview's third line guys felt about all of this. Not much of a message to be sending them.

Assuming how you described this is true, I take the forfeit. If they have guys to use and refuse to, screw them. I am so sick of those in the right having to back down to those in the wrong, all in the name of some sick form of political correctness.

Let the tree-huggers scream, Iggy would have been doing the right thing. It wasn't their fault Northview didn't/couldn't/wouldn't use their entire team.
 

EaglePride01

Well-known member
One team advises the OHSAA that it can't continue. The other team is brought in and the coaches/AD's/OHSAA have a conversation. The OHSAA suggests some alternatives, like playing one or two additional OT's (the approach that many have advocated..."this is it boys...one more OT and then it's over...we'll call it a tie at that point"). The spent team says, no, we will forfeit if required to play on. The other team, placed in a very uncomfortable situation where bad PR could result and having no time to think it over, is prevailed upon by the OHSAA to accept a tie instead of a forfeit win.

That's the basic outline of what occurred.
Is it your position that O'Rourke and Fitzpatrick were held to the coals of "player satey" in order to reach a resolution?
 

CatAlum

Active member
Is it your position that O'Rourke and Fitzpatrick were held to the coals of "player satey" in order to reach a resolution?
I think that O'Rourke felt his players were fine. He can't speak for the other team's players. He obviously felt that way because he sent them out onto the ice for OT #8.

I think O'Rourke and Fitzpatrick are in a tough situation here. We're "big blue", a huge school, a private school. The opponent, public and smaller. The whole "public vs. private" issue comes to a head here. If O'Rourke and Fitzpatrick represented only the hockey team, I would say the proper course of action would be "if they won't come out, call it a forfeit, give us the trophy". But they represent the whole school and they're talking with the head of the OHSAA (who has been relatively rational with the public/private thing) and I think that they did the right thing for the school, and for private schools' dealings with the OHSAA (and I know a good number of people who disagree with me).
 
Last edited:

WarriorDee

Member
And if the kids who had barely played that game were all in danger I would agree with you. But there were fresh kids on the benches.

AGAIN, what would you have done if that had been an earlier round game?:wallbang:

Why is this question so tough for the tree-huggers to answer?
Although, the fresh player/legs idea also begs for one to answer what positions were still represented? Do you have enough for say two more lines replete with Centers, Wingers and Defensemen? Yes this wasn't the best outcome for a state championship, but it happened. I for one wonder why the OHSAA has not reached out actively to THE hockey authority in the US, USA Hockey for input and guidance, to make sure that someting like this is avoided in future games?
 

Nature Boy

New member
Although, the fresh player/legs idea also begs for one to answer what positions were still represented? Do you have enough for say two more lines replete with Centers, Wingers and Defensemen? Yes this wasn't the best outcome for a state championship, but it happened. I for one wonder why the OHSAA has not reached out actively to THE hockey authority in the US, USA Hockey for input and guidance, to make sure that someting like this is avoided in future games?
Not picking on you, but I just can't get an answer. What would have happened if this had occurred earlier in the tournament? Can anyone tell us that?
 

Backyard Champ

New member
Not picking on you, but I just can't get an answer. What would have happened if this had occurred earlier in the tournament? Can anyone tell us that?
What's it matter? It didn't, and if it did they would have acted differently. Not sure why you keep harping on that hypothetical.
 

Nature Boy

New member
What's it matter? It didn't, and if it did they would have acted differently. Not sure why you keep harping on that hypothetical.
Oh I don't know, maybe because people can learn from hypotheticals. ALL disaster recovery planning is based on hypotheticals, but organizations across the world all do it.

It matters because THAT would have provided a solution to the horrible injustice that wound up in a tie and NO state champs.

Boys, this isn't that deep, or that difficult.
 

WarriorDee

Member
Although, the fresh player/legs idea also begs for one to answer what positions were still represented? Do you have enough for say two more lines replete with Centers, Wingers and Defensemen? Yes this wasn't the best outcome for a state championship, but it happened. I for one wonder why the OHSAA has not reached out actively to THE hockey authority in the US, USA Hockey for input and guidance, to make sure that someting like this is avoided in future games?
Not picking on you either Rick Flair but you glossed over my question as to position depth available at the end. As to your hypotheticals, you would really need to ask the OHSAA what the plan was in case the same scenario occured during a playoff round, as they would be the only ones who would know. I still would advise the OHSAA, to consult with USA Hockey to educate them on proper overtime period play scenarios for championship Tournament play.
 

Bob Barker

New member
Agree 100 percent with Warrior Dee on collaboration with US Hockey ... steps have to be taken to avoid situations like this in future, all while maintaining player safety.
 

Wadz06

Active member
Uh Oh, Bluejackets and Pens in OT in Columbus, hope it doesn't go 7 OTs, got to think of player safety for those old guys. How will they cover the added expense for all the workers.... They can't resume another day, playoffs don't allow a shoot out.....what will they do?
 
.
Top