• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


1 Follower

About PCM

  • Birthday January 1

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Grand Forks, ND

Recent Profile Visitors

2,258 profile views
  1. When I saw the hit that knocked Hammond out of the game, this is the rule that first came to mind. Maybe the forward motion with the leg wasn't there, but the hand certainly was a factor in the awkward fall into the boards. I also agree that the hit from behind that injured the DU player and took him out of the game should have been a major.
  2. I hate it when a sportscaster says, "That's a good non-call." Good for whom? The player who committed what was technically a penalty and got away with it?
  3. What about this rule? I can't remember the exact circumstances, but a body check from the side could apply because both players were in contact going into the boards. A broken ankle would indicate being violently thrown into the boards.
  4. Hmm...stripping sandpaper?
  5. I get your point, but I don't think it would make much sense to review for something that never happened (i.e. a goal being scored) and that didn't affect the game's outcome. But putting time back on the clock to benefit the team that was offsides makes about as much sense as taking a goal away for offsides when A) the attacking team didn't score off the rush, B) the defending team had control of the puck and C) the attacking team gained no advantage as a result of being offsides. The process of reviewing for a major penalty is a waste of time. I have yet to see a major penalty called as a result of a review. Maybe it has been done and I just haven't seen it. To me, it make no sense to say, "Yes, that was a minor penalty we didn't call and it will go uncalled because it wouldn't have made as much difference as a major penalty, which we'll do everything in our power to avoid calling."
  6. Like I keep telling you, I'm NOT the Pope!
  7. You're welcome! That was one of those plays you see and wonder how it didn't go in.
  8. After Bowen's goal was disallowed, Simonson came oh-so-close to giving UND the win off a beautiful setup from Wolanin. These are screen captures from the latest "Through These Doors." See what happens at the 5:20 mark.
  9. It's a sad day. She made games at the Ralph special.
  10. I was thinking that Karl Goehring wore the C his senior year, even though he couldn't officially act as the team captain.
  11. It's a step down, I know.
  12. Umm...to professional journalism?
  13. I'm saying no goal should count if the scoring opportunity is in any way related to the offsides zone entry. So a shot on goal and putting in the rebound wouldn't count. If Bowen's initial shot off the rush had been on goal and Hoff -- by virtue of entering the zone offsides -- was in position to put in the rebound, then the goal wouldn't count. But given that Bowen's first shot went wide and the puck was then up for grabs by either team, any advantage UND had was lost at that point. So why extend the opportunity for review beyond that point? I can see how a change of puck possession would be a more definite and perhaps more discernible point to determine when the review period ends. However, I also think whether the a goal is reviewed for a potential offisides infraction should be directly related to whether being offsides gave the attacking team an advantage that led to the goal. Once that advantage disappears, so should the opportunity for review. My objective is to shorten the review period at much as possible so the officials can stop thinking about it as soon as possible. Remember when this goal was reviewed for being offsides?
  14. Maybe it is a reach, but it's a good point. I haven't looked up the rule, but a previous poster said the opportunity to review a possible offsides entry ends when the puck leaves the zone. So in your scenario, there couldn't be a review because the puck came back out of BU's zone. However, if the NCAA is saying a goal can be disallowed because of whistle that didn't blow, then shouldn't it work both ways? What if a BU player anticipated Olson's first pass to Bowen high in the slot, picked it off, took the puck the other way and scored on a breakaway? Shouldn't UND be able to claim the goal wouldn't have happened if the linesman had correctly whistled the zone entry offsides? In that scenario, UND would actually have a better case than BU. Bowen scored 29 seconds AFTER the zone entry and AFTER BU gained possession of the puck but failed to clear it. The linesman's failure to whistle the zone entry offsides became irrelevant to UND's goal, but would have been very relevant on a hypothetical BU breakaway goal which the current rules allow.