Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum
The Sicatoka

Time to re-look at certain rules?

Recommended Posts

Here are a few ideas some of which have been discussed on this forum lately;

1)  Diving- a 3 strikes rule should be instituted. Strike one is 2 minutes for diving and a 2 minute misconduct penalty (yes I believe trying to deceive an official is worse than the original infraction). Strike 2 is 2 minutes for the dive and a 10 minute misconduct. Strike 3 is a 2 minute penalty and a game misconduct. Any additional offenses are 2 games each.  

2) Faceoffs- I don't have the answer but they aren't consistent with throwing people out and often times they are the ones delaying the game. 

3) Matching Minors- this should be a last resort for officials since it doesn't punish a team and most likely won't change behavior. Examples- If team A crashes the goalie after a shot, illegally makes contact, and then a scrum breaks out everyone should be matched up with an additional 2 minutes going to team A for the initial penalty. If team A crashes the net legally and a scrum is started by team B then everyone should be matched up and team B should get the extra 2 for instigating. 

4) I like the idea of a coaches challenge or two throughout the game to cut down on everything being reviewed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snake said:

Do all college rinks have the same height glass these days?  Could that be why it's not implemented?

Not sure why they never call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

To be clear, you're complaining about discussing a call that ended our hockey season 72 hours ago on a message board dedicated to talking about our hockey team. And you wish we'd instead focus on "living our lives in general".

Have I missed anything?

Yes focus on more important things like early departures, possibility of Dane leaving, ect. They got the call right and i'm sure a camera on the blue line would definitely show it. Hoff has been offsides a lot this year. I'm not surprised he was ahead of the puck. It happens. Accept defeat. Nothing is gonna change the outcome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nodakgirl93 said:

Why would I log off? You're complaining about a call that didn't go our way.  Of course someone has to make a new thread for this issue. Yah I was upset but nothing you can do about it. Brad agreed with the call and seems like the players did to. If you wanna waste your time complaining and thinking of ways to better review then do so. But take it up with the ncaa. Focus on next year. 

Yeah, everyone stop talking about Tampa as well. That's in the past....:blink:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nodakgirl93 said:

Yes focus on more important things like early departures, possibility of Dane leaving, ect. They got the call right and i'm sure a camera on the blue line would definitely show it. Hoff has been offsides a lot this year. I'm not surprised he was ahead of the puck. It happens. Accept defeat. Nothing is gonna change the outcome. 

Nothing is going to change early departures or Dane leaving either.  So if I look back at your posts, I won't find you talking about bad calls or penalties on other teams or lack thereof?  If that's the case, fine, but if not, I find it odd you are telling people on this board what they should or shouldn't discuss. Maybe you should bring this foolish posting up with the moderators.  Oh, wait, one of them created the thread you're ironically complaining about. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nodakgirl93 said:

Yes focus on more important things like early departures, possibility of Dane leaving, ect. They got the call right and i'm sure a camera on the blue line would definitely show it. Hoff has been offsides a lot this year. I'm not surprised he was ahead of the puck. It happens. Accept defeat. Nothing is gonna change the outcome. 

You're missing the point completely with that post, but I appreciate your suffocating level of censorship on a thread you could simply choose not to click on.

You seem kind of new so welcome to siouxsports.com. This is not a site that bends and shapes to your will just because you think people should 'live their lives', which apparently consists of talking about early departures and whether or not Dane Jackson will leave the team. We like to 'live our lives' a little outside the box... at least outside your box thankfully.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

You're missing the point completely with that post, but I appreciate your suffocating level of censorship on a thread you could simply choose not to click on.

You seem kind of new so welcome to siouxsports.com. This is not a site that bends and shapes to your will just because you think people should 'live their lives', which apparently consists of talking about early departures and whether or not Dane Jackson will leave the team. We like to 'live our lives' a little outside the box... at least outside your box thankfully.

I'm going to agree, somewhat, with Nodakgirl here.

The original post of Sic's is a good topic for discussion.  Should college hockey look at changing the way we go back and check for offsides, and more particularly, whether a zone entry with no score on the initial rush should then essentially be "good" if after 30-60 seconds of cycling the puck a team scores.

However, in your initial post you changed the topic, slightly, by commenting on the our particular offsides, the poor camera angle for the replay, etc...  To me, this gets into more of the "sour grapes" territory that I prefer we avoid as a fanbase.

Berry took the correct approach with respect to our particular offsides.  He said it was "probably right" and deferred to the officials.  Enough said on that particular play as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

I'm going to agree, somewhat, with Nodakgirl here.

The original post of Sic's is a good topic for discussion.  Should college hockey look at changing the way we go back and check for offsides, and more particularly, whether a zone entry with no score on the initial rush should then essentially be "good" if after 30-60 seconds of cycling the puck a team scores.

However, in your initial post you changed the topic, slightly, by commenting on the our particular offsides, the poor camera angle for the replay, etc...  To me, this gets into more of the "sour grapes" territory that I prefer we avoid as a fanbase.

Berry took the correct approach with respect to our particular offsides.  He said it was "probably right" and deferred to the officials.  Enough said on that particular play as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't bring it up, I responded to a poster about having cameras down the blue lines while talking about the game that brought this discussion about.

Is it sour grapes if it's true?  Of course the coach took the high road, he's a classy coach and great guy and doesn't want to detract from the team's performance.  However, I'm not the head coach of UND hockey and am not employed by UND hockey so I do not need to be in lockstep with everything they say.

The officials were 'probably right' but the point is that we can't be sure, which is what conclusive evidence requires to overturn a call.

Maybe it's just me but I don't appreciate someone coming onto a board telling us what we can and cannot discuss because they think we should get over it because we lost. Part of this message board(to me at least) is to vent and debrief after these types of games. I'm not going to be talking about it all summer, but we're less than a week removed from the game that ended our chance to defend our national title. 

Sic, if my comments detracted at all from what you were trying to pursue in this thread, I apologize.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

I'm going to agree, somewhat, with Nodakgirl here.

The original post of Sic's is a good topic for discussion.  Should college hockey look at changing the way we go back and check for offsides, and more particularly, whether a zone entry with no score on the initial rush should then essentially be "good" if after 30-60 seconds of cycling the puck a team scores.

However, in your initial post you changed the topic, slightly, by commenting on the our particular offsides, the poor camera angle for the replay, etc...  To me, this gets into more of the "sour grapes" territory that I prefer we avoid as a fanbase.

Berry took the correct approach with respect to our particular offsides.  He said it was "probably right" and deferred to the officials.  Enough said on that particular play as far as I'm concerned.

So talking about an area where people think there should be changes, whether it's sour grapes or not should not be brought up on a message board.  People rip on players left and right on this message board, but that's fine, but heaven forbid you question a rule that came back to haunt you.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tnt said:

So talking about an area where people think there should be changes, whether it's sour grapes or not should not be brought up on a message board.  People rip on players left and right on this message board, but that's fine, but heaven forbid you question a rule that came back to haunt you.  

That's not what I said at all.  In fact, it's the opposite of what I said.  Talk about rule changes all you like. 

Nodakgirl responded to a poster who was complaining about the "bozos" and "clowns" who called UND offsides on the play, and she told the poster to give it a rest.  I feel the same way about those particular types of posts.  Biatching at the officials, or calling them names, accomplishes nothing and sounds like whining to outsiders, and to me, and we're better than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

That's not what I said at all.  In fact, it's the opposite of what I said.  Talk about rule changes all you like. 

Nodakgirl responded to a poster who was complaining about the "bozos" and "clowns" who called UND offsides on the play, and she told the poster to give it a rest.  I feel the same way about those particular types of posts.  Biatching at the officials, or calling them names, accomplishes nothing and sounds like whining to outsiders, and to me, and we're better than that.

She didn't respond to anyone but me. And I never once called a ref a bozo or a clown... at least not on this board :D

Seriously though, you think the offsides review process and/or the offsides play from Friday should be off limits for discussion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

She didn't respond to anyone but me. And I never once called a ref a bozo or a clown... at least not on this board :D

Seriously though, you think the offsides review process and/or the offsides play from Friday should be off limits for discussion? 

Her post, which didn't directly quote anyone else's post, followed krusty's post (which quoted your initial post) and included krusty's references to the officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

She didn't respond to anyone but me. And I never once called a ref a bozo or a clown... at least not on this board :D

Seriously though, you think the offsides review process and/or the offsides play from Friday should be off limits for discussion? 

She was responding to me as apparently I used inappropriate terms for a referee.  Lesson learned today:  First Amendment doesn't apply to those who choose to vent some frustration on this message board. 

I will point out that I did throw a bone, in the same post, to the 'bozo' or 'clown' that ultimately made the decision to waive off - he must have seen definitive evidence on some zoomed-in image on that small monitor that Hoff was in the zone before the puck.  If I was able to see the same image, then I will gladly change the descriptor to 'expert'.  Otherwise, I claim that the evidence from the images us misinformed fans saw did not reach the level of conclusiveness to waive off the goal.

BTW, if he had not waived off the goal, the team beats BU, AND evidence was seen later that Hoff was truly offsides, then I would feel the win to be tainted.  He would flip back to being a bozo, in my small, diseased brain at least.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

She didn't respond to anyone but me. And I never once called a ref a bozo or a clown... at least not on this board :D

Seriously though, you think the offsides review process and/or the offsides play from Friday should be off limits for discussion? 

With respect to your question, again, for the third time, I think the offsides review process is an excellent point of discussion on this board or anywhere else.  Friday's play is another matter.

What else is there to discuss about Friday's play, other than to complain about it.  The play is over.  It was called.  The game went on.  I suppose that we can talk about the fact that the UND players box and coaches were right on that blueline and that it's interesting none of them have suggested it was a bad call.  What exactly do you want to discuss about the play, not the offsides review process in general, other than complain about the call?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, krustyklown said:

She was responding to me as apparently I used inappropriate terms for a referee.  Lesson learned today:  First Amendment doesn't apply to those who choose to vent some frustration on this message board. 

You are right that the First Amendment doesn't apply here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know when to say when...friends don't let friends rehash the same argument for multiple pages.   

 

What rules would you like to see the NCHC look at modifying?  I threw a few ideas out there related to diving, faceoffs, matching minors, etc. Other ideas???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, southpaw said:

If it takes three officials seven minutes to look at a review, chances are it should stand as called.

FYP.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda off topic but does anyone know if the refs have a "training camp" or anything in the offseason? I think NFL refs do... They go over new rules, points of emphasis etc.

I ask because I feel like the way the refs drop the puck at faceoff is very different. Some drop it right away, some take FOREVER! Some bend down to get closer to the ice, some stand normal. There doesn't seem to be much consistency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure miss PCM's contributions on this site.  Hopefully he will come back more often.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, PCM said:

At one point during the 29 seconds UND was in BU's zone, a Terriers' forward had control of the puck. He could have banked it off the glass, chipped it out or lobbed it out. But he tried to skate it out and Olson picked his pocket.

To me, once BU got possession that's the limit to as far back as they should be able to review. 

Another question: Did they reset the game clock back to the time of the "off-sides"?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×