sprig

When global warming was invented, they placed the entire ozone layer over NWND Only -33 this morning, no wind, it's balmy out there.

Current students have it too easy. Could have stood in line outside the WSB for 2 hours, then finally get in to a building that was colder than it was outside.

So is wind chill

Fire Weather Station in Northwest corner of ND Hourly satellite transmissions; only -27 at last look and winds have been in the 30's most of the day. Another 3-4" of snow to go with it. Brutal out here today. Don't think we'll be burning.

Don't forget Jordin Tootoo (Atlanta?)

We'll have to disagree. After believing that and watching it multiple times, at first look it appears like that's what happened, but it simply did not. Look at the replay from the side (the last replay, not one of the first two behind the net). You can see the path it takes is way off to the side of Parise, and could not have arrived at his blade when it is above his head.

I thought that the first time viewing it in full motion and frame by frame it was a double hit, but after looking at the replay from the side, I believe the illusion of the first contact is not correct. The side view clearly shows the point shot was off to the side of Parise, rather than right at him (above his head), and therefore the stick contact could not have occured above his head. If you see my posts at the time it happened, I was sure it was a high stick above his head. After Parise's comments, and rewatching, I now believe the stick contact was much lower than that, although still may have been high. No matter what, it still may have been above 4', and the on ice official should have had the best view of the height. Of course that requires believing D. Shepard, which is a stretch for me. It really makes no difference, the score is in the books. I think we know the delayed penalty rule is much like the high stick contact rule, the calls are just seldom made consistently by the rule, so the confusion by fans and players is understandable.

The rule is possession, but obviously the calls are often not made that way. Most often the whistle goes as soon as it touches a penalized team's player on a delyed call, I'd guess the same is true for the high stick rule. However, when a referree does call it by the rule, however inconsistant, it's hard to argue about it.

Oh, no. You know what POI says about 27 year old Canadiens

The replay from behind the net is very close to ice level. Every other time I've watched this, I was sure that the pucks hits Parise's stick above his head, but it does not. Watch very closley the path the puck takes from the point shot to the stick contact. It's obvious when the stick is above his head that the blade is not on the same line as the shot. The illusion occurs when the puck disappears from view when it gets behind the blade above Parise's head, then reappears below the stick, as if he's already made contact with it. Careful frame by frame will show that is not the case, when it disappears temporarily from view, it has not yet reached the stick. You can tell from the side angle replay that the path of the puck is well off to the side of Parise, rather than right at his stick held above his head. Still, not conclusive contact below the crossbar, but certainly contact much lower than I'd originally thought. And yes, it's possible that at ice level it was more clear that the contact was above 4', but I think it was a much closer call than it initially appeared.

I've watched again in stop frame, and, I now agree with you. In full motion it looks like the puck hits the stick above Parise's head, but in frame by frame, definitely not the case. It could very well have been legal contact and a good goal. But, I also agree, it was still very close, and would not be overturned even with a replay. I now understand Parise's comments in the news release, however. The puck may well have been contacted very close to waist level, given how Parise was bent over as he brought his stick down to make contact. At any rate, legal goal or not, the score stands at 2-1 Gophs. May make some interesting future flame wars on USCHO, if someone mentions it should the teams meet again later this year

Just listened to/watched that last rush. Woog's call is, "Murray going wide and he's tackled. Good play by Waibel." Didn't think much of it watching it live last night, although I thought it should have been a penalty, but with so little time left thought it made little difference. On second thought tonight, however, it would have been nice to have one last 6 on 4 offensive zone faceoff, with the like of Bochenski ready to one time a face off win. Missed the second period last night, so watched it tonight. Gophers did pick it up after the Irmen goal, as the crowd got into it and it looked like that helped. At the same time, I was not not nearly as disappointed with the Sioux play as I was last night. Shot discrepancy did me in last night, but rewatching, the Sioux had a bunch of open net chances in all three periods and failed to connect with the puck, or missed the net, on each one. Other than Lundbohm's goal, I think less than half, and maybe way less than half, of what I'd consider the Sioux's scoring chances ended up being SOG's. The bounces went the Gophers way, and I think the Sioux had as many good chances to win this one as they did on Friday night. You couldn't practice the Irmen swinging near whiff, puck right to his backhand and into the goal and have it work like it did last night. And, Riddles's centering pass was made to the first Goph forward at the net, whose stick was tied up, went by him to the second forward who's stick was tied up also, then slid out to Koalska, who was tied up but had his stick loose and got the shot off. I'd have been mad if any one of the three had gone in free of a backcheck, but the fact that the Sioux had all three tied up showed the defensive grit on this team. And, although most of the Gopher forwards backchecked much better than in November, there are a more than a couple who don't play that part of the game. Also, the ice looked horrible. I've never seen so many pucks stick at inopportune times, or conversely slide easily, each causing the puckhandler to lose the puck without being pressured. I'm glad the season at the Hooch is over for the Sioux. The Excel is a much better place to play. All things being equal, if the two teams meet again and both play as well, I like the Siouxs' chances, on a big or small ice surface. Good time to lose to a good team; now it's back to work

We were all trying to forget. Thanks for the reminder

Could there be a pothole in the collective "state of hockey" hockey knowledge. A group lobotomy has been done? Or just beer brain dead?

Thanks for the links. I've been looking at online radar/forecast/road report and it didn't look good, so he's home until tomorrow. Don't expect roads to be good, but the snow should end.

Winter started early out here, a couple feet of wet stuff in November, and after this weekend we're probably up to 3 feet. Doubt if many peasants (spelling intentional) will survive, but we should have boatloads of water next spring. Dux R Us.

Do you have a blizzard going on at GF yet? Terrible weekend out west, but kid is home and putting off driving back to GF until tomorrow. Still bad out here today, although the snow has mostly stopped, just blowing now.

He is so terrible defensivley, probably wouldn't have been a bad thing for MDU to have him playing for MTU. On the other hand, with the game in hand last night, he would no doubt have been trolling for fights late in the game, and I'd guess Duluth would have one or more takers, as the Sioux did. So probably you should thank Hale for taking him out of the Duluth series. Don't like MTU being the last series on the Sioux schedule before the playoffs. With nothing to play for, what will stop Scott and company from looking for fights all weekend. Hope the Sioux with a tendancy to get lured into that play smart and don't eliminate themselves from the playoff's. If the Sioux finish first, hope MTU puts Mankato in last place, for the same reasons as above. Even worse would be having to play them two weekends in a row.

Waste of time explaining anything to yd, but I've nothing else to do today. The puck did stop, clearly shown on the replay, alongside/under Brandt's pad. Because of the delayed penalty, or, because Shepard lost sight of the puck, the whistle goes (this in spite of Woog's commentary over and over and over that the puck kept moving, while showing the replay of it clearly stopped). When Brandt pulled his stick in, he knocked the puck into his own net, after the whistle. The call was correct, just as the no goal for the Sioux last night. Understand, moron

How 'bout Jason Blake.

Dagies, You've got to get back into the game. PCM has now passed you, next up, Goon and Sic. You're like the retired goalies that Belfour is chasing and passing

If that is the case on the penalty calls, then the Gopher roughing, slashing, etc, was missed. Think Sonmor still believes it's the dirty Canadians against the lily white Minnesotans. I'd guess it's Alzheimers

Does make the hockey series pale in comparison RIP, Mr. Hendrickson

I agree with you, but I've not actually seen the puck hit the stick on the replay. Did it hit the blade (which was obviously above cross bar height) or somewhere down the shaft? Of course Shepard's explanation that it did not hit a Goph player is wrong, but with control being in the rule, that makes no difference. Understandable that Parise, Sioux would want that goal to count. I certainly did.