dagies

um, I find this hard to believe.

I rarely want to see someone's posts removed, but this is the kind of crap that deserves it.

careful what you ask for!

Mariucci is a great place to watch a game. It's got great sight lines for all fans, even in SRO where I'll be. Basically just one big bowl. There was a time you could move into some very high quality seats because of no-shows, but in the last few years it's been pretty full. I noticed a lot of maroon, empty chairs during the Wisc series broadcasts on FSN, though. Generally the worst you'll get from the fans is the normal "overage Canadians" stuff, or some putzes sitting behind you who talk business all through the game, but I've experienced that at the Ralph too. Maybe some early teen-age punk who comes running up to yell in your face when you are down 7 goals, but you laugh when you picture them growing up and starting their own blog. Generally the fan base is less obnoxious than at Mankato or SCSU. If the Sioux are winning, it can be incredibly quiet in there.

In the 3rd period on Saturday my buddy pointed out that we hadn't seen Finley on the ice for quite a while. He may yet become that physical presence, but it's possible he's still learning where he should be, and the physical part could come when he gets more comfortable.

He did say that on TV on the FSN broadcast. PCM, I believe, has access to the players where they may tend to be a little more honest with their opinions. I've never heard a goalie admit on TV that he gave up a goal.

Smacking people around, at least that's what I saw on TV.

I doubt the "one overhead view" will be changed because my guess is it exists to make the availability to replay review equal across the conference. I'm guessing some teams don't have the TV broadcasts and those that do might not have all the cameras that an FSN or CSTV has available to them at a game. I'm guessing they've installed the overhead cameras in each arena and since that is uniform across the league, that will be the view used for replay. Everyone has a fair shake. Otherwise, you could use the argument that MN or WI or even UND might have the best advantage of replay thoughout the year because more of their games are televised by a big time operation with lots of camera angles, etc.

My favorite Woogism from this weekend was after FSN showed the McMahon/Vannelli fight from last year Woog may have felt he and Frank were having a bit too much fun with it, so in a show of conscience says "We're not condoning it, but we ARE entertained!".

Maybe you need to read a few posts higher. It appears in a Saturday interview Daddy Shepard indicates that the intent of the new rule was NOT to allow Stoa to do what he did, but that's how the ref on the ice interpreted the goal. In addition, on Saturday's pregame interview with Hennessey and Matt Smaby, I THOUGHT I heard Matt say that Little Shepards explanation was that Matt had pushed Stoa into the crease, and that's why he allowed the goal. Matt said he had pushed Stoa, but that had happened well prior to the shot, and that the Gophers had been parking in the crease all night, and continued to do so as the game went on. What I understood from that conversation was that LS correctly interpreted the new rule, but allowed the goal because he thought Smaby had forced Stoa into that spot. Bad decision IMO, because I felt the replays showed Stoa standing there for quite some time before the shot comes in past Parise without making an effort to exit. Either way, it would appear to me that Shepard blew the call.

Here's a look at the difference in experience between these two teams. I said earlier that the gap in exp might have been the difference. I see a gopher fan out in cyberspace is poo-pooing that gap, but it doesn't take a graduate student to appreciate that there is indeed a significant difference in experience between these two teams. Here's a break down of Saturday's line-ups for both teams: Overall...Sioux...Gophers Sr..........1.........4 Jr...........5.........4 So..........4.........6 Fr...........9.........5 Let's see, trade 3 freshmen for 3 seniors? Think that might make a difference?? I think the comparison is more stark by position: Forwards..Sioux...Gophers Sr............1.........2 Jr.............3.........2 So............3.........4 Fr.............5.........4 Defense...Sioux...Gophers Sr............0.........2 Jr.............1.........1 So............1.........2 Fr.............4.........1 Goal........Sioux....Gophers Jr............1..........1 Let's see. Most people say defense is the hardest position to learn. And that is where the most glaring difference is. Is it a great surprise that the Sioux looked a little discombobulated in their own zone? Yes, I think it is fair to say that 1 year of experience for a chunk of our D might have made things look a lot more even on the ice.

Irmen explained his actions by saying the crowd was all over him while he was in the box. I think Chorney's goal came after Irmen scored on Saturday and was immediately sent to the box, I think for UC. What we don't know is what Irmen said that caused that. Possibly Chorney was responding to Irmen's comments. While I didn't mind what Irmen did on Friday, I preferred NOT to see a Sioux player do that on Saturday, especially in a losing effort. A spontaneous display is one thing but I don't care for a proliferation of it.

Are you kidding? Back from the ledge, man. I've got tickets that night and you can bet I'll be there. BTW, I sure hope the Sioux do some work on the defensive end. Lee got burned by Bostrom on that goal because he didn't take the body out of the play. That goal shouldn't have happened. There were a few times where Sioux players weren't physical when defending the puck carrier and it hurt them. Couple that with WAY too many times the Sioux players were beaten to the boards when the puck was dumped in. That was starting to get embarrassing.

Wish I had scurried upstairs after watching the game to catch it. Forgot to.

Bummer of a weekend. Gophers played another very good game tonite. Very strong in the Sioux defensive end. Seemed like the Sioux began to catch up as the game went on, but they started in such a hole that they had too far to go. Regardless, the team was outplayed both nights yet were reviewed goals away from ties each night. If they can start getting consistent strong efforts they are going to be a very strong team, IMO. Seemed like the Sioux were just a little too intimidated? this weekend and spent a bit too much time watching what was happening or chasing rather than feeling confident that they knew what they should be doing. Hopefully this can be changed with more time and experience. I'm encouraged that they didn't give up tonite, and continued to apply the pressure ever more urgently as the game progressed. I don't think Irmen hit Chorney from behind into the boards. Seemed to me that hit pretty much side to side with Chorney getting turned into the boards because he got the worst of it. I can understand why Shep didn't award Oshie the goal but I think he should have. I don't think he looked at the replay monitor enough to know. HOWEVER, Frank and Doug said that he only has the overhead camera view to make a decision on. When they played that on TV I couldn't see the puck, so maybe there was nothing he could do. At first I had trouble seeing the puck on the FSN replays because I expected to see it sliding along the ice. When I realized it was popped into the air, then it started seeing more clear that it was indeed a goal. Could have used that goal. However, it may not have changed the outcome. Who knows how the game develops if that is scored a goal. Would have been nice to have 3.5 minutes remaining instead of 2.5, though. Toews was not as noticeable as last night, I thought. Zajac had a good game. The Red Pepper line was again a strong line, and I'm happy that they got on the scoreboard. I thought Chorney had a better game tonite than last night. This game had a chance to be one of the all-time great comebacks. With Smaby's hit on Potulny, Sioux scoring some 3rd period goals to come back, Irmen taking a penalty near the end.....If the Sioux could have scored on Irmen's penalty and managed to win, it would have been one for the history books considering the personalities involved. Oh well, it didn't work out that way. I hope they found some things they can work on for the next few weeks, and maybe get a little payback in MN. Sure can't afford to get swept again. Pretty disappointing to come out without points this weekend, at home. BTW, what was with the fans all sitting around after the second goal? How about getting up and cheering? Diggler, we saw you giving Irmen an earful. Looked like fun.

Doesn't change anything but this makes me feel better about the rule, if this is true. Didn't seem right that Stoa could be sitting where he was and be deemed not affecting the play "in the crease".

I predict tonite is Zajac's night.

Tim asked Smaby if the guys, especially young ones, were a bit nervous before the game last night. He said yes, with additional stress as it was a nationally televised game. Gophers pressure along the wall so the Sioux need to look to the middle to escape the zone easier. (Watch out for some D zone giveaways. AHHHHHH!) Feel the Sioux needs a bit better D play and better job getting the puck out of the zone. Feels the Sioux didn't play physical enough last night, will try to do better tonite. Hennessey says Shepard says Smaby shoved Stoa into the crease on the controversial goal. Smaby says he did push him, but well before the shot, and that the gophers were standing in the crease like that all game, so it wasn't because he shoved Stoa there.

Very impressed with Toews communication skills in his pregame interview. Seems to be an intelligent and well spoken young man.

I wish I could be there!! (at the Sioux game)

Regardless of the call on that goal, the Sioux were outplayed last night. Still, they stayed close enough to have a chance. If they can play better tonite, they'll have a real shot to get 2.

Over the the GPL they are saying that the "F... the Gophers!" chant did break out last night.

Last night was a bummer. I don't know what will happen tonite but once again I'm ready for game time and wish I could be there to cheer them on. Go SIOUX!

Yep, screening the goalie is a great tactic. I agree. But IMO you shouldn't be able to stand in the crease and do it. My impression is the crease is there to give the goalie an area of operation. I agree with what PCM said, which is just get rid of the crease, because it obviously has no meaning if last night's goal stands. Only call goalie interference. IMO last night's call became a judgement call and the ref had to decide if Stoa was really inhibiting Parise's ability to make the play. I agree with you that Parise was preoccupied with Stoa, which means Stoa did his job. However, he was standing so close, and in Parise's field of vision, that I believe that should still be called because he's IN the crease. Had he been behind Parise I'd have had no problem with it. IMO because of that call, Parise had to try and defend his crease later and took the slashing penalty. I'm not saying Parise should have slashed him, but Sheppard didn't give him room to operate. Going back to the goal, what if Kessel had passed across the ice and not shot? Parise had to be ready for that, and Stoa would have been right in front of him, right IN the crease had the pass gone between the dots. Parise would have been sunk then. So yes, I think the goalie should at least get the benefit of the doubt of a call regarding a player in the crease, not the other way around.

no problemo