Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by PCM

  1. This might be as close as you get. Charles Kupchella: UND’s Surprising Nickname Warrior https://www.uscho.com/2006/06/21/charles-kupchella-unds-surprising-nickname-warrior/
  2. That's not important. The pipeline of college talent was still emerging.
  3. Sometimes I feel as though I'm not conforming to the standards of the hood.
  4. According to the NCAA rules, the linesmen have no authority to disallow a goal on their own. They are allowed to tell the refs about a penalty they witnessed after play is halted. In this case, the linesman could have said he saw 18 UND use his stick to interfere with the goalie. That would have allowed the goal to be waved off because of a penalty on Adams. There is nothing in the rule book saying a goal can be disallowed because of a penalty that was seen -- but not called -- by an on-ice official. That makes no sense. Brad Schlossman discusses what he was told by the NCHC in today's Weekend Rewind blog.
  5. I remember it all too well. It was yet another case of denying a goal by claiming a penalty occurred that didn't happen and was never called. http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/2010/12/about-that-goal.html
  6. I don't think Jaillet had anything to do with it. I think he knew he was beaten and that it was a good goal. Note that Montgomery never says he saw interference. He threw a tantrum based on the word of DU's backup goalie on the bench. To disallow a goal by claiming a penalty occurred that the officials didn't call is really ludicrous. I can't blame Jaillet for that.
  7. I remember when this goal was allowed. No interference with Dell. Nope. None whatsoever.
  8. When I watched the replay, I expected to see some evidence that Adams hooked Jaillet with his stick to prevent him from moving across the crease to stop Kawaguchi's shot. Perhaps the view from above shows something like that, but at the time it would have mattered, the blade of Adams' stick is perpendicular to the ice. If his stick is making contact, it's not doing so in a way that would interfere with the goalie's ability to make a save. Per the NCAA rules, incidental contact by the attacking player is allowed. Also, when you watch the video at full speed, I don't see how Adams could have had the presence of mind to do anything other than make the pass to Kawaguchi.
  9. On YouTube, there's a Denver Pioneers Hockey channel with highlights from Saturday's game showing a replay of UND's disallowed goal. The replay starts at the 2:44. I can't get the link to correctly show the right video, but here's a screen shot showing Adams' alleged goalie interference. While his stick might be touching Jaillet, it's in no way interfering with the goalie's ability to make a save. In fact, the puck is already on Kawaguchi's stick and he puts it in the net a fraction of a second later. Total BS call.
  10. As Brandon "Bucks" Bochenski once said, it's unmanly.
  11. I haven’t seen a good replay of UND’s disallowed goal, but in the one I saw, it appeared to be a bang-bang scoring play. Adams’ pass and Kawaguchi’s shot occurred so quickly that it appeared impossible for Jaillet to have any chance of making a save. If Adams’ stick contact with Jaillet was so egregious, why didn’t either referee call it? Why didn’t Jaillet immediately react to the alleged interference? I suspect it’s because what happened falls within the realm of incidental contact, which is covered in the NCAA ice hockey rules. From the viewpoint of the two referees who the NCAA says should make the determination about whether contact with the goalie was significant enough to warrant a penalty, neither of them made the call because neither of them saw a penalty—even after conferring with the linesman who claimed to have seen such interference. However, the on-ice judgement of the two referees was overruled by an irate coach relying on the advice of a backup goalie sitting on the DU bench. Plus, even if a linesman actually witnessed goalie interference, the officials didn’t do what they’re supposed to do. The NCAA rules don’t give linesmen any authority to wave off goals. The correct procedure would have been for a referee to disallow the goal based on a penalty for goalie interference—if the ref believed the linesman’s version of events. If it’s a penalty, call the penalty and say goalie interference was the reason for the goal being disallowed. Not that this outcome would have been more palatable to UND fans, but at least it would have made sense. Allowing a linesman to wave off a goal for an uncalled penalty not only makes no sense, but is also contrary to the NCAA rules. However, don’t expect any type of coherent explanation from the league because like the old WCHA, when the league screws up, it never admits it. You just have to accept whatever sort of nonsensical explanation the league provides and leave it at that.
  12. We're also supposed to believe that UND won on Friday by playing a chippy game. Fortunately, Monty was able to clue in the officiating crew on all their missed calls, which helped them see the light on Saturday. We're also supposed to believe that after taking a questionable major penalty early in Saturday's game, UND's players and coaches couldn't figure out how the game was being called and simply continued to take penalty after penalty. Because, yeah, everyone knows that's the best way to win close games on the road. I found this article interesting: If this is correct, Montgomery never saw any goalie interference when Kawaguchi scored. It was DU's backup goalie who called it! He certainly was the most objective observer in the building. UND needs to get its backup goalies involved in reffing the games.
  13. Rule 50 - Hitting From Behind 50.1 Hitting From Behind - A player shall not push, charge, cross-check or body check an opponent from behind in open ice. PENALTY—Minor or major at the discretion of the referee. Hitting from behind into the side boards, end boards or goal cage is a flagrant violation. PENALTY—Major and game misconduct or disqualification at the discretion of the referee. Note: The committee reminds coaches and players that the responsibility remains with the player approaching an opponent along the boards in this rule. While players turning to draw penalties are a concern, the positive change in behavior the committee observed outweighs this issue. Any penalty in relation to this rule along the boards or into the goal cage must be a major penalty and a game misconduct or disqualification.
  14. Some have forgotten how good Ryan Duncan was for UND when the team needed him most. He was always humble about his line mates, but they recognized his talent and his leadership. For half his sophomore year, Duncan didn't play with Oshie and Toews. Keeping The Dots Connected http://www.uscho.com/2007/02/08/keeping-the-dots-connected/
  15. 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.
  16. 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?
  17. 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.
  18. 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."
  19. Like I keep telling you, I'm NOT the Pope!
  20. You're welcome! That was one of those plays you see and wonder how it didn't go in.
  21. 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.
  22. It's a sad day. She made games at the Ralph special.
  23. I was thinking that Karl Goehring wore the C his senior year, even though he couldn't officially act as the team captain.
  • Create New...