PCM
-
Posts
13,098 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by PCM
-
-
3 minutes ago, cberkas said:
So how many girls from North Dakota played for UND?
That's not important. The pipeline of college talent was still emerging.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Vegas_Sioux said:
Sometimes I feel as though I'm not conforming to the standards of the hood.
-
12 minutes ago, Esoteric said:
Just saying: TV game can be watched near the bench by fans on their iPhone (Android). I heard a linesman said no goal. A challenge was made. Does anyone know how the challenge decision was made? Strange things happen.
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.
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, cberkas said:
The puck only went in because of the Notre Dame player was laying in the crease. Puck hits the post then the player laying there. I don't know how I didn't see this game or remember it.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, sprig said:
Jaillet's version of a dive as a last resort.
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.
-
9 minutes ago, cberkas said:
Cam gets ran over it's not interference.
Jaillet gets a stick to touch his glove it's interference.
The logic of the NCHC officials.
I remember when this goal was allowed. No interference with Dell. Nope. None whatsoever.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
1 hour ago, stoneySIOUX said:I saw so many people on Facebook claiming to say he hit Jaillet in the mask and I have yet to find ONE iota of proof in that.
It's just such a bad call that I cannot fathom it. UGH.
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.
-
5
-
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.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:
I don't care what the situation is and I don't care of the benefit... diving isn't UND hockey and it never will be.
As Brandon "Bucks" Bochenski once said, it's unmanly.
-
2
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
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.
Quote73.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper
Officials are encouraged to use their discretion in determining the effect of an attacking player making contact with a goaltender or with goaltender equipment. Referees are instructed to give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact. If, in the opinion of the official, the incidental contact had no effect on the goaltender’s ability to defend the goal, a goal may be allowed in such situations.
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.
-
2
-
3
-
1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:
So you're telling me in 2+ periods of hockey DU never slashed, never took a step into a guy's open skating lane, never gave a little tug with the stick blade on a hip, never left a stick in a guys feet staggering him, never grabbed on a bit too hard or a bit too long along the boards. In today's college hockey.
Yeah right.
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:
QuoteA few minutes later UND’s Jordan Kawaguchi scored a goal to tie it up that was reviewed and reversed due to goalie interference.
“(Backup goaltender) Dayton Rasmussen said that it was goaltender interference,” Montgomery said. “And so we called them over and challenged it. What Dayton saw was that the guy that originally shot it put his stick where Tanner [Jaillet]’s stick was to prevent him from going left to right.”
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
3
-
-
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/-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:
That's so cute.
You actually think that nostalgic idea of "enforcing" a "rule book" is something we should still do.
The hit that happened from behind at the benches, when I happened I said if that's not a major there's not a major to be called in this game.
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.
QuoteRule 54 - Slew-footing
54.1 Slew-footing - Slew-footing is the act of a player or goalkeeper using the leg
or foot to knock or kick an opponent’s feet from under them, or pushing
an opponent’s upper body backward with an arm or elbow, and at the same
time with a forward motion of the leg, knocking or kicking the opponent’s
feet from under them, causing the opponent to fall violently to the ice.
PENALTY—Major and game misconduct or disqualification at the
discretion of the referee.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.
-
6 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:
The officials say they don't want to be the deciding factor in the game.
Have they ever considered that by not calling the game by the rules they are deciding the game in favor of the team that goes the furthest outside the rules?
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?
-
2 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:
Correct. That was interference. It just happened to cause substantial damage.
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.
QuoteRule 42 - Boarding
42.1 Boarding - A player shall not body check, cross-check, elbow, charge or
trip an opponent from the front or side in such a manner that causes the
opponent to be thrown violently into the boards (see Rule 50).
PENALTY—Minor or major at the discretion of the referee, based on
degree of violence of the impact with the boards. A game
misconduct or disqualification may be assessed at the
discretion of the referee. -
1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:
<-- green sandpaper
Hmm...stripping sandpaper?
-
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."
-
56 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:
I'm so Catholic the Pope makes jokes about me!
Like I keep telling you, I'm NOT the Pope!
-
1 minute ago, dden3 said:
I've been carrying this missed Simonson play around in my head for 2 weeks. Thanks for refreshing it for me.
You're welcome!
That was one of those plays you see and wonder how it didn't go in.
-
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.
-
It's a sad day. She made games at the Ralph special.
-
39 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:
He might wear the "C" but per NCAA rule book Rule 6, "A goalkeeper shall not be entitled to exercise the privileges of captain."
I suspect the key word is "exercise".
I bet one of the "A" does all of the zebra whispering.
I was thinking that Karl Goehring wore the C his senior year, even though he couldn't officially act as the team captain.
-
1
-
-
Just now, MafiaMan said:
Why would you leave SiouxSports.com for THAT?
It's a step down, I know.
-
1
-
Kennedy vs. Engelstad Foundation: GF herald feature
in Community
Posted
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/