[UND to cut women's hockey]

2 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

Professional journalism. Dead. 

(Where have you gone, PCM.) 

Umm...to professional journalism? 

[UND W Hockey on Outside the Lines]

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

35 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I'm saying "change of possession" because a "voluntarily give up control" scenario is a shot. 

Say it's a line rush and it's the ol' shoot it off the far pad as a pass to the other wing play. You voluntarily gave up possession, but that shouldn't count. 

I'm saying no goal should count if the scoring opportunity is in any way related to the offsides zone entry. So a shot on goal and putting in the rebound wouldn't count. If Bowen's initial shot off the rush had been on goal and Hoff -- by virtue of entering the zone offsides -- was in position to put in the rebound, then the goal wouldn't count. But given that Bowen's first shot went wide and the puck was then up for grabs by either team, any advantage UND had was lost at that point. So why extend the opportunity for review beyond that point? 

I can see how a change of puck possession would be a more definite and perhaps more discernible point to determine when the review period ends. However, I also think whether the a goal is reviewed for a potential offisides infraction should be directly related to whether being offsides gave the attacking team an advantage that led to the goal. Once that advantage disappears, so should the opportunity for review. My objective is to shorten the review period at much as possible so the officials can stop thinking about it as soon as possible. 

Remember when this goal was reviewed for being offsides?

 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

9 hours ago, yzerman19 said:

right, in theory if the attacking team does not have possession, if an offsides were in order, they would be allowed the opportunity to tag up as well.  If BU had transitioned it quickly up-ice with us deep and scored, would UND's offsides wave off their goal?

I know I'm reaching here...

Maybe it is a reach, but it's a good point. I haven't looked up the rule, but a previous poster said the opportunity to review a possible offsides entry ends when the puck leaves the zone. So in your scenario, there couldn't be a review because the puck came back out of BU's zone. 

However, if the NCAA is saying a goal can be disallowed because of whistle that didn't blow, then shouldn't it work both ways? What if a BU player anticipated Olson's first pass to Bowen high in the slot, picked it off, took the puck the other way and scored on a breakaway? Shouldn't UND be able to claim the goal wouldn't have happened if the linesman had correctly whistled the zone entry offsides? In that scenario, UND would actually have a better case than BU. Bowen scored 29 seconds AFTER the zone entry and AFTER BU gained possession of the puck but failed to clear it. 

The linesman's failure to whistle the zone entry offsides became irrelevant to UND's goal, but would have been very relevant on a hypothetical BU breakaway goal which the current rules allow. 

[Early departures 2017]

3 minutes ago, scpa0305 said:

He didnt commit and back out at the last second like Miller.  

That was the point at which JT ceased being related to me. 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

53 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I still say you should only be allowed to review back to the last change of possession.

BU had the puck after the alleged Hoff offsides and failed to clear. That's on them. 

And it would make for FAR shorter reviews ... I hope. 

I could live with change of possession, but I think it makes sense to say that once the attacking team loses control of the puck -- either voluntarily or involuntarily -- any opportunity to review the zone entry ends. Once control of the puck is up for grabs with each side having an equal opportunity to gain possession, any advantage from entering the zone offsides effectively ends. So why extend the possibility for review any longer than necessary?

The man-in-the-crease precedent essentially says that if the player committing the technical violation had no role in a goal being scored, then the officials overlook it as being irrelevant to what happened. Once the zone entry becomes irrelevant to how the goal was scored, it should become a non-factor to the officials. 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

1 hour ago, ibleedgreen said:

Is there any way if someone could upload a snippet of the part of the game when they entered the zone with the puck up until the goal was scored. Would be nice to see of how much time was actually spent in the zone up until Dixon scored the goal. Obviously there wasn't any change in possession of the puck, right?

I looked at the replay. From the time UND entered the zone until Bowen scored, 29 seconds had elapsed. 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

3 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

This, I believe, is part of the problem.  I'm not sure we're ever going to see enough cameras, with a high enough quality, at all college rinks.  I think the NHL system is also aided by "Toronto" in that they have people watching the games with the ability to quickly look at a potential offsides, even before the play is stopped.  That speeds up the review.

If that's the case, I would suggest that the NCAA follow the same procedure used during the regular season. If it doesn't have the resources to fairly and accurately review zone entry in a timely manner, then it shouldn't be using a deficient procedure for the playoffs. 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

What's the NHL rule for reviewing offsides? Watching Chicago at Pittsburgh last night, the Blackhawks scored a beautiful goal off the rush which was set up by UND's own Nick Schmaltz. Chicago's zone entry was reviewed and determined to be onside, although just barely. The question was quickly answered because the cameras were well positioned and the images were of high enough quality to leave no doubt. The NCAA needs a system similar this if it's going to review for offsides. Does the NHL have the same rule about the puck leaving the zone before the zone entry becomes non-reviewable? 

[Early departures 2017]

3 hours ago, geaux_sioux said:

Can't wait to hear old people try and pronounce those two names. 

I'm offended, Goox Soox! 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

19 minutes ago, BIGSIOUX said:

love this conversation, but just to play devil's advocate.....

Are you sure you want more rules decisions to be made on referee's discretion? To me that seems like a bad idea, most guys have a hard enough time deciding between a 2 and a 5, can you imagine the conversation in the review box?

No, I don't want more discretionary decisions. That was illustrated late in the DU-PSU game when play was stopped to review whether a hit on a Pioneer defenseman was worthy of a major penalty. In real-time, the on-ice officials called no penalty. 

The game's outcome was still in doubt and calling a major late in the third period would have pretty much iced the game for DU. In my mind, the replay video showed there was no doubt it should have been a major penalty. But at the officials' discretion, it was ruled it was not a major penalty and play went on as if nothing had happened. DU was fortunate that the hit didn't cost it one of its best defenseman for the Frozen Four. 

I would be fine with handling zone entry calls the way they're made during the regular season. 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

19 minutes ago, iluvdebbies said:

I've been waiting for them having to review if the puck came out of the offensive zone or not....so they know if they can review the potential offsides.

It's really a question of how much the NCAA wants to punish a team for a call its trained, best-of-the-best, hand-picked officials missed and how much money it wants to spend to install the technology required to provide the indisputable evidence it says it needs to reverse an on-ice decision made in real-time by one of its officials. 

Also, we've all seen times when the puck is out of the zone for maybe a second and then goes right back in onside. 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

1 minute ago, iluvdebbies said:

There is. Once the puck leaves the offensive zone.....the play cannot be reviewed.

Which, to me, makes no sense. The decision should be based on whether the attacking team gained an advantage in scoring a goal by being offsides. Once the attacking team loses that advantage -- either because it lost possession of the puck or the other team gained possession -- there's really no reason to review the goal.

As I said, the NCAA has already created a precedent for allowing a goal to stand when a member of the attacking team is in the crease in violation of the rules IF he didn't interfere with the goalie. In other words, even if a player on the other team technically violated a rule and the officials didn't call it, the goal still stands because the violation had nothing to do with how the goal was scored.

That one simple rule change has resulted in a great deal of controversy being eliminated from the game. We used to spend a lot of time looking at stop-action images of skate blades in the crease to determine when it happened in relation to the puck's position and whether the actions of a defending player were responsible for the attacking player's skate being where it was. No more. 

In 2004, a Maine skate in the crease helped Denver win a national championship. It was at that point the NCAA decided it was ridiculous to disallow a goal based on a violation the officials didn't call for the action of a player who played no role how the goal was scored. 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

14 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

In a scenario like that one it's really hard to see how the initial offsides (it wasn't, by the way) could have played any role in the play and further supports PCM's logic.  

I don't watch much NHL hockey, but during the course of an NCAA regular season, we learn to live with the fact that the officials aren't perfect. We've all seen plays blown offsides that didn't appear to be offsides. We've seen goals scored as a result of a zone entry that appeared to be offsides, but wasn't called.

Hockey's a fast sport and the officials can't always be in position to see everything. As I said in my blog, sometimes they don't even see what they thought they saw. As much as we dislike the blown calls, we put up with them because they tend to even out. It becomes a matter of how far back in time we want to go to achieve the perfect outcome. 

For example, consider the goal Hoff scored off the faceoff. Could BU argue that UND won the faceoff because the puck wasn't dropped fairly? Every time a goal is scored as a result of a team winning a faceoff, should it be reviewed to make certain the puck drop wasn't to one side's advantage? After all, it was a mistake by an on-ice official that created the scoring opportunity. 

We could spend a lot of time going back in time to review possible officiating errors that gave one team an unfair advantage over the other. My position is that as much as possible, we should resist the temptation to do this. 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

7 hours ago, dagies said:

But it seems reasonable to apply some, ah, reason to the situation and you've laid out a good case study for it.   I'm still burned by what is considered incontrovertible evidence, because I don't think what the public has had access to meets the criteria.

I agree. The only person on the ice in position to make the call was the linesman, and he called the zone entry good. To overturn the call using a far-away, lower-resolution camera that didn't have a good angle and wasn't designed for this purpose makes no sense. While one of the images tends to support the offsides ruling, in my opinion, it doesn't provide the indisputable evidence the NCAA says is required. 

I've done some high-resolution screen captures from the ESPN broadcast. When you zoom in on specific areas of the blue line, you can see the distortion and lack of detail in the images, which is made worse by a view through the netting. The monitor I use for photo editing is much larger and far superior to the one the on-ice officials used to view the images. If someone had to take these images into court and use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, I'm confident an expert in digital imagery could explain why they leave plenty of room for doubt and are far from being indisputable.

The NCAA needs a rule to clearly define cutoff point beyond which an offsides review is moot. Any goal scored off the zone entry which is indisputably offsides should absolutely be disallowed. If the defending team gains control of the puck, there should be no review after that point. I would also argue that once the attacking team loses possession of the puck, the offsides review should become moot.

This way, if there's some real-time doubt about whether the zone entry was offsides, the officials know that any goal scored beyond a certain point will be counted regardless of whether the zone entry was indisputably offsides. 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

45 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

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

I would argue that once Bowen shot an missed the net, the opportunity to review for offsides should have ended. UND voluntarily gave up possession of the puck. It was up for grabs at that point. Whatever side controlled it next became purely random. My preference is to limit -- as much as possible -- the opportunity to disallow a goal because of a potentially missed offsides call.  

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

53 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

There're some words you seldom see strung together. 

Poop happens. 

[Time to re-look at certain rules?]

The point of my blog to which The Sicatoka graciously posted the link was not to contest whether Hoff was offsides, but to suggest that the NCAA apply the "no harm, no foul" precedent it set when it changed the man in the crease rule. The change recognized that even if a member of the attacking team was in the crease when technically he wasn't supposed to be, the goal would count if his presence didn't interfere with the goalie's ability to make a save. 

After reviewing a replay of Bowen's disallowed OT goal, there are a some facts worth noting.

1. From the time Olson carried the puck into the zone and Bowen scored, 29 seconds elapsed.
2. The linesman in ideal position to determine if the play was onside signaled the zone entry good. Nobody on either team held up as if they expected an offsides call. 
3. Coming in on the rush, Olson fed a pass to Bowen high in the slot. He skated to near the top of the right circle and fired a wrist shot that went wide right. From that point on, it was completely matter of chance as to which team gained control of the puck. 
4. 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. It was this play by Olson that ultimately led to Bowen's goal. 
5. By the time Bowen scored, whether or not the zone entry was legal became totally irrelevant. Through hard work, cycling and a strong forecheck, UND kept the puck in the zone to create the scoring opportunity.
6. An official made the mistake of allowing play to continue.  A BU player made the mistake that led to UND's goal. And yet it was UND -- which received absolutely no advantage from one of its players being offsides by what appeared to be a razor-thin margin at best -- that was penalized for the unnoticed infraction. 

Personally, I don't think this was fair way to handle the situation, especially when a team's season and a trip to the Frozen Four are on the line. If the NCAA is going to review playoff goals for offsides infractions, it needs a much better system. It needs high-speed, high-resolution digital imaging cameras positioned on each blue line to quickly provide indisputable evidence. The camera the officials used to overturn UND's OT goal was neither designed for nor positioned for this critical task. 

[Intro Music]

Parts of Godsmack's Batalla De Los Tambores (Drum Battle) would be perfect as intro music for hockey or football.

[SBoHE votes to move ahead with nickname retirement]

"It is simply wrong to stereotype people for the purpose of someone's amusement." -- Myles Brand

[SBoHE votes to move ahead with nickname retirement]

In the way he was being refered to in the post yes it was a mistake.

You should have said Custer was not a general at the time of Little Big Horn. Saying he was not a general is incorrect. See? I can be anal too.

[SBoHE votes to move ahead with nickname retirement]

It is common mistake that 99.999% of people make. He is referred to as a General way more than as a Lt. Colonel. I would bet that you have heard him called General Custer way more often than Lt. Colonel Custer.

It's a mistake to say this as well: "Custer was not a general."

What's next? Are you going to tell my that Gen. George C. Patton (Archie Bunker reference) didn't exist and that the Germans didn't bomb Pearl Harbor?

[SBoHE votes to move ahead with nickname retirement]

Demoted though after the Civil War and did not lead the 7th Calvary as a general.

Don't worry. I fixed my post to satisfy the forum historians.

[SBoHE votes to move ahead with nickname retirement]

Well, you have to admit that using that terminology in the context you were using it was wrong. When he divided his forces and got justifiably whacked by Sioux, Cheyenne, etc., he was a Lieutenant Colonel.

So all the biographies about Custer in which it's noted that he was known as the "boy general" are wrong? Whatever. I know he wasn't a general at the time of Little Big Horn, but he is popularly referred to as "General Custer." Why? Because he had been a general at one time. That's a fact.

And, Custer did not have convictions except to stoke his own ego and do things that would vault him one day into politics and sustain his name for posterity -- a consummate egoist. Bad example for your point, PCM.

No, it's a great example of someone who was too blind and egotistical to see that he was leading those who depended on him into a catastrophe. It's one thing to put yourself at risk by pursuing a foolish goal and another thing to take those who follow your lead over the cliff as well. Your Custer quote reinforces my point. There is nothing wise, noble, honorable or laudable about those with tunnel vision who refuse to see disaster looming ahead because they'd prefer to pursue their own selfish goals at the expense of everyone else. Sometimes the wise thing to do is turn back before it's too late.

Watchmaker and his side have convictions and they stuck to them and did not let people ignore them.

True, and I admire their perservearance. But don't make more out of it than it is. After 40 years of publicly debating the nickname issue, a mere 7 percent of the electorate agrees with them. They've been totally ineffective at swaying public opinion to support their arguments. What they were successful in doing is enlisting the help of the NCAA, the biggest, baddest bully on the block, a bully who was willing to use the nuke in his back pocket to mandate a change that a minority of a minority wanted.

Until you can sell me on a realistic idea of how to fight the bully without damaging UND's future and harming its athletics programs, you're not going to have me as a supporter in your fight.

You worked for Dorgan, if memory serves me correctly from your statements here.

Absolutely false. I have no idea where you came up with that. I've never worked for any politician.

Why didn't you and the Alumni Association, SBoHE call out the members of Congress?

A more relevant question is: Why haven't the voters of North Dakota held its Congressional delegation and other elected officials accountable? Why haven't the voters at Standing Rock held their elected officials accountable? The obvious answer is that in the grand scheme of things, the Fighting Sioux nickname is a minor issue compared to other issues facing the state, nation and the reservations. The politicians skated on the nickname issue because they knew they could. They haven't and won't suffer at the polls for their inaction.

Have you seen Heidi Heitkamp's ad bashing Rick Berg for his lack of action on the nickname issue? Neither have I.

If as much energy, even at the 11th hour, had been put to doing that as opposed to engaging in fear mongering and duplicity, perhaps we would not have had to retire it at all.

This statement emphasizes the difference between us. I remember a time when many on these forums confidently predicted that there was no way in hell that the NCAA would dare to involve itself in the American Indian nicknames issue. It occurred to me at the time that the NCAA was expending a great deal of time and effort to study an issue that it intended to do nothing about. Sure enough, the NCAA did get involved. The threat that so many chose to ignore was real. The threat that you are now choosing to ignore is real.

[SBoHE votes to move ahead with nickname retirement]

Custer was not a general.

He was a major general in the Civil War.