Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Grand Forks, ND

Recent Profile Visitors

977 profile views
  1. One thing I missed from the TC...the 612 Lounge! 0 bathroom line, and 0 beer line are hard to beat! Too bad the X didn't have anything comparable unless you wanted to sit on the glass.
  2. prep45.grandstadium.tv has a feed of the money-cost variety. Not sure if KVRR is available to stream.
  3. Or OT in a game that wasn't tied!
  4. We all the tickets we need. Thanks all for the help!
  5. Interesting. Do they have replay officials upstairs who buzz down, or is it up to the on-ice officials and/or coaches to decide to take a look at a play? On the UMD goal, Walsh waved it off and Shep comes over and says he saw the net move so they initiate a review. Would be cool to see the GoPro footage from this particular event. Looks like it happened pretty quickly, and the Shep/Walsh crew isn't exactly fleet of foot. Maybe they were out of position. Not sure why nobody from UND made a request to review the play, unless none of them saw it either until after the game (or during intermission). Sounds like the TV crew thought it was in, but it's not like the broadcasters can request a review.
  6. Do you have any better screen grabs? The one that was posted earlier certainly does not provide conclusive evidence it was a goal. If you have anything that shows a better angle that would be cool. Nobody on the ice or in the bench area seemed to notice or make a big deal about reviewing it though. Again, this is the same crew that initially whiffed on the UMD point shot goal later in the game that everyone in the arena saw go in, but you'd think some of the players would have reacted, and had the captain or head coach talk to the referee.
  7. The puck is in the air though. You'd have to bring the puck down to ice level and see if any part of it overlapped the red line. Tough to do from this angle. It certainly looks close enough for a review, but if this is the only angle and the call on the ice was no goal it would not be overturned. Need to be conclusive visual evidence. If they had a shot from overhead, or even from the side of the net it would be easier to determine whether the puck completely crossed the line. This is the same crew that initially whiffed on the UMD point shot goal later in the game.
  8. 25.6 Penalty Shot – A penalty shot is designed to restore a scoring opportunity which was lost as a result of a foul being committed by the offending team, based on the parameters set out in these rules. There are four (4) specific conditions that must be met in order for the Referee to award a penalty shot for a player being fouled from behind. They are: • The infraction must have taken place in the neutral zone or attacking zone, (i.e. over the puck carrier’s own blue line); • The infraction must have been committed from behind; • The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded); • The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper. Direct from the NCAA rulebook. Neither of the bolded conditions were satisfied. The UMD player was attempting to dive and swipe/poke the puck off the stick of a player who was even with him, a play we see all the time on a rush up ice. He had to reach/lunge across the body of the opposing player to do so as the opposing player was using his body to shield the puck. If we interpret the penalty shot rule this loosely, to where any penalty committed by players who are shoulder-to-shoulder warrants a penalty shot, we are going to see a great deal more penalty shots. You think guys flop now...NCAA hockey will become European Football-esque, with guys trying to draw penalty shots. Situations like we saw Friday night take place much more often than the "clean and unobstructed breakaways" that this rule was CLEARLY put in place to protect.
  9. If the link doesn't work you can just pause the video that Biddy uploaded. The UMD defender is never behind the UND forward until after his unsuccessful swipe at the puck. Nice job shielding the puck by the UND forward, and he drew what should have been a 2 minute tripping call as a result.
  10. dogs Here's a screen grab from right before the defender swiped at the puck. He is not behind the ND forward, they are side by side. The UMD player was slightly ahead at the blue line. The UMD player's attempt to swipe the puck off the UND player's stick was unsuccessful and he tripped up the UND player. Penalty? You bet. Penalty shot? No.
  11. Don't forget Charlie Lindgren's 210:34 to start the season.
  12. Cut and pasted from the NCAA rule book (apologies for the different font): " High-Sticking the Puck-Batting the puck above the height of 4 feetwith a stick is prohibited. When a puck is struck with a high stick andsubsequently comes into the possession and control of a player from theoffending team (including the player who made contact with the puck),either directly or deflected off any player or official, there shall be awhistle." A goaltender making a save does not constitute "possession and control", but is rather a deflection, and thus the whistle should have blown as soon as the ND player touched the rebound. It's the same as when there is a delayed penalty; a goaltender making a save does not cause play to be whistled dead, as the goaltender never possessed the puck, but merely deflected it. I believe the goal was allowed due to the lack of a conclusive angle on replay, causing the call made on the ice to be upheld. The "behind the net" angle the SCSU announcers cited as indisputable actually had a bit of a downward-looking angle, so although the stick hit the puck when it was visible (appearing to be above the crossbar), it's not possible to tell whether it was truly above the crossbar or just appeared to be due to the angle.
  13. UMDDogz

    UMD fans

    I hear what you're saying, but there have been a lot of Sioux fans on here and USCHO that have already hung banner #8. Good thing Hak and the Sioux are getting ready to play Michigan and not organizing the parade.
  • Create New...