dagies Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I have had the same concerns about LaPoint, but I feel like he is a much better player now than two months ago. He seems more comfortable all the time. And last night was the most aggressive forecheck the Sioux have seen this year. When is the last time you saw a team carry the play that much against them? Probably BU is the only other time this year. I think LaPoint has improved quite a bit this season. I thought he was pretty good from what I could see on the internet this weekend except for a couple times where he just swallowed the puck on the boards on his own end when he had time to make a play, didn't, took a check, lost the puck, and there you go. Other than noticing that I thought he was ok this weekend, and had one very nice rush to draw a penalty. I think he's making steady progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I think LaPoint has improved quite a bit this season. I thought he was pretty good from what I could see on the internet this weekend except for a couple times where he just swallowed the puck on the boards on his own end when he had time to make a play, didn't, took a check, lost the puck, and there you go. Other than noticing that I thought he was ok this weekend, and had one very nice rush to draw a penalty. I think he's making steady progress. thats what concerned me last night. instead of turning and making that pass to break out he just sat on the puck. oh well. the coaches know what they are doing but just notice those and in a game like last night you have to get that puck moving right away the way DU played. GO SIOUX - good 3 points by the team! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Finley was also uncharacteristically weak on a bunch of clearing passes last night too. I guess Denver deserves credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 He used to be a very bad ref. However, he has improved and after watching him in the Minn series, I think he is the best one out there. He doesn't seem to ref with the bias (perceived or otherwise) that he once did. That being said, my least favorite ref has been, is, and will be Anderson until the day he is done. His performance in the playoff series against Mankato 2 years ago should have been the last straw but yet here we are 2 years later and he is still here. These refs aren't going anywhere unless the coaches and AD speak up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Finley was also uncharacteristically weak on a bunch of clearing passes last night too. I guess Denver deserves credit. maybe s referrign to DU, the sioux were clicking on all cylinders but mamaged to get that point which was huge thanks to BE. DU deserves a lot of credit, the way they played caused some of our shotty play. we eaily could have been beat 4 or 5 to 2 last night. nice to hang on as that point may end up being huge, we will see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxweet Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 What the heck are you talking about? My point is this was a chance to have an opportunity to propel into first place and we came out flat. We have not won the big one under Hak that is a fact. I just want to hang a Banner! That is my point...it has been a while I'm not all that surprised we didn't come out with the "jump" we've seen the last three home games last night. I was actually surprised we did it against the gophers both nights. these kids are human and it is not humanly possible to come out with extreme high emotions every single night. DU did out play us last night and out work us. but bottom line is we got a point and are in second place all by ourselves 1 point out of first. a very good weekend overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YaneA Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Sic said: OBSERVATION 2 "Curious George, the Dancing Dasher Monkey" (attribution unknown) should have cost his team a game. The minute his shoes hit the ice, officials with (again, politely) gonads would have forfeited Denver on the spot. __ Rule book citation, please, for use of the forfeit sanction. Not doubting, just asking. How much furor would have been caused in a game with such huge implications to assess a DU forfeit based on coach misconduct? Anyone taking odds on whether the league assesses further punishment on Gwoz for these antics? Is the dasher dance-cross-ice stalking of officials daily double worse than Hakstol's flying finger? Comparative proportionality suggests Gwoz should get a one or two game suspension for his performance. Refresh my recollection, did Dave's presti-digit-ation merit one or two games outside the building? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Did you know ... George Gwozdecky was thrown out of the game before he came onto the ice. That action should have forfeited the game for DU. Lord knows I'm not a big fan of the NCAA, but they need to step into operations of this league if DU and GG don't face additional sanctions for this, up to and maybe including a retroactive forfeiture of that contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxweet Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Did you know ... George Gwozdecky was thrown out of the game before he came onto the ice. That action should have forfeited the game for DU. Lord knows I'm not a big fan of the NCAA, but they need to step into operations of this league if DU and GG don't face additional sanctions for this, up to and maybe including a retroactive forfeiture of that contest. I would bet my house on the fact that there will be no retroactive forfeit of this. the NCAA doesn't have the balls to that. plus it would benefit UND which the NCAA isn't a very big fan of right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Rule book citation, please ... GG was penalized under Rule 6, Section 1.d. He should have been penalized under Rule 6, Section 44.a. -- His entrance onto the ice was a refusal to start play. What's the penalty for that? UND 1, DU 0 (Final, by forfeit) And for those of you without the rulebook ... Under Rule 4, Section 10, no, the game can not be retroactively made a forfeit; however, it should have been called such by Anderson and Campion under 6:44.a. However, 4:10 says GG's actions may (should) face additional scrutiny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Did you know ... George Gwozdecky was thrown out of the game before he came onto the ice. That action should have forfeited the game for DU. Lord knows I'm not a big fan of the NCAA, but they need to step into operations of this league if DU and GG don't face additional sanctions for this, up to and maybe including a retroactive forfeiture of that contest. thats a bit of a stretch in my eyes but you did point out the rule the team should have been given a delay of game 2 minute penalty on tip of what he already had. thats my only problem with that and thats what i think hak was referring to as well in his post game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Folks need to read the rulebook. I'd recommend Bruce McLeod and Greg Shepherd give it a try, and then have their direct reports do the same. For example ... There's this Rule 6, Section 49 about "spearing" being a major (and either a Misconduct or DQ at ref's discretion). There's no black or white. DU #11 should have been in a suit Saturday for the spear followed by two malicious cross-checks (the DQ discretion decider) on Friday. But McLeod's press release this week? Point separation at the top. League parity (aka referee a split). Bruce McLeod = Vince McMahon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YaneA Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Thanks, Sic, for pointing me to rule 44a. That seems to cover the situation--persistent refusal to play--but the ref never went there since he didn't call even the least sanction authorized by that rule, "delay of game." I was at the game, at the far end from the team benches but on the bench side, so couldn't see all that went on. And the arena announcements of the penalties didn't specify that it was Gwoz who got the game misconduct. Did they even refer to the gamer as a bench penalty? I have since watched the game on tape which clarified it all. If Gwoz was gone before he stepped on the ice, why didn't the officials insist that he physically remove himself immediately? A retroactive forfeit would be political suicide for the supervisor of officials, tantamount to using the nuclear option, wouldn't you say? If the league pulls that trigger, that would make one hell of an argument for deterrence of such conduct in the future, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passit_offthegoalie Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 This is a rule change I saw in the rulebook: 6-18-a, -c Rules covering kicked or directed pucks clarified; When in doubt, goal shall be disallowed ...................................67 That's stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 thats a bit of a stretch in my eyes but you did point out the rule the team should have been given a delay of game 2 minute penalty on tip of what he already had. thats my only problem with that and thats what i think hak was referring to as well in his post game I agree that it should have been a delay of game the moment he came on the ice. At that point another delay of game penalty should have been assessed each and every ten seconds. I realize that that's somewhat extreme, but in all of the years I followed hockey I've not seen a coach do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Wisconsin Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I wholeheartedly agree. Mario cost the team a power play in the first with a stupid penalty. He was countinuously outmuscled for the puck all game long. Also, Malone played a little close to the edge, and actually over it a couple of times, late in the game. The officials let him get away with it, but he was a potential liability after teh Gwoz antics caused the officiating to tilt against the Sioux. Malone did have a some positive spots in the game, but I believe that it was wise by the coaching staff to not use them late in the game. Kozek was greatly missed, both his speed and physicality. I was sitting behind the Sioux bench for the Fri night Tech game last weekend, and Mario looked to be in pain at times, and pretty gassed. He may have still been recovering from the appendectemy, not quite 100%. Then he sat the Sat game. He may be trying to get back to game shape, much like Big Joe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 GG told the media after his departure from the game he watched the remainder of the second from just down the tunnel from the DU bench (in the press/media post-game interviews room) and the third from the press box. Folks, allow me to speculate aloud about GG remaining in full compliance with Rule 4, Section 4.b, specifically the words about ... The offending player, coach or non-playing persons must leave the bench and playing surface immediately and may not communicate with or contact team personnel in any manner until the game is completed. Anderson yelled at someone down the DU tunnel late in the second. Who was it. And doesn't DU have someone on wireless communications in the press box down to the bench? I'm sure GG went nowhere near that person or the communications gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Finley was also uncharacteristically weak on a bunch of clearing passes last night too. I guess Denver deserves credit. Hak said after the game that Denver did a really good job of pinching the D and that the Sioux didn't always do a good job of handling that. He would have liked to have seen a few more dumps out of the zone, if I remember correctly what he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallassiouxfan Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 thats a bit of a stretch in my eyes but you did point out the rule the team should have been given a delay of game 2 minute penalty on tip of what he already had. thats my only problem with that and thats what i think hak was referring to as well in his post game Yep, he should have at least received an additional delay of game penalty to go along with his unsportsmanlike. That would have given us a 5-3 power play and could have made all the difference last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Yep, he should have at least received an additional delay of game penalty to go along with his unsportsmanlike. That would have given us a 5-3 power play and could have made all the difference last night. Another non-call that ought to bug the uber-spaz, Curious George. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverman Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 GG was penalized under Rule 6, Section 1.d. He should have been penalized under Rule 6, Section 44.a. -- His entrance onto the ice was a refusal to start play. What's the penalty for that? UND 1, DU 0 (Final, by forfeit) And for those of you without the rulebook ... Under Rule 4, Section 10, no, the game can not be retroactively made a forfeit; however, it should have been called such by Anderson and Campion under 6:44.a. However, 4:10 says GG's actions may (should) face additional scrutiny. George is bigger than the WCHA he proved it by walking out on the ice. Also note he gave the choke sign to the officials! Classic!! Correct me if I am wrong.. Didn't George sit on the rules committee not to long ago?? What a tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiSioux Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 And doesn't DU have someone on wireless communications in the press box down to the bench? I'm sure GG went nowhere near that person or the communications gear. Yeah... one of the coaches on the bench had a black ear piece.... we were trying to figure out who he was possibly listening to the whole game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 Yeah... one of the coaches on the bench had a black ear piece.... we were trying to figure out who he was possibly listening to the whole game. coaches are allowed to have ear pieces to communicate with an assistant which usually is on the press box as the press box is a great seat to see a game and plays unfold. many teams do that and some dont. its legal and fine to do as the nhl is allowed as well. the problem would be if the little man was up in the press box communicating then we have a problem. if not then the ear pieces are legal. just take the point away from the pioneers and give us an extra 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforeverbaby Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 coaches are allowed to have ear pieces to communicate with an assistant which usually is on the press box as the press box is a great seat to see a game and plays unfold. many teams do that and some dont. its legal and fine to do as the nhl is allowed as well. the problem would be if the little man was up in the press box communicating then we have a problem. if not then the ear pieces are legal. just take the 2 points away from the pioneers and give us an extra 1 um, wouldn't that be take 1 away from them since that is all they got last night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 um, wouldn't that be take 1 away from them since that is all they got last night? um, yes you are right..mistyped Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.