Goon Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I was thinking the same thing yesterday. I'll admit I was thinking F'in Gopher to take a cheap shot last weekend but after watching the crap they did this weekend I can understand why Schack did it. There won't be big suspensions from this weekend but there should be something. It must be how Jutting runs his teams. The play of the Mavericks is irrelevant to Schack the hack's response, I don't think we want to excuse his response it was the wrong response. Did you see anyone pull Buress out and start beating him with their gloves and helmet on? That was not per the code. That was chicken $H!T and gutless. That was like Todd Bertuzzi on Steve Moore. Notice UND didn't do that? Last weekend the Gophers has a walk on player at the end of the game running the Sea-wolves goalie and at least this hack was maning up face to face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 And many of you on this board wonder why Schack had to beat the crap out of a couple Mavericks during the Gopher and Mankato series. I'm not saying Minnesota didn't throw any cheap shots, but I know that Mankato can cheap shot with the best. No one asks why Schack HAD to beat anyone up. He was criticized for being just as cheap as the Mankato players he was supposedly protecting his teammates from. That, the much of the criticism came because gopher fans like to complain about other teams being more cheap than they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 No one asks why Schack HAD to beat anyone up. He was criticized for being just as cheap as the Mankato players he was supposedly protecting his teammates from. That, the much of the criticism came because gopher fans like to complain about other teams being more cheap than they are. Well said Dagies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 And many of you on this board wonder why Schack had to beat the crap out of a couple Mavericks during the Gopher and Mankato series. I'm not saying Minnesota didn't throw any cheap shots, but I know that Mankato can cheap shot with the best. Does not excuse what he did, not one bit. Schack could have challenged Boe to a fight in the next game instead of jumping him from behind. That would have beent he correct move, not jump him from behind with his gloves on then punch him while still wearing your helmet and gloves. That trumps anything Boe did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Just as I predicted Chris from WCH fails to mention anything but the LaPoint incident, and none of the stuff that was not borderline. Like I said, the guy has no credibility. If it would have been a Sioux player, you can be sure that it wouldn't be something unfortunate that happens in hockey all the time if I might paraphrase his blog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bienek Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Does not excuse what he did, not one bit. Schack could have challenged Boe to a fight in the next game instead of jumping him from behind. That would have beent he correct move, not jump him from behind with his gloves on then punch him while still wearing your helmet and gloves. That trumps anything Boe did. Not here to excuse Schack of anything. Just wanted to point out how Mankato can throw cheap shots. When a team throws cheap shots, they will often receive some back. It may not be right, but I have seen a few players from every WCHA team over the years react the same way Schack did. Thats all I'm going to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 but I have seen a few players from every WCHA team over the years react the same way Schack did. Hmm, I've been going to games since my parents carried me into the old barn. I don't remember a lot of instances of jumping a player from behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Hmm, I've been going to games since my parents carried me into the old barn. I don't remember a lot of instances of jumping a player from behind. Whistler your right, I have never seen a Sioux player do what Schack did against MSU-M if you watch the game you will see Schack the hack did it twice in the same game. Jumping someone from hind is a not cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 what if......... my final standings http://siouxsports.com/hockey/whatif/ sioux - i have sweeping uaa, splitting vs cc and uw denver - i have splitting at uw, beating cc in 1 game and taking 3 points from scsu badgers - splitting with sioux, sweeping at msu and splitting with du WCHA Final Team GP Pts UND 28 37 Denver 28 36 UW 28 36 UMN 28 31 UMD 28 30 CC 28 29 SCSU 28 28 Mankato 28 22 AA 28 20 MTech 28 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keikla Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 what if......... my final standings http://siouxsports.com/hockey/whatif/ sioux - i have sweeping uaa, splitting vs cc and uw denver - i have splitting at uw, beating cc in 1 game and taking 3 points from scsu badgers - splitting with sioux, sweeping at msu and splitting with du WCHA Final Team GP Pts UND 28 37 Denver 28 36 UW 28 36 UMN 28 31 UMD 28 30 CC 28 29 SCSU 28 28 Mankato 28 22 AA 28 20 MTech 28 11 It's funny. Regardless of where the Sioux end up, I'm not really comfortable with who we have to play. Yes, we'd have home ice advantage, but we haven't faired very well against tech this season, and I'll decide how I feel about possibly playing UAA after this weekend. And if for whatever reason we end back in third, then we have to play the mavs again, who always seem to give us a tough contest (sat. more so than fri. this past weekend). Gotta love parity in the WCHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted February 16, 2009 Author Share Posted February 16, 2009 It's funny. Regardless of where the Sioux end up, I'm not really comfortable with who we have to play. Yes, we'd have home ice advantage, but we haven't faired very well against tech this season, and I'll decide how I feel about possibly playing UAA after this weekend. And if for whatever reason we end back in third, then we have to play the mavs again, who always seem to give us a tough contest (sat. more so than fri. this past weekend). Gotta love parity in the WCHA. parity to a point. in the end the better team will usually win the best 2 of 3 at home when it comes to the top few teams compared to the bottom 3 teams. the middle teams can go either way usually. ill take uaa and tech or msu anyday over the next few choices in a best 2 of 3 scenerio. this team has proven since december they are locked in overall so i look for tht to continue with this balanced attack they present Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Just as I predicted Chris from WCH fails to mention anything but the LaPoint incident, and none of the stuff that was not borderline. Like I said, the guy has no credibility. If it would have been a Sioux player, you can be sure that it wouldn't be something unfortunate that happens in hockey all the time if I might paraphrase his blog. He has an article up about it today. And, for what it is worth, he seems right on in my opinion. It's only coincidental that a player, Bruess, who should not have even been in the game that night gave an incidental contact to LaPoint. Unfortunate, yes, but I think the officials did the right thing even if it did result in a horrific injury. Dislike Bruess. He's done enough out on the ice to warrant it, but his part in LaPoint's tragedy is only more of a cameo than the cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 He has an article up about it today. And, for what it is worth, he seems right on in my opinion. It's only coincidental that a player, Bruess, who should not have even been in the game that night gave an incidental contact to LaPoint. Unfortunate, yes, but I think the officials did the right thing even if it did result in a horrific injury. Dislike Bruess. He's done enough out on the ice to warrant it, but his part in LaPoint's tragedy is only more of a cameo than the cause. I think your right now matter how hard I try to find fault I don't know if what Buress did was intentional. I watched the hit again and I doesn't warrent a suspension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 After watching the replay again, I was wrong about when the play was blown dead. Bruess actually made a nice hustle play to keep the puck live as the extra attacker was joining the play...how he did it is somewhat debateable but after watching it again I don't think it was malicious on his part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 He has an article up about it today. And, for what it is worth, he seems right on in my opinion. It's only coincidental that a player, Bruess, who should not have even been in the game that night gave an incidental contact to LaPoint. Unfortunate, yes, but I think the officials did the right thing even if it did result in a horrific injury. Dislike Bruess. He's done enough out on the ice to warrant it, but his part in LaPoint's tragedy is only more of a cameo than the cause. tnt was referring to the fact that Chris likes to rip the Sioux for being cheap hacks but this weekend it was his team doing the majority of it and, no surprise, no mentions from Chris. Yes, he talked about the LaPoint incident and the majority of fans don't think there should have been a penalty on Bruess. What a coincidence that's what Chris decided to write about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 He has an article up about it today. And, for what it is worth, he seems right on in my opinion. It's only coincidental that a player, Bruess, who should not have even been in the game that night gave an incidental contact to LaPoint. Unfortunate, yes, but I think the officials did the right thing even if it did result in a horrific injury. Dislike Bruess. He's done enough out on the ice to warrant it, but his part in LaPoint's tragedy is only more of a cameo than the cause. Why should Bruess not have been in the game? Even if he got booted for a check from behind the night before like he should have, he wouldn't have to sit the next night unless they called a game disqualification, which is rare for checking from behind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnt Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 tnt was referring to the fact that Chris likes to rip the Sioux for being cheap hacks but this weekend it was his team doing the majority of it and, no surprise, no mentions from Chris. Yes, he talked about the LaPoint incident and the majority of fans don't think there should have been a penalty on Bruess. What a coincidence that's what Chris decided to write about. Yes, this is what I was referring to. By most of the talk about the hit on LaPoint, it appears that Sioux fans are a little more objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiSioux Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Here is what I caught of the Zajac/Irwin "scuffle" at the end of the game.... Irwin's reaction to the ref holding him back seems familiar to me... yet with a lot less complaing from opposing fans... just saying... Zajac/Irwin scuffle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Why should Bruess not have been in the game? Even if he got booted for a check from behind the night before like he should have, he wouldn't have to sit the next night unless they called a game disqualification, which is rare for checking from behind. I dunno. In my mind, Bruess got kicked out of the game and Jutting, growing a spine, benches him for Saturday's game to "send him a message." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Does anyone know if Irwin was given an extra game for his Paul Bunyan chop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Does anyone know if Irwin was given an extra game for his Paul Bunyan chop? Nothing. Chances are getting better that the WCHA will tacitly endorse the action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Nothing. Chances are getting better that the WCHA will tacitly endorse the action. Could you imagine if that had been a Sioux player that did that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Whistler Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Could you imagine if that had been a Sioux player that did that? Considering that McClown just suspended a Dumbver player for doing pretty much the same thing, it wouldn't make any sense at all NOT to suspend that jerk Irwin. I'm not saying he will, just pointing out that if McClown doesn't he's going to have even more trouble within the coaches. Is Gwozdicky going to be happy that his guy had to sit while the Mankato kid didn't? Mullen from Denver was suspended on Thursday of last week. I expect that Irwin will hear around then. Of course that would beg the question why #5 from Mankato doesn't get suspended for his major penalty at the end of Friday's game. (I don't expect McClown to address that.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamStrait Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Considering that McClown just suspended a Dumbver player for doing pretty much the same thing, it wouldn't make any sense at all NOT to suspend that jerk Irwin. I'm not saying he will, just pointing out that if McClown doesn't he's going to have even more trouble within the coaches. Is Gwozdicky going to be happy that his guy had to sit while the Mankato kid didn't? Mullen from Denver was suspended on Thursday of last week. I expect that Irwin will hear around then. Of course that would beg the question why #5 from Mankato doesn't get suspended for his major penalty at the end of Friday's game. (I don't expect McClown to address that.)Geez - at least get the man's name right (McLown). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxweet Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 per Brad's blog, Bruess has been suspended one game. 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.