airmail Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 I won nothing. I was yelled at by a grumpy lady if that counts for anything. I think I saw that... do you sit 3-4 seats in in the first row of 108... wear a #5 jersey, and sit next to a guy with a lighted hard hat? Even I thought she (and her feathery blonde fellow) were being pricks... BTW, If the Duluth station really called UND's first goal a deflection... Are "deflection" and "trickler" synonyms in hockey lingo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skateshattrick Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 My observations from the game: 1. The Sioux had the better scoring opportunities, but failed to capitalize. Rory McMahon missed a wide open net from the top of the goal crease, Zach Parise hit a crossbar after faking Reichmuth out of his jock, and Zach missed another open net. 2. UMD is a good hockey team. UMD is a classic clutch-and-hold team, constantly holding sticks, jerseys, etc. However, the league allows it, and Duluth plays very tough defensively. They do not give up the middle of the ice very often, and are physical. 3. The Sioux have many more skill players. UMD has Stapleton (who looked very good and dangerous), Caig (who was a non-factor, mostly because he was so busy sparring with Prpich much of the night) and Geisler, who is very solid. 4. Duluth will win many games if they hold opponents under 4 goals. However, they will not win many shootouts. They just do not have the offensive skills. 5. Prpich won the fight. It was down in front of us, and Prpich landed more shots and the better shots. Also, Peluso deserved it. Caig took a shot at Prpich at the blue line, and Prpich retaliated. Peluso was the 3rd man in, and then took off his face mask and gloves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 BTW, If the Duluth station really called UND's first goal a deflection... Actually, TH called it a deflection also, but was a little vague. Sounded like Fuhrer deflected a shot, and, since Genoway got the assist, we were led to believer Fuhrer deflected a Genoway shot. Doesn't sound like it happed that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 (edited) Genoway made the feed from behind the net to Fuher. No way was it a deflection of a Genoway "shot." Fuher's stick got tied up just as he was about to make contact with the puck. He got a piece of it, but not much. Reichmuth described it as being like a change-up pitch. The puck, which wasn't moving fast at all, didn't go where he expected it to go. I could see the Duluth announcers thinking that Fuher's shot might have been deflected off a defender's stick, but neither Fuher nor Reichmuth described it that way. Edited October 6, 2003 by PCM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 I had two beagles, one named Casey and one named Jennie (Jensen). We were solid in goal. Beagles rule! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Awwwww he's so cute! Your dog, PCM? SHE is my dog. Her name is Sundae because we thought she looked like a turtle sundae. We call her Sunny. That confuses people who think that she's a male named Sonny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Genoway made the feed from behind the net to Fuher. No way was it a deflection of a Genoway "shot." Fuher's stick got tied up just as he was about to make contact with the puck. He got a piece of it, but not much. Reichmuth described it as being like a change-up pitch. The puck, which wasn't moving fast at all, didn't go where he expected it to go. I could see the Duluth announcers thinking that Fuher's shot might have been deflected off a defender's stick, but neither Fuher nor Reichmuth described it that way. From the replay I saw on the news, it looked pretty much like PCM describes. Kind of looked to me like Fuher took a shot but his stick hit the defenders stick at about the same time he hit the puck and that took most of the steam out of the shot. The puck just got pushed towards the net and happened to go in because the goalie was fooled. Anyone who has played foosball understands how those 'holy rollers' can fool a goalie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Those of us at home were all watching the game in the dark (webcast). Were the lights off in the Ralph Bottom line, we're clueless as to how the goals were scored and will believe PCM/players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Sometimes I have trouble figuring out how a goal was scored, even with access to replays in the press box. If I'm not sure, I try to ask the goal-scorer and the goalie what happened. I'm always amazed at the detail in which players can remember a goal. It's as if they see the game in slow motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 PCM blew more than the Diggler DQ and Hennen predictions. My section was awake the whole time without my assistance. I had it 8-3 Prpich over Peluso on the punch counter. In 10-point-must scoring I'd have given the round to Prpich 10-7. By my understanding of the rules, Prpich will have to sit on October 17. Why exhibitions count if you draw a penalty (Schneider vs. Manitoba in 10/2001) but don't count if you have to sit out makes about as much sense as any NCAA rule. The throw-back jerseys? Throw 'em back. You can't tell the players apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schmidtdoggydog Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Other than Parise in net, Ziggy on the bench and Foyt who skated two shifts, there were only four new numbers/players on the ice - Murray, Stafford, Porter and Smaby - with numbers on the front and back of their jerseys it really wasn't that hard to keep the players straight, especially considering none of the returning players changed numbers and REA was selling programs for $1.00! The old-time jerseys were a one-time thing anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UMDDogz Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 I disagree with you on the Prpich DQ. I think he has to sit out THE NEXT GAME, regardless of the type of game that is played. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that's the way it's done. Sounds like both announcers missed what actually went down on the Fuher goal. I just wish I could have seen it myself (lousy dataflix). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jk Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 I've been tied up this week, so I'm sure I don't recall all my thoughts on the game, but here are a few. Thanks to Farce, skate.., NDH and others for your detailed thoughts. Despite what Zach thinks, I shouldn't be a coach; these are just a few very unexpert opinions. I thought Fylling was the best Sioux forward - consistently winning races to the puck (which we've seen) and then winning battles for it (which is new). He didn't seem able to fight through the "stuff" last year, but he was very tenacious in this game. I thought his line was the best of the Sioux lines early, before the DQ necessitated the inevitable shuffling. If it were based solely on 5-on-5 play, I would say Lundbohm had a great game as well, as he was his usual crafty self on the forecheck. Unfortunately I thought he had some gaffes on the PP that tempered my enthusiasm a bit. Three times he sent the puck to the point either with too much heat on pass or to a covered point man. Each time the puck left the zone and the PP had to try to set up again. I thought the first PP unit was Schneider and Parise at the points, with Lundbohm, Bochenski and Murray down low. Lundbohm and Parise basically switched spots from last year. If it appeared that Schneider was down low, I think that was just a momentary occurrence when he was pinching. The second PP was Fuher and Jones, with McMahon, Prpich and Stafford (I think). It was really unfortunate for Jones to fan on that shot in the first period of his first game manning the PP point, with the SHG resulting. The first D pairing of Schneider and Greene was very impressive defensively, as you would expect. In the second period, Greene leveled Stapleton in front of the net. He really sent him flying, literally through the air. Stapleton got up and stood next to Greene, staring him straight in the neck. Then they seemed to laugh a bit. Later, when the Prpich fracas was being sorted out, I noticed Greene and Stapleton visiting at the blue line. Then we put the Green Bay connection together, and realized they were former teammates. Unlike many here, I thought Murray had an uneven game. He looked quite a lot like a freshman to me, the most of any of the frosh. He tried to deflect a puck out of the zone to clear it, and sent an opponent right in for a good chance. Later, he tried the old drop pass at the offensive blue line, which sent play the other way in a hurry. Anyway, these weren't "bad player" plays, just frosh mistakes. His talent is obvious, and the little touch to Parise to send him and Bochenski in for the goal was nice. Porter fit in quite a bit better than I expected. Maybe it's the physical attributes (the size and speed), but he seemed to be the best adjusted of the frosh forwards to the college game. Stafford had a few bursts of speed that you don't expect to see from a big guy. They caught me by surprise in the same way similar bursts by Vanek did last year. (I'm not saying he's a Vanek-like player; I was just struck by the similarity of those surprising bursts). Smaby is a crusher. His "mishandling" of the puck wasn't due to his bad puckhandling, the puck just stuck on the ice. I thought he had a good game. I didn't see Foyt play, but I may have missed it. We would think differently of that game if Zach had converted on a few of those rushes where he had great chances. He will score on a lot of those this year, but just missed these. The two Parise's were the last players off the ice after warm-ups. That's all I remember for now. I had fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 I disagree with you on the Prpich DQ. I think he has to sit out THE NEXT GAME, regardless of the type of game that is played. I may be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that's the way it's done. Fine. Disagree with me. Like you said, you'll be wrong. From the NCAA rulebook: A player who receives a disqualification penalty in any game (including exhibition games) shall not be permitted to play in the team Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UMDDogz Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Well, the NCAA has me baffled on this one. So you can receive a DQ in an exhibition game, but you cannot serve one? That makes no sense. OH well. So both teams will be hurt in their contests with BC (Duluth this weekend, the Sioux next weekend), so in a way, it is being fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaNorthStar Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Well, the NCAA has me baffled on this one. So you can receive a DQ in an exhibition game, but you cannot serve one? That makes no sense. OH well. So both teams will be hurt in their contests with BC (Duluth this weekend, the Sioux next weekend), so in a way, it is being fair. Nobody said the NC$$ made much sense 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.