redwing77 Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Bah about the POI thread. I think they all have Parise envy. It's not like Parise is special or recieving special attention by POI. After all, if Vanek was a Sioux and Parise was a Gopher, the thread would be on how overrated Vanek is. Nothing about the actual player. More like to vent about the Gophers not sweeping this weekend after they showed us a thing or three on Saturday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverman Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Did I mention that Don "Get Smart" Adam is doing this weekend's DU series? Errr.... Don, I was just kidding your the greatest! Next best thing to sliced bread and you really do a great job and...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sagard Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 POI has a lot of people who weren't fans until 4/6/02, many will now be fans for life, but many will disappear if/when the Gopher's ever fail to win the NC. It also has many fans that have been following for ever. You pretty much have to take the good with the bad, and do your part to make things better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Off topic, but some clown on POI just started a Is Parise Overrated? thread! How absurd is that? Hey Schmidty maybe we can let the Rubes over there act childish and make up rediculous topics like that. I actually not convinced that the person that started that topic was a Gopher fan. Sounds like that person was baiting people. I say Fine, if some want to call Zach Pairse over rated then what to say that Vanek isn't overrated. I mean really Vanek only plays when he wants to and his is not the best defensive player on the Gophers. Some Might say that he is a prima dona. What ever I just think some teams have Parise envy around the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Did I mention that Don "Get Smart" Adam is doing this weekend's DU series? Sica your not cheering any one up today... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 Listen folks, why even go to POI? If I wanted Gopher fans' opinions, I generally listen to three of them that just so happen to frequent this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rochsioux Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I was at the game last night and from my view I had no idea if the high-stick call was correct. Fortunately I had taped the game so I had a chance to look at it. If you have the tape watch the replay from the goaltenders view frame-by-frame and watch the rotation of the puck. Parise's stick initially is way too high when the shot is taken from the point (I'm sure this is why Frank and Doug kept saying the call was correct, they didn't WANT to look closely at the replay). As it approaches he lowers his stick for the deflection. You really need to watch the puck rotation otherwise you will think the puck is deflected sooner than it is. At the point where I believe it was deflected his stick was parallel to the ice...very close to the 4 foot level, hard to tell. If instant replay was used and analyzed correctly, I think the call would be "inconclusive" and would have to stand. So whatever was called (goal/no goal) would have to stand. It is not as obvious as some people would like to think. Parise's said he hit it at waist level, looking at the replay it was close but maybe a little above. He also said Shepard told him that it then deflected off a Sioux player (not a Gopher) before Murray scored. It is very obvious that no Sioux player touched it and that it deflected off a Gopher player...it is equally obvious that the Gopher player did not crontrol the puck. If Shepard really thought the puck hit a Sioux player and not a Gopher then he is even worse than I thought. If he meant that the next player to control the puck was a Sioux player then I would agree. An interesting sidenote is that Vanek looks like a spectator on the play. He did nothing to tie up Genoway or Murray, just stood around and watched the play. Another interesting high stick occured on the first gopher goal. When Greene tried to wrap the puck around the net it was knocked down by Fleming...this could have been called a high stick as it looked like his stick was as high as Parise's, the difference was Fleming's stick started low and went high and Zach's started high and went low. Fleming then hit Irmen and he scored the first rodent goal. I really don't care for Shepard's officiating. Watching the entire game replay there are numerous penalties that could have been called both ways. Even at the end Murray gets held/tackled with 4 seconds left, obvious enough that is has to be called. I cannot believe that the Sioux did not get one powerplay chance in the last two periods...it was not from a lack of infractions on the ice. Also, when the Gophers had a powerplay Shepard could have easily called another penalty on the Sioux for a 5-3 advantage apparently he didn't want to. Please just call the infractions without regard to anything else. Otherwise it just seems to be a random event when a call is made which then results in fans thinking a conspiracy is in place. BTW, is there a new rule that was modeled after professional wrestling ? It's OK to hold someone as long as you release it prior to a five count, and if you don't release well, that's OK too. There a times a player is pinned and held to the boards for a long time when the play has moved on. I better quit on the officials or this could go on forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 The way I see it, Parise's stick is over his head when the puck deflects off the blade. It looks like an obvious high stick to me. When you view the play from center ice at a higher camera angle, it looks close. But the view from behind the goal, which is at a lower angle, shows it more clearly. And being right down on the ice with the players would show it more clearly yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthDakotaHockey Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Sorry for the length, but I feel better now! You one of da men Damn Straight One. You no need to apologize for reasoned insights and analysis. Who was thrown out of the press box? Massen and Canady?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Even at the end Murray gets held/tackled with 4 seconds left, obvious enough that is has to be called. Just listened to/watched that last rush. Woog's call is, "Murray going wide and he's tackled. Good play by Waibel." Didn't think much of it watching it live last night, although I thought it should have been a penalty, but with so little time left thought it made little difference. On second thought tonight, however, it would have been nice to have one last 6 on 4 offensive zone faceoff, with the like of Bochenski ready to one time a face off win. Missed the second period last night, so watched it tonight. Gophers did pick it up after the Irmen goal, as the crowd got into it and it looked like that helped. At the same time, I was not not nearly as disappointed with the Sioux play as I was last night. Shot discrepancy did me in last night, but rewatching, the Sioux had a bunch of open net chances in all three periods and failed to connect with the puck, or missed the net, on each one. Other than Lundbohm's goal, I think less than half, and maybe way less than half, of what I'd consider the Sioux's scoring chances ended up being SOG's. The bounces went the Gophers way, and I think the Sioux had as many good chances to win this one as they did on Friday night. You couldn't practice the Irmen swinging near whiff, puck right to his backhand and into the goal and have it work like it did last night. And, Riddles's centering pass was made to the first Goph forward at the net, whose stick was tied up, went by him to the second forward who's stick was tied up also, then slid out to Koalska, who was tied up but had his stick loose and got the shot off. I'd have been mad if any one of the three had gone in free of a backcheck, but the fact that the Sioux had all three tied up showed the defensive grit on this team. And, although most of the Gopher forwards backchecked much better than in November, there are a more than a couple who don't play that part of the game. Also, the ice looked horrible. I've never seen so many pucks stick at inopportune times, or conversely slide easily, each causing the puckhandler to lose the puck without being pressured. I'm glad the season at the Hooch is over for the Sioux. The Excel is a much better place to play. All things being equal, if the two teams meet again and both play as well, I like the Siouxs' chances, on a big or small ice surface. Good time to lose to a good team; now it's back to work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rochsioux Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 PCM, the view I am referring to is from behind the net. Be careful when watching not to be fooled when it looks like the puck and his stick become one...the puck has not yet reached the stick (at this point his stick is above his head). This is obvious as you follow the replay frame-by-frame. It looks to me that when he actually deflects the puck his stick shaft is parallel (or very close) to the ice. He is also bent over at a what looks like 150 degree angle, not standing straight up. Again, to me is is close enough that instant replay wouldn't overturn the call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 PCM, the view I am referring to is from behind the net. Be careful when watching not to be fooled when it looks like the puck and his stick become one...the puck has not yet reached the stick (at this point his stick is above his head). This is obvious as you follow the replay frame-by-frame. It looks to me that when he actually deflects the puck his stick shaft is parallel (or very close) to the ice. He is also bent over at a what looks like 150 degree angle, not standing straight up. Again, to me is is close enough that instant replay wouldn't overturn the call. I've watched again in stop frame, and, I now agree with you. In full motion it looks like the puck hits the stick above Parise's head, but in frame by frame, definitely not the case. It could very well have been legal contact and a good goal. But, I also agree, it was still very close, and would not be overturned even with a replay. I now understand Parise's comments in the news release, however. The puck may well have been contacted very close to waist level, given how Parise was bent over as he brought his stick down to make contact. At any rate, legal goal or not, the score stands at 2-1 Gophs. May make some interesting future flame wars on USCHO, if someone mentions it should the teams meet again later this year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I'll look at it again, but I also think you have to take the camera angle into account. Even from behind the net, the camera is above the players, which tends to make Parise's stick and the puck look lower than they really were. The high stick might have been much more obvious at ice level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I'll look at it again, but I also think you have to take the camera angle into account. Even from behind the net, the camera is above the players, which tends to make Parise's stick and the puck look lower than they really were. The high stick might have been much more obvious at ice level. The replay from behind the net is very close to ice level. Every other time I've watched this, I was sure that the pucks hits Parise's stick above his head, but it does not. Watch very closley the path the puck takes from the point shot to the stick contact. It's obvious when the stick is above his head that the blade is not on the same line as the shot. The illusion occurs when the puck disappears from view when it gets behind the blade above Parise's head, then reappears below the stick, as if he's already made contact with it. Careful frame by frame will show that is not the case, when it disappears temporarily from view, it has not yet reached the stick. You can tell from the side angle replay that the path of the puck is well off to the side of Parise, rather than right at his stick held above his head. Still, not conclusive contact below the crossbar, but certainly contact much lower than I'd originally thought. And yes, it's possible that at ice level it was more clear that the contact was above 4', but I think it was a much closer call than it initially appeared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sagard Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Another interesting high stick occured on the first gopher goal. When Greene tried to wrap the puck around the net it was knocked down by Fleming...this could have been called a high stick as it looked like his stick was as high as Parise's, the difference was Fleming's stick started low and went high and Zach's started high and went low. Fleming then hit Irmen and he scored the first rodent goal. Good point on the Parise analysis. My first impressions were that it was high, but even after the first replay I realized it was very close. I think the main problems were that both the shot and Parise's stick started so high. I think Fleming's play was truly incredible and most likely legal. It seems like the puck was screaming around the dasher, not up near the glass. To tell you all the truth, I wish I wouldn't have whined about the Gophs getting goals waived off Friday night. If I knew I'd get immediate retribution, I'd of saved that card for the tourney, and lived with a point last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I just thought of something: Regardless of what the replay shows, I do not believe that the WCHA has an instant replay rule. Therefore, regardless of what was the actually point in which the puck hits the net, it wouldn't have mattered because it happened so fast and it did appear to Sheperd that it was touched by a high stick. I think that's the end of the discussion. Bad call or not, no instant replay rule would place it all on Sheperd so using replays to try to reason it is a pointless gesture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rochsioux Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 One of the reason I decided to analyze the tape further and post my thoughts was the comments that were posted on POI concerning Parise's statements after the game. I think Zach would know the difference between touching the puck above his head or at the waist level even in the heat of battle. Therefore, I would tend to give his statement more credibility vs. those posters who didn't see what happened or listened to what Frank and Doug had to say...they did no objective analysis of the play, only saw what they wanted to see. I think Parise's statements were much closer to what happened then what the posters/critics on POI say, i.e. the puck was touched much closer to the waist level then above his shoulders/head. The criticism of Parise's statement just shows me that they are not interested in objectivity, only in finding ways to put down Zach. Given what I see in the replay I have no doubt that Zach believes it was a valid tip and as such he has every right to be angry that the goal was disallowed. I think the tip was higher than the waist level but not so high that his statement can be discounted so easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleed Green Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 This is beginning to sound like the JFK assasination and everyone is veiwing the Zepruder(sp?) film over and over again Either way I will give credit where credit is due. I was at the game and the UoM out-played the Sioux and deserved the W. HOWEVER: I would have loved to hear what one of our guys said to Taylor as he was kneeling on the ice pretending to be hurt after a hit (think it resulted in a penalty on the Sioux) . . . he was milking the "injury" for all it was worth and when our guy skated past . . . Taylor jumped up and went after the Sioux player . . . Funny as all-get-out . . . you gotta hand it to Lucia; those Acting 101 classes he has his players take are paying off, I guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sagard Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 HOWEVER: I would have loved to hear what one of our guys said to Taylor as he was kneeling on the ice pretending to be hurt after a hit (think it resulted in a penalty on the Sioux) . . . he was milking the "injury" for all it was worth and when our guy skated past . . . Taylor jumped up and went after the Sioux player . . . Funny as all-get-out . . . you gotta hand it to Lucia; those Acting 101 classes he has his players take are paying off, I guess Methinks you are calling the kettle black... Heck the only players I'm sure didn't dive/embellish this weekend were Z. Parise and of course GP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojordan23 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I agree with you, but I've not actually seen the puck hit the stick on the replay. Did it hit the blade (which was obviously above cross bar height) or somewhere down the shaft? Of course Shepard's explanation that it did not hit a Goph player is wrong, but with control being in the rule, that makes no difference. Understandable that Parise, Sioux would want that goal to count. I certainly did. How does the definition of "possession" change depending on the situation? In this case, with the high-stick, the oppossing team has to have control of the puck to nulify the playing of the puck with the high-stick, right? But if it is a delayed penalty call, "possession of the puck" then just becomes the touching of it by the team with the penalty being called against them? It seems to me as if hockey in general is doulbe-talking through its own rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UMDDogz Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 How does the definition of "possession" change depending on the situation? In this case, with the high-stick, the oppossing team has to have control of the puck to nulify the playing of the puck with the high-stick, right? But if it is a delayed penalty call, "possession of the puck" then just becomes the touching of it by the team with the penalty being called against them? It seems to me as if hockey in general is doulbe-talking through its own rules. Some referees are looking for possesion, others just look for the touch. The league needs to call a meeting and get them all on the same page about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Some referees are looking for possesion, others just look for the touch. The league needs to call a meeting and get them all on the same page about that. The rule is possession, but obviously the calls are often not made that way. Most often the whistle goes as soon as it touches a penalized team's player on a delyed call, I'd guess the same is true for the high stick rule. However, when a referree does call it by the rule, however inconsistant, it's hard to argue about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPoS Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Some referees are looking for possesion, others just look for the touch. The league needs to call a meeting and get them all on the same page about that. that would mean the officals would have to start being consistant (well besides consitantly being inconsistant and bad). Like that is going to happen with this crew at the helm! WPoS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 that would mean the officals would have to start being consistant (well besides consitantly being inconsistant and bad). Like that is going to happen with this crew at the helm! WPoS What is the verdict with Potulny's injury? Season ending or 4 to 6 weeks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Give me a break you guys. You all watched the game! The only player who dived is Jordan Parise. Geez. Get with the program. 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.