jk Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 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 It's just about time to move on, but I'm glad you posted this, sprig, because it helps to explain why I didn't leave Saturday demoralized, as I think I would have by a game with such a shot discrepancy. MN played really well, got a few bounces, received neutral officiating at worst, and the Sioux were still there in the last minute arguing about whether their tying goal was good. It was really good hockey by both teams, and I thought both teams earned two points on the weekend. About Koalska's goal: I don't have a tape, but I know the second Gopher through, and I think the intended recipient of the pass, was completely tied up by ZPar. Coming right behind him was Koalska, with Stafford just a half-step behind him. The way the senior Koalska was playing, it's not surprising he was able to break free of the pup Stafford, but it's noteworthy that Stafford wasn't out at the blue line watching - he was indeed right there and just got beat. About Waibel tackling Murray and Woog's noting it as a "good play," I agree 100% with Woog. With 10 seconds left, I would rather risk a penalty by tackling Murray than let him get the puck and perhaps toss it in front of the net where any number of funky things could happen. The risk-reward definitely favors taking Murray out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greyeagle Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I only saw three periods this weekend - the first and the last two. Makes me wish I could have seen them all. It was fun hockey to watch and sprinkle in a little controversy and it becomes a series for the ages. I'm jealous of those who were in attendance. Good luck the rest of the way Sioux. Here's hoping for two more meetings this season; one in the Saintly city and one in Beantown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Sorry, but Parise is wrong. I watched the replay several times frame by frame. Zach clearly played the puck with a high stick. It did bounce off Ballard, but the rules say that an opposing player must control the puck before another player can touch it. Ballard obviously never had control of the puck. Say what you want about Shepherd's officiating, but he got that one right. Always side with the officiating, UND, the ralph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I didn't think Woog was all that bad from what little I listened to the broadcast. lol that is funny when you read that. IT would be like saying, I don't think UND is any good, from the little I watched on saturday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Woog and Mazzaco are the worst broadcasters in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Woog and Mazzaco are the worst broadcasters in the world. There is no doubt about that. I don't mind announcers who are biased, but they are way over the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPoS Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 word on the street is he MAY be back by the end of the season, but maybe not, third degree shoulder separation...but she SHOULD be back for post season. WPOS She? Anyway, I hope for the best for Grant. The big problem with most separations and dislocations is ligament and tendon damage around the joint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPoS Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 She? Anyway, I hope for the best for Grant. The big problem with most separations and dislocations is ligament and tendon damage around the joint. yah well call it big finger syndrome ok? Time will tell. WPoS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 PCM, the view I am referring to is from behind the net. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sagard Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 The teams were so even this weekend it takes two disallowed goals (probably both correct) to keep scores a one goal difference. I think Goon will be updating his sig again this year. Hopefully on the Gophs side of the ledger, but if not, hopefully on the Sioux side. I was impressed by the fact that 10 of the last 30 NCAA championships were either Sioux or Gophers. I'm guessing it will be 11/31. If the Gophers end up in the same regional as the Sioux it will be a shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoteauRinkRat Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I still disagree. I've watched the replay many times myself and still think he hits the puck after he brings his stick down. why can't we discuss this? Isn't this what this board is about? For sioux fans to come together and voice their concerns or anything regarding sioux sports. Obviously there are many people who still want to talk about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I still disagree. I've watched the replay many times myself and still think he hits the puck after he brings his stick down. why can't we discuss this? Isn't this what this board is about? For sioux fans to come together and voice their concerns or anything regarding sioux sports. Obviously there are many people who still want to talk about this. Bottom line ....the Gophers out played the Sioux saturday night and won the game by a goal. I wasn't the least bit upset by the ending - I think the call was fair. This from someone who bleeds green during hockey season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tboneund Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I was at the game and saw the replay multiple times there. It was a good call. I wish we could have gotten the sweep, but I'll take the split. The sioux looked awful for most of the game and didn't deserve the win, they simply got out-played...now to the degree they got out-played, that's debatable On a side note: Vanek is just about the slowest skater I have seen, no hustle at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 why can't we discuss this? Who said you couldn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Some say that at the point where the puck first appears to hit the blade of the stick, it really didn't. But it really did. The replay clearly shows that the trajectory of the puck changed to a downward angle after it hit the stick's blade, which is definitely over Parise's head. This is what's supposed to happen on a delayed penalty call: I thought that the first time viewing it in full motion and frame by frame it was a double hit, but after looking at the replay from the side, I believe the illusion of the first contact is not correct. The side view clearly shows the point shot was off to the side of Parise, rather than right at him (above his head), and therefore the stick contact could not have occured above his head. If you see my posts at the time it happened, I was sure it was a high stick above his head. After Parise's comments, and rewatching, I now believe the stick contact was much lower than that, although still may have been high. No matter what, it still may have been above 4', and the on ice official should have had the best view of the height. Of course that requires believing D. Shepard, which is a stretch for me. It really makes no difference, the score is in the books. I think we know the delayed penalty rule is much like the high stick contact rule, the calls are just seldom made consistently by the rule, so the confusion by fans and players is understandable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kr Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 There is no doubt about that. I don't mind announcers who are biased, but they are way over the top. If anyone else is stuck at home this morning and you have access to a radio, Woog will be on 1440am around 11am. Hopefully they'll talk about the upcoming UMN vs. UW series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 The trajectory of the puck changes to a downward angle after contacting the stick blade. It didn't do that for no reason and it's not an optical illusion. Parise's stick is over his head because the puck was over his head. The puck wouldn't have come down to where he could have hit it again if he hadn't knocked it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 The trajectory of the puck changes to a downward angle after contacting the stick blade. It didn't do that for no reason and it's not an optical illusion. Parise's stick is over his head because the puck was over his head. The puck wouldn't have come down to where he could have hit it again if he hadn't knocked it down. We'll have to disagree. After believing that and watching it multiple times, at first look it appears like that's what happened, but it simply did not. Look at the replay from the side (the last replay, not one of the first two behind the net). You can see the path it takes is way off to the side of Parise, and could not have arrived at his blade when it is above his head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rochsioux Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 The trajectory of the puck changes to a downward angle after contacting the stick blade. It didn't do that for no reason and it's not an optical illusion. Parise's stick is over his head because the puck was over his head. The puck wouldn't have come down to where he could have hit it again if he hadn't knocked it down. I will have to respectfully disagree. I believe you can verify that Parise did not touch the puck when it was above his head by watching the replay from the viewpoint of the shooter. You can follow the puck until Parise first touches it and to me it is obvious that his stick is not above his head. This validates my conclusion on the replay from the goaltenders view that Zach does not touch the puck when it first looks like he may have...it is an illusion and the puck has not yet reached his stick. Taking all this into account and Zach's comments after the game and I am pretty confident that he first touches the puck somewhere between waist level and below the shoulders. This still may be, and possibly was, an invalid touch but it is not clear cut as most of the posters on POI would like people to believe. None of this changes the outcome and so I will let it go at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pentaxman46 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 I just looked up the official NCAA rules and here is what it says: HR 64 6-19, Section 21 C: "Whent the puck is played above the 4' (1.22 M) it shall not be batted by the stick, and when it occurs there shall be a whistle unless: 1) The puck is batted to an oppenent, in which case the play shall continue. When a player bats the puck to an opponent an on ice official shall give the washout signal immediately." No where does it say anything about the opponent controlling the puck. It just says "batted to an opponent" What the heck does that mean? Huge loop holes for an official to interpret through! DG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Folks...We took 3 of 4 this year from UMN....I have one word for you....SUCCESSFUL. We didn't get the short end of the stick no matter how you measure it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPoS Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 it looks like our bribe to Sheppard worked... will this thread even end? When will the next UND series be discussed? Tune in tomorrow for another installment of "As UND got Screwed" it is over already... WPoS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 it looks like our bribe to Sheppard worked... will this thread even end? When will the next UND series be discussed? Tune in tomorrow for another installment of "As UND got Screwed" it is over already... WPoS That is the point..I don't think we got screwed at all. There is no instant replay available in college hockey to my knowledge. I don't even think it is worth the key strokes to even debate about (subject to your opinion however). The play happened in an instant. It took frame by frame slo mo replays for all of you to develop you're individual cases on the matter. Maybe I missed something but I didn't see any replays used in making the high sticking and subsequent "no goal" call. I didn't lose any sleep saturday night feeling like we got the shaft. Again we took 3 of 4 this year. Say what you will .....but so far we won the battle. I'm looking forward to the next meeting - which will most likely be in the Final Five (what could possibly be a better match-up). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPoS Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 <snip> There is no instant replay available in college hockey to my knowledge. I don't even think it is worth the key stokes to even debate about (subject to your opinion however). The play happened in an instant. It took frame by frame slo mo replays for all of you to develop you're individual cases on the matter. Maybe I missed something but I didn't see any replays used in making the high sticking and subsequent "no goal" call. <snip> I'm looking forward to the next meeting - which will most likely be in the Final Five (what could possibly be a better match-up). OMG, I am agreeing with you! YIKES! 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.