UND FIGHTING HAWKS vs. UMD Bulldogs - FRIDAY Gameday

[BigGreyAnt41]

43 minutes ago, Biddco said:

 

 

http://bulldoghockeyblog.areavoices.com/780-2/

 

If you go by the rule book it is not a penalty shot. The refs didn't make the call right away and let the crowd pressure them into making the call. Matt Wellens, who is not a homer by any means, states my thoughts on the matter quite well. 

The penalty was called immediately.  And as soon as the whistle blew, the signal was made for a penalty shot.  Ref's don't cross their arms above their hands to signal penalty shot until after play stops, so there was nobody pressuring him to make the call.  Until UMD touched the puck the play was still alive.

[geaux_sioux]

I hope the CBS line clicks again tonight but I just haven't liked what they've brought since they got back together. A play here or there but no consistent pressure like they had previously.

[siouxfaninseattle]

6 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

I hope the CBS line clicks again tonight but I just haven't liked what they've brought since they got back together. A play here or there but no consistent pressure like they had previously.

They have not scored in two games, but they have not played poorly. Had several chances but unlike earlier in the year didn't put the puck in the net. I don't see breaking them up.

[Sioux>Bison]

After the video that was definately not a penalty shot. I don't know why he took pogs out like that because he was not beat that bad.

[Vegas_Sioux]

1 minute ago, Sioux>Bison said:

After the video that was definately not a penalty shot. I don't know why he took pogs out like that because he was not beat that bad.

That's what made it a penalty shot.  left his feet to foul from behind preventing a shot on goal you could actually argue it was a clipping major because he went shoulder to knee in an attempt to injury. 

[The Sicatoka]

The defender left his feet to hit the puck carrier in the legs and made minimal effort to play the puck. The defender intentionally did this from behind to eliminate a scoring opportunity. 

If that's not a penalty shot offense, what is? 

If you claim it's not penalty shot worthy, then it is intent to injure clipping (dove from behind into an opponent's legs). That would probably also garner a one game suspension from the league office for tonight. 

Here's the bottom line for me: I want the officials to give more penalty shot calls to protect puck carriers and offensive opportunities. Don't like it? Don't get beat down the ice. 

[The Sicatoka]

People are saying sit 4 and 27. Yes. But 28 needs some suit time also. He made some terrible decisions as well. 

If 24 is available, I don't see how 24 and 21 could be any worse than 4 and 28 were in their own zone Friday. Yes, I said 21.

27? Honestly, I think he has anger management issues. I'm not sure there's a hockey fix for those; however, if 29 or 17 is ready tonight, I'd slot them in. Heck, if not, I'd seriously consider 13. 

[The Sicatoka]

CBS might need a refresh.

Schmaltz with Caggiula and Gersich (who else can keep up?)

Gardner with Boeser and Wilkie (16 and 22 were good together at WMU)

Simonson with Poganski and Janatuinen (you might convince me to swap JJ for Gersich)

Sanderson with Olson and (if 17 or 29 is available, else 13)

You might actually have a more than one line that can score. Boeser showed he can produce without 8 and 9 at WMU. Why not try it. 

 

 

[The Sicatoka]

More thoughts on the Pogo breakaway that led to the penalty shot:

Janatuinen was uncovered on the left wing; it was a 2 on 1. One of the Duluth players was dogging it back. If Pogo could've gotten it across JJ had a lot of net to look at. 

Watch Soucy get up after the hit. Watch his body language. He knew ... 

[geaux_sioux]

37 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

CBS might need a refresh.

Schmaltz with Caggiula and Gersich (who else can keep up?)

Gardner with Boeser and Wilkie (16 and 22 were good together at WMU)

Simonson with Poganski and Janatuinen (you might convince me to swap JJ for Gersich)

Sanderson with Olson and (if 17 or 29 is available, else 13)

You might actually have a more than one line that can score. Boeser showed he can produce without 8 and 9 at WMU. Why not try it. 

 

 

What about pogo schmaltz and cags? Seems like complimentary skill sets.

[The Sicatoka]

I just watched the end of the Friday game again.

UMD almost lost that game before the Poganski penalty shot. 

When Anderson's arm went into the air (0:14) the UMD players (save for their goalie) stopped. Janatuinen (who'd been free on the 2-on-1 when Poganski was hauled down) picked up the puck behind the net (0:16) and sent it straight up the slot to Poolman. Poolman got a rocket shot off (0:18) that was glove saved. Then the whistle blew.

If the UMD goalie had quit on the play like his teammates the game would've been over then. 

[Sodbuster]

50 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

I just watched the end of the Friday game again.

UMD almost lost that game before the Poganski penalty shot. 

When Anderson's arm went into the air (0:14) the UMD players (save for their goalie) stopped. Janatuinen (who'd been free on the 2-on-1 when Poganski was hauled down) picked up the puck behind the net (0:16) and sent it straight up the slot to Poolman. Poolman got a rocket shot off (0:18) that was glove saved. Then the whistle blew.

If the UMD goalie had quit on the play like his teammates the game would've been over then. 

Geez! You're right! I didn't notice that till you pointed it out. And I've watched this replay many, many times.

[UMDDogz]

On 2/20/2016 at 1:37 PM, The Sicatoka said:

The defender left his feet to hit the puck carrier in the legs and made minimal effort to play the puck. The defender intentionally did this from behind to eliminate a scoring opportunity. 

If that's not a penalty shot offense, what is? 

If you claim it's not penalty shot worthy, then it is intent to injure clipping (dove from behind into an opponent's legs). That would probably also garner a one game suspension from the league office for tonight. 

Here's the bottom line for me: I want the officials to give more penalty shot calls to protect puck carriers and offensive opportunities. Don't like it? Don't get beat down the ice. 

dogs

 

Here's a screen grab from right before the defender swiped at the puck.  He is not behind the ND forward, they are side by side.  The UMD player was slightly ahead at the blue line.  The UMD player's attempt to swipe the puck off the UND player's stick was unsuccessful and he tripped up the UND player.  Penalty?  You bet.  Penalty shot?  No.

[UMDDogz]

1 minute ago, UMDDogz said:

dogs

 

Here's a screen grab from right before the defender swiped at the puck.  He is not behind the ND forward, they are side by side.  The UMD player was slightly ahead at the blue line.  The UMD player's attempt to swipe the puck off the UND player's stick was unsuccessful and he tripped up the UND player.  Penalty?  You bet.  Penalty shot?  No.

If the link doesn't work you can just pause the video that Biddy uploaded.  The UMD defender is never behind the UND forward until after his unsuccessful swipe at the puck.  Nice job shielding the puck by the UND forward, and he drew what should have been a 2 minute tripping call as a result.

[The Sicatoka]

Again, if that's not a penalty shot what is?

The play met penalty shot criteria just as Stecher's play meets suspension criteria.

 

[Cratter]

13 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Again, if that's not a penalty shot what is?

The play met penalty shot criteria just as Stecher's play meets suspension criteria.

 

Pulled down from behind and not on the side.

[UMDDogz]

31 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Again, if that's not a penalty shot what is?

The play met penalty shot criteria just as Stecher's play meets suspension criteria.

 

25.6

Penalty Shot –

A penalty shot is designed to restore a scoring opportunity

which was lost as a result of a foul being committed by the offending

team, based on the parameters set out in these rules.

There are four (4) specific conditions that must be met in order for the

Referee to award a penalty shot for a player being fouled from behind. They

are:

•

The infraction must have taken place in the neutral zone or attacking

zone, (i.e. over the puck carrier’s own blue line);

•

The infraction must have been committed from behind;

•

The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the

Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the

puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact

that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from

the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind

and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the

foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded);

•

The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the

Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the

puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the

goalkeeper.

 

Direct from the NCAA rulebook.  Neither of the bolded conditions were satisfied.  The UMD player was attempting to dive and swipe/poke the puck off the stick of a player who was even with him, a play we see all the time on a rush up ice.  He had to reach/lunge across the body of the opposing player to do so as the opposing player was using his body to shield the puck.  If we interpret the penalty shot rule this loosely, to where any penalty committed by players who are shoulder-to-shoulder warrants a penalty shot, we are going to see a great deal more penalty shots.  You think guys flop now...NCAA hockey will become European Football-esque, with guys trying to draw penalty shots.  Situations like we saw Friday night take place much more often than the "clean and unobstructed breakaways" that this rule was CLEARLY put in place to protect.

[iluvdebbies]

I've refereed hockey from mites to junior college(which uses the ncaa rule book). The penalty shot Friday should not have been awarded. All criteria for a penalty shot were met except that the shooter wasn't fouled from behind. I've asked a lot the guys I've officiated with over the years....I've yet to have one say they would have called a penalty shot on that play. We caught a break.

[Ranger]

The Dog was at least one stride behind just before clipping the pogo from behind.  8 out of ten refs I spoke with said it would have been called.  Meets requirements.  Move on.

[burd]

I feel the same about both of them.   It was not a penalty shot situation, but it was close enough the guy brought it on himself and has no reason to biotch.   Same with Stecher"s CFB. 

You do something that is likely to be called, don't complain when it is. 

[tnt]

1 hour ago, iluvdebbies said:

I've refereed hockey from mites to junior college(which uses the ncaa rule book). The penalty shot Friday should not have been awarded. All criteria for a penalty shot were met except that the shooter wasn't fouled from behind. I've asked a lot the guys I've officiated with over the years....I've yet to have one say they would have called a penalty shot on that play. We caught a break.

In retrospect we caught a break, just like in retrospect we caught a break when they didn't give a penalty shot to Poganski at Western Michigan for what met the criteria, and we scored on the subsequent power play.  The way we moved the puck on the previous power play on Friday leads me to believe the odds might have been about the same with that momentum. Of course who knows, but we might be on the other end of it if Duluth would have converted on their power play in overtime with back and forth between players that didn't result in any on ice advantage in overtime. 

[The Sicatoka]

If what Soucy did is acceptable, why not just open field tackle the guy?

I have no problem with more penalty shots being called. We're at the point now where defenders are taking guys down expecting to not be called and that's not safe for the offensive player, the defender, or the goalie (as they could get caught up in the out of control crash. 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I'm kind of over whether or not it's a PS or not. We won, not sure the reason we are wringing our hands over it.

[Blackheart]

5 hours ago, UMDDogz said:

dogs

 

Here's a screen grab from right before the defender swiped at the puck.  He is not behind the ND forward, they are side by side.  The UMD player was slightly ahead at the blue line.  The UMD player's attempt to swipe the puck off the UND player's stick was unsuccessful and he tripped up the UND player.  Penalty?  You bet.  Penalty shot?  No.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....Your picture proves nothing; it shows him right before he tackled Poganski.  He also made no play on the puck.  We have some lovely parting gifts for you though.  Tell him what he's won Johnny!

[cberkas]

For the Duluth fans that want to whine about the penalty shot, remember your team had a full 2 minute power play to start overtime and couldn't score. You'd think Duluth would have rather took the the chance with a penalty shot over a 2 minute penalty kill. If Pogs was stopped or missed you get to keep Soucy on the ice.