Time to re-look at certain rules?

[TNF]

Here are a few ideas some of which have been discussed on this forum lately;

1)  Diving- a 3 strikes rule should be instituted. Strike one is 2 minutes for diving and a 2 minute misconduct penalty (yes I believe trying to deceive an official is worse than the original infraction). Strike 2 is 2 minutes for the dive and a 10 minute misconduct. Strike 3 is a 2 minute penalty and a game misconduct. Any additional offenses are 2 games each.  

2) Faceoffs- I don't have the answer but they aren't consistent with throwing people out and often times they are the ones delaying the game. 

3) Matching Minors- this should be a last resort for officials since it doesn't punish a team and most likely won't change behavior. Examples- If team A crashes the goalie after a shot, illegally makes contact, and then a scrum breaks out everyone should be matched up with an additional 2 minutes going to team A for the initial penalty. If team A crashes the net legally and a scrum is started by team B then everyone should be matched up and team B should get the extra 2 for instigating. 

4) I like the idea of a coaches challenge or two throughout the game to cut down on everything being reviewed. 

[cberkas]

2 hours ago, Snake said:

Do all college rinks have the same height glass these days?  Could that be why it's not implemented?

Not sure why they never call it.

[nodakgirl93]

1 hour ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

To be clear, you're complaining about discussing a call that ended our hockey season 72 hours ago on a message board dedicated to talking about our hockey team. And you wish we'd instead focus on "living our lives in general".

Have I missed anything?

Yes focus on more important things like early departures, possibility of Dane leaving, ect. They got the call right and i'm sure a camera on the blue line would definitely show it. Hoff has been offsides a lot this year. I'm not surprised he was ahead of the puck. It happens. Accept defeat. Nothing is gonna change the outcome. 

[franchise]

9 hours ago, nodakgirl93 said:

Why would I log off? You're complaining about a call that didn't go our way.  Of course someone has to make a new thread for this issue. Yah I was upset but nothing you can do about it. Brad agreed with the call and seems like the players did to. If you wanna waste your time complaining and thinking of ways to better review then do so. But take it up with the ncaa. Focus on next year. 

Yeah, everyone stop talking about Tampa as well. That's in the past....

[tnt]

6 hours ago, nodakgirl93 said:

Yes focus on more important things like early departures, possibility of Dane leaving, ect. They got the call right and i'm sure a camera on the blue line would definitely show it. Hoff has been offsides a lot this year. I'm not surprised he was ahead of the puck. It happens. Accept defeat. Nothing is gonna change the outcome. 

Nothing is going to change early departures or Dane leaving either.  So if I look back at your posts, I won't find you talking about bad calls or penalties on other teams or lack thereof?  If that's the case, fine, but if not, I find it odd you are telling people on this board what they should or shouldn't discuss. Maybe you should bring this foolish posting up with the moderators.  Oh, wait, one of them created the thread you're ironically complaining about. 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

7 hours ago, nodakgirl93 said:

Yes focus on more important things like early departures, possibility of Dane leaving, ect. They got the call right and i'm sure a camera on the blue line would definitely show it. Hoff has been offsides a lot this year. I'm not surprised he was ahead of the puck. It happens. Accept defeat. Nothing is gonna change the outcome. 

You're missing the point completely with that post, but I appreciate your suffocating level of censorship on a thread you could simply choose not to click on.

You seem kind of new so welcome to siouxsports.com. This is not a site that bends and shapes to your will just because you think people should 'live their lives', which apparently consists of talking about early departures and whether or not Dane Jackson will leave the team. We like to 'live our lives' a little outside the box... at least outside your box thankfully.

[SJHovey]

1 minute ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

You're missing the point completely with that post, but I appreciate your suffocating level of censorship on a thread you could simply choose not to click on.

You seem kind of new so welcome to siouxsports.com. This is not a site that bends and shapes to your will just because you think people should 'live their lives', which apparently consists of talking about early departures and whether or not Dane Jackson will leave the team. We like to 'live our lives' a little outside the box... at least outside your box thankfully.

I'm going to agree, somewhat, with Nodakgirl here.

The original post of Sic's is a good topic for discussion.  Should college hockey look at changing the way we go back and check for offsides, and more particularly, whether a zone entry with no score on the initial rush should then essentially be "good" if after 30-60 seconds of cycling the puck a team scores.

However, in your initial post you changed the topic, slightly, by commenting on the our particular offsides, the poor camera angle for the replay, etc...  To me, this gets into more of the "sour grapes" territory that I prefer we avoid as a fanbase.

Berry took the correct approach with respect to our particular offsides.  He said it was "probably right" and deferred to the officials.  Enough said on that particular play as far as I'm concerned.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

17 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

I'm going to agree, somewhat, with Nodakgirl here.

The original post of Sic's is a good topic for discussion.  Should college hockey look at changing the way we go back and check for offsides, and more particularly, whether a zone entry with no score on the initial rush should then essentially be "good" if after 30-60 seconds of cycling the puck a team scores.

However, in your initial post you changed the topic, slightly, by commenting on the our particular offsides, the poor camera angle for the replay, etc...  To me, this gets into more of the "sour grapes" territory that I prefer we avoid as a fanbase.

Berry took the correct approach with respect to our particular offsides.  He said it was "probably right" and deferred to the officials.  Enough said on that particular play as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't bring it up, I responded to a poster about having cameras down the blue lines while talking about the game that brought this discussion about.

Is it sour grapes if it's true?  Of course the coach took the high road, he's a classy coach and great guy and doesn't want to detract from the team's performance.  However, I'm not the head coach of UND hockey and am not employed by UND hockey so I do not need to be in lockstep with everything they say.

The officials were 'probably right' but the point is that we can't be sure, which is what conclusive evidence requires to overturn a call.

Maybe it's just me but I don't appreciate someone coming onto a board telling us what we can and cannot discuss because they think we should get over it because we lost. Part of this message board(to me at least) is to vent and debrief after these types of games. I'm not going to be talking about it all summer, but we're less than a week removed from the game that ended our chance to defend our national title. 

Sic, if my comments detracted at all from what you were trying to pursue in this thread, I apologize.

[Siouxphan27]

I demand all talk about the nickname cease immediately. 

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

2 hours ago, franchise said:

Yeah, everyone stop talking about Tampa as well. That's in the past....

Wait a minute, we're still the reigning NC.

[tnt]

47 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

I'm going to agree, somewhat, with Nodakgirl here.

The original post of Sic's is a good topic for discussion.  Should college hockey look at changing the way we go back and check for offsides, and more particularly, whether a zone entry with no score on the initial rush should then essentially be "good" if after 30-60 seconds of cycling the puck a team scores.

However, in your initial post you changed the topic, slightly, by commenting on the our particular offsides, the poor camera angle for the replay, etc...  To me, this gets into more of the "sour grapes" territory that I prefer we avoid as a fanbase.

Berry took the correct approach with respect to our particular offsides.  He said it was "probably right" and deferred to the officials.  Enough said on that particular play as far as I'm concerned.

So talking about an area where people think there should be changes, whether it's sour grapes or not should not be brought up on a message board.  People rip on players left and right on this message board, but that's fine, but heaven forbid you question a rule that came back to haunt you.  

[SJHovey]

Just now, tnt said:

So talking about an area where people think there should be changes, whether it's sour grapes or not should not be brought up on a message board.  People rip on players left and right on this message board, but that's fine, but heaven forbid you question a rule that came back to haunt you.  

That's not what I said at all.  In fact, it's the opposite of what I said.  Talk about rule changes all you like. 

Nodakgirl responded to a poster who was complaining about the "bozos" and "clowns" who called UND offsides on the play, and she told the poster to give it a rest.  I feel the same way about those particular types of posts.  Biatching at the officials, or calling them names, accomplishes nothing and sounds like whining to outsiders, and to me, and we're better than that.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

9 minutes ago, SJHovey said:

That's not what I said at all.  In fact, it's the opposite of what I said.  Talk about rule changes all you like. 

Nodakgirl responded to a poster who was complaining about the "bozos" and "clowns" who called UND offsides on the play, and she told the poster to give it a rest.  I feel the same way about those particular types of posts.  Biatching at the officials, or calling them names, accomplishes nothing and sounds like whining to outsiders, and to me, and we're better than that.

She didn't respond to anyone but me. And I never once called a ref a bozo or a clown... at least not on this board

Seriously though, you think the offsides review process and/or the offsides play from Friday should be off limits for discussion? 

[SJHovey]

36 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

She didn't respond to anyone but me. And I never once called a ref a bozo or a clown... at least not on this board

Seriously though, you think the offsides review process and/or the offsides play from Friday should be off limits for discussion? 

Her post, which didn't directly quote anyone else's post, followed krusty's post (which quoted your initial post) and included krusty's references to the officials.

[krustyklown]

23 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

She didn't respond to anyone but me. And I never once called a ref a bozo or a clown... at least not on this board

Seriously though, you think the offsides review process and/or the offsides play from Friday should be off limits for discussion? 

She was responding to me as apparently I used inappropriate terms for a referee.  Lesson learned today:  First Amendment doesn't apply to those who choose to vent some frustration on this message board. 

I will point out that I did throw a bone, in the same post, to the 'bozo' or 'clown' that ultimately made the decision to waive off - he must have seen definitive evidence on some zoomed-in image on that small monitor that Hoff was in the zone before the puck.  If I was able to see the same image, then I will gladly change the descriptor to 'expert'.  Otherwise, I claim that the evidence from the images us misinformed fans saw did not reach the level of conclusiveness to waive off the goal.

BTW, if he had not waived off the goal, the team beats BU, AND evidence was seen later that Hoff was truly offsides, then I would feel the win to be tainted.  He would flip back to being a bozo, in my small, diseased brain at least.

[SJHovey]

37 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

She didn't respond to anyone but me. And I never once called a ref a bozo or a clown... at least not on this board

Seriously though, you think the offsides review process and/or the offsides play from Friday should be off limits for discussion? 

With respect to your question, again, for the third time, I think the offsides review process is an excellent point of discussion on this board or anywhere else.  Friday's play is another matter.

What else is there to discuss about Friday's play, other than to complain about it.  The play is over.  It was called.  The game went on.  I suppose that we can talk about the fact that the UND players box and coaches were right on that blueline and that it's interesting none of them have suggested it was a bad call.  What exactly do you want to discuss about the play, not the offsides review process in general, other than complain about the call?

[SJHovey]

Just now, krustyklown said:

She was responding to me as apparently I used inappropriate terms for a referee.  Lesson learned today:  First Amendment doesn't apply to those who choose to vent some frustration on this message board. 

You are right that the First Amendment doesn't apply here.

[TNF]

Know when to say when...friends don't let friends rehash the same argument for multiple pages.   

 

What rules would you like to see the NCHC look at modifying?  I threw a few ideas out there related to diving, faceoffs, matching minors, etc. Other ideas???

[WiSioux]

20 hours ago, southpaw said:

If it takes three officials seven minutes to look at a review, chances are it should stand as called.

FYP.

[WiSioux]

Kinda off topic but does anyone know if the refs have a "training camp" or anything in the offseason? I think NFL refs do... They go over new rules, points of emphasis etc.

I ask because I feel like the way the refs drop the puck at faceoff is very different. Some drop it right away, some take FOREVER! Some bend down to get closer to the ice, some stand normal. There doesn't seem to be much consistency

[Blackheart]

6 hours ago, Siouxphan27 said:

I demand all talk about the nickname cease immediately. 

What nickname talk? 

[PCM]

The point of my blog to which The Sicatoka graciously posted the link was not to contest whether Hoff was offsides, but to suggest that the NCAA apply the "no harm, no foul" precedent it set when it changed the man in the crease rule. The change recognized that even if a member of the attacking team was in the crease when technically he wasn't supposed to be, the goal would count if his presence didn't interfere with the goalie's ability to make a save. 

After reviewing a replay of Bowen's disallowed OT goal, there are a some facts worth noting.

1. From the time Olson carried the puck into the zone and Bowen scored, 29 seconds elapsed.
2. The linesman in ideal position to determine if the play was onside signaled the zone entry good. Nobody on either team held up as if they expected an offsides call. 
3. Coming in on the rush, Olson fed a pass to Bowen high in the slot. He skated to near the top of the right circle and fired a wrist shot that went wide right. From that point on, it was completely matter of chance as to which team gained control of the puck. 
4. At one point during the 29 seconds UND was in BU's zone, a Terriers' forward had control of the puck. He could have banked it off the glass, chipped it out or lobbed it out. But he tried to skate it out and Olson picked his pocket. It was this play by Olson that ultimately led to Bowen's goal. 
5. By the time Bowen scored, whether or not the zone entry was legal became totally irrelevant. Through hard work, cycling and a strong forecheck, UND kept the puck in the zone to create the scoring opportunity.
6. An official made the mistake of allowing play to continue.  A BU player made the mistake that led to UND's goal. And yet it was UND -- which received absolutely no advantage from one of its players being offsides by what appeared to be a razor-thin margin at best -- that was penalized for the unnoticed infraction. 

Personally, I don't think this was fair way to handle the situation, especially when a team's season and a trip to the Frozen Four are on the line. If the NCAA is going to review playoff goals for offsides infractions, it needs a much better system. It needs high-speed, high-resolution digital imaging cameras positioned on each blue line to quickly provide indisputable evidence. The camera the officials used to overturn UND's OT goal was neither designed for nor positioned for this critical task. 

[The Sicatoka]

20 minutes ago, PCM said:

... The Sicatoka graciously ...

There're some words you seldom see strung together. 

[puck]

I sure miss PCM's contributions on this site.  Hopefully he will come back more often.

[The Sicatoka]

29 minutes ago, PCM said:

At one point during the 29 seconds UND was in BU's zone, a Terriers' forward had control of the puck. He could have banked it off the glass, chipped it out or lobbed it out. But he tried to skate it out and Olson picked his pocket.

To me, once BU got possession that's the limit to as far back as they should be able to review. 

Another question: Did they reset the game clock back to the time of the "off-sides"?