NORTH DAKOTA @ DU - SATURDAY Gameday

[stoneySIOUX]

6 minutes ago, AJS said:

This is well said, I can get on the same page that although I don't think it was a major, I can see why it was called a major. My overall problem with Saturday wasn't any one call in particular, but them collectively. Probably will never see another game called like it.

We'll see it called like this the next time we play in Magness. Idk what it is, but I feel like one game a weekend, each year, we have stuff like this go down. 

[UNDMOORHEAD]

2 minutes ago, UNDColorado said:

Pains me to say this but maybe it is time for our guys to start diving. I have always been proud of the fact that you rarely see our guys doing this but after Saturday watching their guy dive and act like his cage has nerves and feelings I have changed my tune.

Cberkas said the same thing. Although I understand the reasoning I can't get on board. Even my eight year old knows the difference between goof hockey and UND hockey. My son had a game yesterday where he fell head first in to the boards and I admit I was worried. He popped back up and kept going, like a lot of these little guys do. When I asked him about it after he said "I wasn't hurt so I kept going." I love watching how resilient all these little guys are and would hate to see them copying the diving brand of hockey.

[PCM]

3 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:

I don't care what the situation is and I don't care of the benefit... diving isn't UND hockey and it never will be.

As Brandon "Bucks" Bochenski once said, it's unmanly. 

[OgieOgilthorpe]

1 minute ago, stoneySIOUX said:

I don't agree with this. In the moment, maybe. But seeing the replay, that is a terrible, terrible call. 

Plant going down and being hurt made a 2 minute call debatable for more than that.  I'm sure they reviewed that it wasn't a crushing hit, it wasn't to the head, it wasn't boarding.......but man, it wasn't even CLOSE to a debatable inference hit. With that obvious of a cheap shot hit, and the guy gets hurt, how do you not call that a major? 

 

[stoneySIOUX]

11 minutes ago, OgieOgilthorpe said:

Plant going down and being hurt made a 2 minute call debatable for more than that.  I'm sure they reviewed that it wasn't a crushing hit, it wasn't to the head, it wasn't boarding.......but man, it wasn't even CLOSE to a debatable inference hit. With that obvious of a cheap shot hit, and the guy gets hurt, how do you not call that a major? 

 

Like you said, it wasn't crushing, it wasn't to the head and it wasn't boarding.... I'd want to know how DO they call it a major.

I don't think it was a "cheap" shot, honestly.

[stoneySIOUX]

4 minutes ago, OgieOgilthorpe said:

Plant going down and being hurt made a 2 minute call debatable for more than that.  I'm sure they reviewed that it wasn't a crushing hit, it wasn't to the head, it wasn't boarding.......but man, it wasn't even CLOSE to a debatable inference hit. With that obvious of a cheap shot hit, and the guy gets hurt, how do you not call that a major? 

 

The way I still see it... Smith was trying to go for a big hit and thought Borgstrom was going to drop the puck to Plant. When he didn't, he didn't pick it up quick enough. At the very end, he does pull up, however. I will never see this as a 5. Never.

[The Sicatoka]

My thought is this:
If the officials confer to decide "2 or 5", if it's 5 because the other player is injured, the other player shouldn't be on the ice either after the call and risk further injury. 

It might stop some of the floppers and divers if, yeah, sure, they drew the five, but they also had to sit as a player safety precaution. 

If you're hurt so bad that they had to assist you off the ice (because of major penalty level contact) you probably shouldn't be out there afterward. 

[stoneySIOUX]

Just now, The Sicatoka said:

Did Plant play the remainder of the game? 

My thought is this:
If the officials confer to decide "2 or 5", if it's 5 because the other player is injured, the other player shouldn't be on the ice either after the call and risk further injury. 

It might stop some of the floppers and divers if, yeah, sure, they drew the five, but they also had to sit as a player safety precaution. 

No, he didn't come back.

What do you do in the situation when the player isn't hurt?

[The Sicatoka]

Just now, stoneySIOUX said:

No, he didn't come back.

What do you do in the situation when the player isn't hurt?

If it's a major-worthy penalty but the other guy isn't injured, he keeps playing. Clearly that guy wasn't embellishing. 

[stoneySIOUX]

Just now, The Sicatoka said:

If it's a major-worthy penalty but the other guy isn't injured, he keeps playing. Clearly that guy wasn't embellishing. 

OK, so you're referring only to situations in which the player was "hurt"... got it.

[The Sicatoka]

1 minute ago, stoneySIOUX said:

OK, so you're referring only to situations in which the player was "hurt"... got it.

Like I said, when the officials have to "confer" to decide and they see a guy writhing in agony it affects them. They'll go 5. 

What irks me is when that guy who was maimed for life 30 seconds ago has been visited by Christ in the tunnel and is miraculously completely healed. 

[stoneySIOUX]

3 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Like I said, when the officials have to "confer" to decide and they see a guy writhing in agony it affects them. They'll go 5. 

What irks me is when that guy who was maimed for life 30 seconds ago has been visited by Christ in the tunnel and is miraculously completely healed. 

Yeah, I feel ya. I think we have to air on the side that most players won't be dinks an fake and injury to earn a 5, however. 

[TNF]

21 minutes ago, OgieOgilthorpe said:

Plant going down and being hurt made a 2 minute call debatable for more than that.  I'm sure they reviewed that it wasn't a crushing hit, it wasn't to the head, it wasn't boarding.......but man, it wasn't even CLOSE to a debatable inference hit. With that obvious of a cheap shot hit, and the guy gets hurt, how do you not call that a major? 

 

Obviously a cheap shot?  I guess we were watching different games. I’m on board with a dumb 2 minute interference penalty but no way is it a five. A more violent hit via a cross  check happens 5 times a game while players are crashing the crease or setting up shop in front on a  pp.   This is also a huge gap in the player safety category imho.  You can’t touch a guys helmet incidently in the neutral zone but you can punch him in the face after a whistle when any form of contact is illegal.   I’m not saying take those plays out but there has to be some “not so” common sense applied. 

[The Sicatoka]

All of that said, allow me one more harp:

• Officials are afraid to make the calls they really should, including deserved majors
• Officials are letting too many scoring chances be ended by mere penalties; more penalty shots are called for. 

From the rule book:

Quote

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 occur outside of the puck carrier’s defensive zone;
• 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.

There are a lot of times Pogo's speed surprises a guy and he's around the corner and going to the net and somehow doesn't get anything off. 

How many times have you seen Pogo:

• break into the O zone
• ahead of the defender
• denied a reasonable scoring opportunity by foul from behind
• and has no one between him and the goalie

Think about that rule and how it's enforced. 

[PCM]

On YouTube, there's a Denver Pioneers Hockey channel with highlights from Saturday's game showing a replay of UND's disallowed goal. The replay starts at the 2:44. I can't get the link to correctly show the right video, but here's a screen shot showing Adams' alleged goalie interference. While his stick might be touching Jaillet, it's in no way interfering with the goalie's ability to make a save. In fact, the puck is already on Kawaguchi's stick and he puts it in the net a fraction of a second later. Total BS call. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by PCM

[The Sicatoka]

3 minutes ago, TNF said:

... but you can punch him in the face after a whistle when any form of contact is illegal. 

That after whistle shove or facewash is a violation of ...

Quote

Rule 47 - Face Masks

47.1 Face Masks - A player shall not intentionally place or push with the open hand on the face mask. The inadvertent or accidental placement of an open hand on the face mask shall not be ruled a penalty.

PENALTY—Minor.

A player shall not move an open hand back and forth (e.g., facewashing) on the face mask of an opponent.

PENALTY—Major. A game misconduct may be assessed at the discretion of the referee.

A player shall not grasp and pull or twist an opponent’s face mask.

PENALTY—Major and game misconduct or disqualification at the discretion of the referee.

That one's enforced ... well ... never. 

[stoneySIOUX]

4 minutes ago, PCM said:

On YouTube, there's a Denver Pioneers Hockey channel with highlights from Saturday's game showing a replay of UND's disallowed goal. The replay starts at the 2:44. I can't get the link to correctly show the right video, but here's a screen shot showing Adam's alleged goalie interference. While his stick might be touching Jaillet, it's in no way interfering with the goalie's ability to make a save. In fact, the puck is already on Kawaguchi's stick and he puts it in the net a fraction of a second later. Total BS call. 

I saw so many people on Facebook claiming to say he hit Jaillet in the mask and I have yet to find ONE iota of proof in that.

It's just such a bad call that I cannot fathom it. UGH.

[OgieOgilthorpe]

14 minutes ago, TNF said:

Obviously a cheap shot?  I guess we were watching different games. I’m on board with a dumb 2 minute interference penalty but no way is it a five. A more violent hit via a cross  check happens 5 times a game while players are crashing the crease or setting up shop in front on a  pp.   This is also a huge gap in the player safety category imho.  You can’t touch a guys helmet incidently in the neutral zone but you can punch him in the face after a whistle when any form of contact is illegal.   I’m not saying take those plays out but there has to be some “not so” common sense applied. 

I didn't watch the game, I only watched this play and I think that's you're problem and would most likely be my problem as well. I didn't see the rest of the game so that isn't influencing my thinking on this. You being frustrated about how the entire game was officiated is effecting your thinking here. Laying out a dude when he didn't even touch the puck and is no where near getting the puck is a cheap shot...and he got hurt. 5 minutes is my unbiased thought about it. Me being at the game or watching it and seeing all this other crap you guys saw would make me hate DU and those refs and I'd probably say 2 mins also lol 

[Sodbuster]

3 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said:

I saw so many people on Facebook claiming to say he hit Jaillet in the mask and I have yet to find ONE iota of proof in that.

It's just such a bad call that I cannot fathom it. UGH.

In the mask?! That's ludicrous!   

[The Sicatoka]

14 minutes ago, PCM said:

On YouTube, there's a Denver Pioneers Hockey channel with highlights from Saturday's game showing a replay of UND's disallowed goal. The replay starts at the 2:44. 

Try this:

 

[stoneySIOUX]

18 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Try this:

 

Ugh, it's just SO bad.

[cberkas]

44 minutes ago, PCM said:

On YouTube, there's a Denver Pioneers Hockey channel with highlights from Saturday's game showing a replay of UND's disallowed goal. The replay starts at the 2:44. I can't get the link to correctly show the right video, but here's a screen shot showing Adam's alleged goalie interference. While his stick might be touching Jaillet, it's in no way interfering with the goalie's ability to make a save. In fact, the puck is already on Kawaguchi's stick and he puts it in the net a fraction of a second later. Total BS call. 

Jaillet was already beat.

[Vegas_Sioux]

1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

My thought is this:
If the officials confer to decide "2 or 5", if it's 5 because the other player is injured, the other player shouldn't be on the ice either after the call and risk further injury. 

It might stop some of the floppers and divers if, yeah, sure, they drew the five, but they also had to sit as a player safety precaution. 

If you're hurt so bad that they had to assist you off the ice (because of major penalty level contact) you probably shouldn't be out there afterward. 

McWilliam got a major like that once, good clean check.  Kid laid on the ice needed "help" off the ice and then scored 2 during the 5 minutes.

[cberkas]

1 hour ago, UNDMOORHEAD said:

Cberkas said the same thing. Although I understand the reasoning I can't get on board. Even my eight year old knows the difference between goof hockey and UND hockey. My son had a game yesterday where he fell head first in to the boards and I admit I was worried. He popped back up and kept going, like a lot of these little guys do. When I asked him about it after he said "I wasn't hurt so I kept going." I love watching how resilient all these little guys are and would hate to see them copying the diving brand of hockey.

I don't want the team to dive, it's just that diving/embellishing is part of the game now with little to no repercussions for doing it. The worse that will happen is you play 4x4 most of the time you get a powerplay. I expect every team that plays UND to dive/embellish because UND doesn't do it and there is no negative for doing it. 

[jk]

This is just me (and sprig, I think), but I don't even see the Smith play as a minor.  He's basically standing still, and Plant runs into him.  Play on.  I can't imagine thinking differently if the jerseys were reversed.  It wasn't even a hit; he got ran into.