NORTH DAKOTA @ DU - SATURDAY Gameday

[cberkas]

Malone's hit on Martin wasn't a penalty originally. I think they gave Malone a major was to keep something from happening to Malone later in the game. If Martin had his head up he wouldn't have had his career ended that night. 

[UNDMOORHEAD]

2 minutes ago, cberkas said:

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. 

I understood why you brought it up earlier I didn't mean it as anything against what you said. I wholeheartedly agree with your above statement about the 4x4 as well. As I had said previously they have to change the way they call the game in order to change the way it's played.

[cberkas]

1 minute ago, UNDMOORHEAD said:

I understood why you brought it up earlier I didn't mean it as anything against what you said. I wholeheartedly agree with your above statement about the 4x4 as well. As I had said previously they have to change the way they call the game in order to change the way it's played.

I knew what you meant.

[UNDMOORHEAD]

2 minutes ago, cberkas said:

I knew what you meant.

It can be hard to convey tone via text at times. 

[1972]

31 minutes ago, jk said:

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.

I have watched that play many times, and what stands out to me is that plant raises his stick in a cross check type manner while continuing to ward Smith, before Smith makes any type of movement to defend himself.  Plant ran into a brick wall and got trucked.  Big boys game.  Just my 2¢

[sprig]

38 minutes ago, jk said:

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.

Yes. Sprig also

[petey23]

2 hours ago, PCM said:

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

I might have to work up a new t-shirt.

 

Gopher Hockey, it's

Unanly

 

 

[stoneySIOUX]

19 minutes ago, petey23 said:

I might have to work up a new t-shirt.

 

Gopher Hockey, it's

Unanly

 

 

How about this one...

 

.... de, we owe the refs for that win....

[PCM]

1 hour 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.

When I watched the replay, I expected to see some evidence that Adams hooked Jaillet with his stick to prevent him from moving across the crease to stop Kawaguchi's shot. Perhaps the view from above shows something like that, but at the time it would have mattered, the blade of Adams' stick is perpendicular to the ice. If his stick is making contact, it's not doing so in a way that would interfere with the goalie's ability to make a save. Per the NCAA rules, incidental contact by the attacking player is allowed. Also, when you watch the video at full speed, I don't see how Adams could have had the presence of mind to do anything other than make the pass to Kawaguchi. 

[stoneySIOUX]

5 minutes ago, PCM said:

When I watched the replay, I expected to see some evidence that Adams hooked Jaillet with his stick to prevent him from moving across the crease to stop Kawaguchi's shot. Perhaps the view from above shows something like that, but at the time it would have mattered, the blade of Adams' stick is perpendicular to the ice. If his stick is making contact, it's not doing so in a way that would interfere with the goalie's ability to make a save. Per the NCAA rules, incidental contact by the attacking player is allowed. Also, when you watch the video at full speed, I don't see how Adams could have had the presence of mind to do anything other than make the pass to Kawaguchi. 

Yes, to all. Just an awful call. Also, zero explanation of how said call came about. Embarrassing officiating.

[OgieOgilthorpe]

Uhhh....okay guys. Now that I've seen the real time replay of the smith hit, I'm having second thoughts. It's WAY more subtle than the slow mo replay made it look. I'll eat a lot of my comments. I didn't watch the Saturday game so this is all new to me. 

[cberkas]

Cam gets ran over it's not interference.

Jaillet gets a stick to touch his glove it's interference.

The logic of the NCHC officials.

 

[sprig]

22 minutes ago, PCM said:

When I watched the replay, I expected to see some evidence that Adams hooked Jaillet with his stick to prevent him from moving across the crease to stop Kawaguchi's shot. Perhaps the view from above shows something like that, but at the time it would have mattered, the blade of Adams' stick is perpendicular to the ice. If his stick is making contact, it's not doing so in a way that would interfere with the goalie's ability to make a save. Per the NCAA rules, incidental contact by the attacking player is allowed. Also, when you watch the video at full speed, I don't see how Adams could have had the presence of mind to do anything other than make the pass to Kawaguchi. 

Jaillet's version of a dive as a last resort. 

[TNF]

2 hours ago, OgieOgilthorpe said:

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 

So the super slow motion replay you are watching in isolation isn’t impacting your decision?  You are making a lot of assumption about me.

If you watch it real time they are both watching the play at first.  Yes, there was enough time to avoid the hit and therefore it should have been interference but I don’t believe he was singling out Plante just because he wanted to get a shot on the hurt guy.   And I promise you UND will be on the worse end of at least a dozen hits this year that will go without a major

[PCM]

9 minutes ago, cberkas said:

Cam gets ran over it's not interference.

Jaillet gets a stick to touch his glove it's interference.

The logic of the NCHC officials.

 

I remember when this goal was allowed. No interference with Dell. Nope. None whatsoever. 
 

 

[cberkas]

7 minutes ago, PCM said:

I remember when this goal was allowed. No interference with Dell. Nope. None whatsoever. 
 

 

The puck only went in because of the Notre Dame player was laying in the crease. Puck hits the post then the player laying there. I don't know how I didn't see this game or remember it.

[PCM]

8 minutes ago, sprig said:

Jaillet's version of a dive as a last resort. 

I don't think Jaillet had anything to do with it. I think he knew he was beaten and that it was a good goal. Note that Montgomery never says he saw interference. He threw a tantrum based on the word of DU's backup goalie on the bench. To disallow a goal by claiming a penalty occurred that the officials didn't call is really ludicrous. I can't blame Jaillet for that.  

[PCM]

12 minutes ago, cberkas said:

The puck only went in because of the Notre Dame player was laying in the crease. Puck hits the post then the player laying there. I don't know how I didn't see this game or remember it.

I remember it all too well. It was yet another case of denying a goal by claiming a penalty occurred that didn't happen and was never called. 

http://boardsroom.blogspot.com/2010/12/about-that-goal.html

[OgieOgilthorpe]

20 minutes ago, TNF said:

So the super slow motion replay you are watching in isolation isn’t impacting your decision?  You are making a lot of assumption about me.

If you watch it real time they are both watching the play at first.  Yes, there was enough time to avoid the hit and therefore it should have been interference but I don’t believe he was singling out Plante just because he wanted to get a shot on the hurt guy.   And I promise you UND will be on the worse end of at least a dozen hits this year that will go without a major

Read my comment 3 posts up from yours...

[SiouxBoys]

2 hours ago, jk said:

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.

He stepped into the Denver player's skating lane. Easy interference call.

[Esoteric]

3 hours 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 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. 

Just saying:  TV game can be watched near the bench by fans on their iPhone (Android).  I heard a linesman said no goal.  A challenge was made.  Does anyone know how the challenge decision was made?  Strange things happen.

[PCM]

12 minutes ago, Esoteric said:

Just saying:  TV game can be watched near the bench by fans on their iPhone (Android).  I heard a linesman said no goal.  A challenge was made.  Does anyone know how the challenge decision was made?  Strange things happen.

According to the NCAA rules, the linesmen have no authority to disallow a goal on their own. They are allowed to tell the refs about a penalty they witnessed after play is halted. In this case, the linesman could have said he saw 18 UND use his stick to interfere with the goalie. That would have allowed the goal to be waved off because of a penalty on Adams. There is nothing in the rule book saying a goal can be disallowed because of a penalty that was seen -- but not called -- by an on-ice official. That makes no sense. 

Brad Schlossman discusses what he was told by the NCHC in today's Weekend Rewind blog. 

[Walsh Hall]

I can’t see on the replay, but I don’t think the DU goalie loses his mind after the disallowed goal.  Usually if there is any potential interference the goalie blows a gasket.  I might have missed it,  but I didn’t see any reaction.  That’s telling to me.

i didn’t think the contact impeded his ability to make the save at all.  I think being on the wrong side of the net had a much bigger impact.

[UNDBIZ]

1 hour ago, PCM said:

I remember when this goal was allowed. No interference with Dell. Nope. None whatsoever. 
 

 

I also remember a really bad one in a final five game against I believe st cloud. Can't find a replay of it though. 

[TrueSioux2000]

Any official comment by the NCHC about the officiating in that game? If not, then there doesn't seem to be much hope.  That 5 major was atrocious and that no goal was questionable at best.  But I must be mistaken because the conference thought it was a-ok.  Denver just played a clean game except for that one penalty.