Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

Post pod series #4-Back to Baxter


Wilbur
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, siouxfan512 said:

I noticed this on the last CBS game, but this PxP guy always seems behind the play.

They're broadcasting out of a CBS Studio. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UNDColorado said:

Saville got run twice? You are either blind or dumb. 

Senden’s goal qualifies...

73.2 Penalty - If, in the opinion of the official, an attacking player initiates contact that physically prevents the goalkeeper from defending the goal, the attacking player may receive a penalty. This penalty may be enforced whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease and whether or not a goal is scored. The referee should give significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper rather than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.
If an attacking player establishes position in the goal crease, and is physically or visually screening the goalkeeper and impairing the ability to defend the goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, UNDColorado said:

What about Caufield getting cross checked in the head when he was on the ice? That crap is a 5 and a game and it was not called. We definitely played undisciplined but the refs blew some calls. All I ask is that the calls go both ways and that didn't happen last night.

But no different a reaction than Scheels blow to the head on 45.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

After the whistle, two handed cross check to the head of a defenseless man laying on the ice ... no penalty? The league needs to review that ... both for player and officials sanctions. See: Rule 45. 

Too many dumb penalties. 

It looked to me like they were managing the defense to protect Frisch (back from injury) but get him back in game shape. Rieger got the minutes in "rugged journeyman" (aka refs letting it get out of control) times it seemed. 

I would say that Rieger is an insurance policy, too.  He can be thrown over the boards if things get out of control with the after the whistle stuff. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BusinessSiouxt said:

Senden’s goal qualifies...

73.2 Penalty - If, in the opinion of the official, an attacking player initiates contact that physically prevents the goalkeeper from defending the goal, the attacking player may receive a penalty. This penalty may be enforced whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease and whether or not a goal is scored. The referee should give significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper rather than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.
If an attacking player establishes position in the goal crease, and is physically or visually screening the goalkeeper and impairing the ability to defend the goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

You just proved your lack of credibility. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SiouxScore said:

What color Omaha jersey will you be wearing tonight?

My brother is a Gopher fan and even he commented how bad the officiating was in favor of Omaha last night. The 5 to start the game was weak but if you want to call it whatever but then be consistent as Omaha had 2 very similar hits and didn't get called for any penalty on either play.

Berry wasn't too pleased with the officiating last night.

Quote

"I'm not here to tell you what's a penalty and what's not a penalty," Berry said. "That's hopefully for the refs to decide what that is. But just seeing replays and different things, it's pretty hard to discern what the level is going to be called each and every night. We just have to try to adjust to whatever it is."

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help wanted Referees, Umps, Officials:

Need to make judgement calls in an instant.  Need to have three sets of eyes. Need to call everything the exact same no matter if you completely saw it or not. Need to interpret replays from different camera angles consistently to everyone’s satisfaction. That’s point is really important - everyone needs to agree with how you call it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BusinessSiouxt said:

Senden’s goal qualifies...

73.2 Penalty - If, in the opinion of the official, an attacking player initiates contact that physically prevents the goalkeeper from defending the goal, the attacking player may receive a penalty. This penalty may be enforced whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease and whether or not a goal is scored. The referee should give significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper rather than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.
If an attacking player establishes position in the goal crease, and is physically or visually screening the goalkeeper and impairing the ability to defend the goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

That is what you say was the first run at Saville? I’d say you must be joking but it is apparent that you aren’t.

Neither Senden or Caulfield were penalized for “running” the goalie. They must’ve found a new way to take runs that are allowed. :silly:

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SiouxFanatic said:

That is what you say was the first run at Saville? I’d say you must be joking but it is apparent that you aren’t.

Neither Senden or Caulfield were penalized for “running” the goalie. They must’ve found a new way to take runs that are allowed. :silly:

Didn't see most of the game.  Did the Senden goal get reviewed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SiouxFanatic said:

That is what you say was the first run at Saville? I’d say you must be joking but it is apparent that you aren’t.

Neither Senden or Caulfield were penalized for “running” the goalie. They must’ve found a new way to take runs that are allowed. :silly:

Nor should they have been penalized. On the Caulfield's collision the defender gave him a tap and he blew a tire. I guess, I wouldn't conclude that Senden deserved a penalty on his goal. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this newcomer may be the best troller ever, fun stuff on a dreary day....     I assume same refs tonight, 5 of last 7 games will make the teams come together and sing kumbaya?   wonder if York is taking notes, Bald Bob is for sure....

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 90siouxfan said:

this newcomer may be the best troller ever, fun stuff on a dreary day....     I assume same refs tonight, 5 of last 7 games will make the teams come together and sing kumbaya?   wonder if York is taking notes, Bald Bob is for sure....

I think this is that Twitter handle from omaha that complained about everything UND last year. It was sad and comical at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BusinessSiouxt said:

Senden’s goal qualifies...

73.2 Penalty - If, in the opinion of the official, an attacking player initiates contact that physically prevents the goalkeeper from defending the goal, the attacking player may receive a penalty. This penalty may be enforced whether or not the goalkeeper is inside or outside the goal crease and whether or not a goal is scored. The referee should give significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact with the goalkeeper rather than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact.
If an attacking player establishes position in the goal crease, and is physically or visually screening the goalkeeper and impairing the ability to defend the goal, and a goal is scored, the goal will be disallowed.

 

top_that_arrested_development.gif

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, UNDColorado said:

I think this is that Twitter handle from omaha that complained about everything UND last year. It was sad and comical at the same time.

It's pretty common when UND is doing good in hockey, Twitter is on fire with opposition fans complaining about how dirty and goonish they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, 90siouxfan said:

this newcomer may be the best troller ever, fun stuff on a dreary day....     I assume same refs tonight, 5 of last 7 games will make the teams come together and sing kumbaya?   wonder if York is taking notes, Bald Bob is for sure....

Going to be interesting if it’s high school hockey style 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Goon said:

It's pretty common when UND is doing good in hockey, Twitter is on fire with opposition fans complaining about how dirty and goonish they are. 

Yeah but there was one in particular last season that would go off about everything. I can't remember the name though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, UNDColorado said:

Yeah but there was one in particular last season that would go off about everything. I can't remember the name though.

Are you talking about the guy that would post selectively edited video clips of all our major penalties or penalties he decided should get our players suspensions? 

Because I know that guy changed his Twitter handle. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, siouxforce19 said:

Are you talking about the guy that would post selectively edited video clips of all our major penalties or penalties he decided should get our players suspensions? 

Because I know that guy changed his Twitter handle. 

Recovering Ops, the guy changed his twitter handle, I just can't remember what it is now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, siouxforce19 said:

Are you talking about the guy that would post selectively edited video clips of all our major penalties or penalties he decided should get our players suspensions? 

Because I know that guy changed his Twitter handle. 

Here's his tweet from the Mismash incident in Denver. His new Twitter handle is @spomer_hky 

I followed him until the Pinto incident last season, where I dared ask the question why he shortened the video

to only show Pinto crossing checking Abate. He forgot that add part that lead to that. While thought the suspension was appropriate

Abate deserved a suspension as well. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no troll. Not from Omaha. Just a differing view. You may believe my opinions don’t fit you green glassed view, but they are based on my experience in the sport and my ability to see past a play, a game, a season. Ok, I fold... fire Barry, Mishmash sucks, give Thome the net, and the pandemic was a UMD conspiracy to rob us of our 2020 championship. In collusion with Denver and Michigan... and, we play the cleanest hockey in the NCAA. :silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BusinessSiouxt said:

No, no troll. Not from Omaha. Just a differing view. You may believe my opinions don’t fit you green glassed view, but they are based on my experience in the sport and my ability to see past a play, a game, a season. Ok, I fold... fire Barry, Mishmash sucks, give Thome the net, and the pandemic was a UMD conspiracy to rob us of our 2020 championship. In collusion with Denver and Michigan... and, we play the cleanest hockey in the NCAA. :silly:

See?  That wasn’t so hard.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...