Saturday Night Game Thread

[Slap Shot]

Anyways, i was watching that play the whole way down the ice and to say that he didn't deserve to go to the box is outrageous, especially if you are a hockey fan. He was on the ice and he blatantly cross-checked the Sioux player when Shepherd was directly behind them following the play up ice. How can you call that a bad call??

Parise, he was hardly in a position to offer much force on that supposedly blatant penalty, never mind he was on his knees because he was hooked down to them, a call that wasn't made right before his supposed infraction, but I don't see you taking notice of that. As an actual hockey fan you should know that.

OK. Kaip ran Kaufmann and got called for charging. He didn't hit him from behind. It deserved a two minute penalty and he served his time. I was glad he did it, because the team needed a spark, and a big hit will do that. I must have missed the controversial part of him getting called for a penalty he deserved.

Uncalled elbows and crosschecks? I saw nothing out of the ordinary at all, and no more from the white than the visitors. Last year's Sioux team was quite a lot more vicious, and got called for quite a lot more of it. Smaby's center ice wipeout of Potulny was entirely clean, which is more than I can say for every one of Irmen's shifts on the weekend. (I'm not complaining about Irmen, though, because I know chippiness is part of the game.)

The fact is that penalty calls get made and missed all the time.

The several Gopher posters in a row who visited the board to rub it in are a nice reminder of why "Gopher-haters" exist in the college hockey world. I work with good Gopher fans, my kids play hockey with good Gopher fan families, some even post here. Then there are the ones who would visit SS.com after a sweep just to rub it in. Thanks for the reminder, and good luck the rest of the way, except when you play anybody.

I disagree - the hit on Kaufmann was cheap given how many strides were taken and he was lucky he didn't get seriously injured on that play. It was cheap and dirty without question.

As for nothing out of the ordinary and calls getting missed all the time, that was my point - both teams got away with non-calls but Sioux fans act as though they were the only team to not get calls their way. The Sioux lost because they were outplayed, not because of the referees.

Exactly why since message boards goph fans have become so hated around the country. There is no other fan base that does this in large numbers like goph fans. Way to go Slappy and company.

In no way, shape or form did I rub this weekend in, I said take the losses with a bit of class and stop whining about the supposed ref conspirancy. Gopher fans are no more hated for what they actually do than any other fanbase but whatever floats your boat.

Edited December 11, 2005 by Slap Shot

[sprig]

In no way, shape or form did I rub this weekend in, I said take the losses with a bit of class and stop whining about the supposed ref conspirancy. Gopher fans are no more hated for what they actually do than any other fanbase but whatever floats your boat.

Get over yourself. You've brought nothing but garbage to this board whenever you've shown up. Go away and play with the other kiddies.

[ajoyce02]

If you want to read some funny stuff go to gophersucklive site. They are complaining about Shepturd !!

Shepturd awards them a goal Friday (which should have been waved off) and they win 4-3.

On Saturday he waves off a Sioux goal that should have counted in a 4-3 win.

So basically he gives the goofs two wins. They should show a little more appreciation or he might start doing an unbiased job. Not sure what else he could have done to help the poor goofs.

In defense of Shepard (I can't believe I just said that) there was no way he could have overturned the no goal call on the overhead camera alone. There was nothing there.

Good series, look forward to seeing the Sioux down in Minneapolis next month!

[FIRE HELMET GUY #26]

I was at both games this weekend and I have to say that Shepard missed a lot of calls on both teams. I think we just tend to notice the ones that were missed for our own teams. I saw 2-3 penalties for each team that should have gotten called but didn't....thats just the way it goes with WCHA refs. But what I really hate is when they do the make-up calls just to even up penalties.

They were fun games to watch though, good battles just like a person expects with this kind of rivalry. Lammy made a couple really spectacular saves.

Once again, had a great time in Grand Forks. Can't get over how nice the Ralph is, almost too fancy for a college hockey arena.

[petey23]

Shepard is horrible, has been forever, both teams know that going in. For him it is like every game is his first and he is still trying to figure the game out?

But apparently the linesmen are afraid to call anything against "the don" since they don't want to get suspended. But Saturday their were 3 ridiculous too many men calls missed that everyone except the linesman saw. First one was on a sioux pp, gophs break in 2 on 1 and when the sioux are coming back the other way, the gopher player was about halfway between the blue line and center ice and his replacement jumped the bench at the other blue line, opposite side linesman had to see it, but ignored it. 2nd one was on a line change and the linesman had both players on each side of him when the puck was played by the gophs, literally 3 inches away from him. The last one was not even explainable, gophs had 7 or 8 on the ice for about 4 or 5 seconds.

[dallassiouxfan]

I was at both games this weekend and I have to say that Shepard missed a lot of calls on both teams. I think we just tend to notice the ones that were missed for our own teams. I saw 2-3 penalties for each team that should have gotten called but didn't....thats just the way it goes with WCHA refs. But what I really hate is when they do the make-up calls just to even up penalties.

They were fun games to watch though, good battles just like a person expects with this kind of rivalry. Lammy made a couple really spectacular saves.

Once again, had a great time in Grand Forks. Can't get over how nice the Ralph is, almost too fancy for a college hockey arena.

You especially notice the ones that were missed by your own team when they allow a goal that should have been waived off and completely missed the call on Saturday night that cost the Sioux a goal. We are not talking about a questionable hooking call or something. Those two calls obviously had a huge effect on the outcome of the game.

Edited December 12, 2005 by dallassiouxfan

[Slap Shot]

Get over yourself. You've brought nothing but garbage to this board whenever you've shown up. Go away and play with the other kiddies.

Still waiting for an example of my supposed gloating. And if disagreeing about the refereeing (unheard amongst sports fans, eh?) being supposed biased this weekend is "garbage" in your eyes I suggest you get some thicker skin.

[southpaw]

Still waiting for an example of my supposed gloating. And if disagreeing about the refereeing (unheard amongst sports fans, eh?) being supposed biased this weekend is "garbage" in your eyes I suggest you get some thicker skin.

Before yesterday, your last post was on the 26th of November. It's pretty convenient that you didn't participate at all in discussing the series before it happened, but after the Gophers won you show up within hours. By my view, that looks like you came here to gloat and aren't really concerned about the series other than Sioux fans whining and the Gophers winning.

[ajoyce02]

You especially notice the ones that were missed by your own team when they allow a goal that should have been waived off and completely missed the call on Saturday night that cost the Sioux a goal. We are not talking about a questionable hooking call or something. Those two calls obviously had a huge effect on the outcome of the game.

To blame losing a big game/series on 2 "bad" calls is crap. Had the Sioux played better, they could have made that point irrelevant. Refs are human, they make mistakes (I'm not agreeing that those were mistakes, just saying it does happen). If you are down to relying on the ref to make in call in your favor to win, you probably don't deserve to win.

[southpaw]

To blame losing a big game/series on 2 "bad" calls is crap. Had the Sioux played better, they could have made that point irrelevant. Refs are human, they make mistakes (I'm not agreeing that those were mistakes, just saying it does happen). If you are down to relying on the ref to make in call in your favor to win, you probably don't deserve to win.

That's true, but you also shouldn't have to be held down by calls by a ref. You can say they weren't mistakes, but when the head of officials says it was, then I'd go with his decision. A ref may be human, but they're expected to be able to make those tough calls. You shouldn't have to score an extra goal just to tie it up.

[FIRE HELMET GUY #26]

That's true, but you also shouldn't have to be held down by calls by a ref. You can say they weren't mistakes, but when the head of officials says it was, then I'd go with his decision. A ref may be human, but they're expected to be able to make those tough calls. You shouldn't have to score an extra goal just to tie it up.

Well I think they really need to take a look at the instant replay then. I mean the 1 camera they have above the goal just doesn't cut it half the time. Talked to Wooger last night and he even said that should the Sioux goal that was called off should have been a goal. But most people that saw the Gopher goal from Friday night do say that he was pushed into the crease, WHO KNOWS!

I'm just sick and tired of the inconsistency of calls by refs. Shep missed a lot of calls on BOTH sides last night. There were plenty of possible Gopher penalties that got missed but there were also quite a few Sioux penalties that got looked past as well. BUT this is something that will probably never change, ref's only have 2 eyes and a big sheet of ice to cover, not that it makes it right but thats just the way it is. STUPID REFS!!

[dallassiouxfan]

To blame losing a big game/series on 2 "bad" calls is crap. Had the Sioux played better, they could have made that point irrelevant. Refs are human, they make mistakes (I'm not agreeing that those were mistakes, just saying it does happen). If you are down to relying on the ref to make in call in your favor to win, you probably don't deserve to win.

I agree completely that you can't blame the losses on those two calls. The Sioux didn't play well and the Gophers did. That being said you can't deny that those two calls were huge factors in the outcome of the games. Ref's are human and I can understand them making mistakes. I think they should be criticized for those two calls because Sheperd blew them even with the help of instant replay. Why have instant replay if you are going to blow the call anyway? I can understand human error but he did have instant replay and therefore be strung up by his thumbs.

Edited December 12, 2005 by dallassiouxfan

[Sioux-cia]

I have to ask a (probably stupid) question. Is the instant replay the ref reviews, the same view that is televised?

[sagard]

I have to ask a (probably stupid) question. Is the instant replay the ref reviews, the same view that is televised?

No. They only get the over head view to ensure the same views in Anchorage, Houghton, etc...

[ajoyce02]

I agree completely that you can't blame the losses on those two calls. The Sioux didn't play well and the Gophers did. That being said you can't deny that those two calls were huge factors in the outcome of the games. Ref's are human and I can understand them making mistakes. I think they should be criticized for those two calls because Sheperd blew them even with the help of instant replay. Why have instant replay if you are going to blow the call anyway? I can understand human error but he did have instant replay and therefore be strung up by his thumbs.

You'll have to help me out here. I remember the no goal from Saturday, but what is the other call you're talking about? The Saturday no goal was called as such because there was just NOTHING on the overhead camera to overturn that call. The ref made the call that was, in his opinion, the best considering what he had to look at.

Why have instant replay? To make sure that obvious calls that weren't called as such, get corrected. You just can't let them use whatever cameras because there just simply aren't as many cameras at a UAA-MTU game as there are at a Minn-UND game, you have to make it fair across the board.

[Slap Shot]

Before yesterday, your last post was on the 26th of November. It's pretty convenient that you didn't participate at all in discussing the series before it happened, but after the Gophers won you show up within hours.

When was the last time Minnesota played UND? The fact is that the gist of my first post was merely to state that UND didn't lose because of the refs and that bad calls went against both teams in equal numbers. If that makes be a gad guy so be it.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Slap Shot

[dallassiouxfan]

You'll have to help me out here. I remember the no goal from Saturday, but what is the other call you're talking about? The Saturday no goal was called as such because there was just NOTHING on the overhead camera to overturn that call. The ref made the call that was, in his opinion, the best considering what he had to look at.

Why have instant replay? To make sure that obvious calls that weren't called as such, get corrected. You just can't let them use whatever cameras because there just simply aren't as many cameras at a UAA-MTU game as there are at a Minn-UND game, you have to make it fair across the board.

Friday night's non in the crease call. I guess that really had nothing to do with the replay just the interpretation of the call. If you look at the replay Praise was interferred with. IMO, if you are going to have instant replay you might as well do it right. Not this one camera angle crap. I think you make the other arenas upgrade and install more cameras instead of everyone else having to settle for just one angle. I am sure it is a cost issue, but just my opionion.

And again the Sioux lost this weekend because they got out played. Even if the correct call's on those goals were made and the outcome was different, a tie for example, I still would be worried about the team because of the way they played.

[ajoyce02]

Friday night's non in the crease call. I guess that really had nothing to do with the replay just the interpretation of the call. If you look at the replay Praise was interferred with. IMO, if you are going to have instant replay you might as well do it right. Not this one camera angle crap. I think you make the other arenas upgrade and install more cameras instead of everyone else having to settle for just one angle. I am sure it is a cost issue, but just my opionion.

And again the Sioux lost this weekend because they got out played. Even if the correct call's on those goals were made and the outcome was different, a tie for example, I still would be worried about the team because of the way they played.

Ok, now I know what you're talking about, I just couldn't recall.

But how you saw Parise was interfered with is totally beyond me. A screen is not interfernace. I believe it was Ryan Stoa in front of the net, hes just doing his job, yes his skate was in the crease but Parise had room to make that save. Had Stoa been like a foot further into the crease, you might have an argument, but I think he right call was made on that one.

[sprig]

I have to ask a (probably stupid) question. Is the instant replay the ref reviews, the same view that is televised?

FSSN replayed the overhead view (as well as other angles), and, you couldn't see the puck in the overhead view (at least I didn't). If that's the only replay view it didn't look like it would be called a goal.

As far as the in the crease on Friday, Stoa wasn't pushed in, nor did he interfere with Parise, so, the way the rule reads now, the goal was OK. Actually, had Parise squared up to Kessel rather than worrying about Stoa, the short side of the net would not have been that wide open, Kessel's shot would probably have been made toward Stoa rather than the short side, and the bounce of the puck could have gone either way. Parise later took a deserved penalty be whacking whatever Gopher was again set up in the crease.

It was discussed with Shephard Sr. during a between period interview, and he said the coaches (Lucia) is taking advantage of a rule change to an extent beyond the rule's intent. The change was meant to eliminate the inadvertant skate or more in the crease that had nothing to do with the puck going into the net, but would have resulted in a waived off goal last year. The Gophers were taking it a step farther by setting up Stoa in the crease, rather than in front of it, on the PP. With the practically "no touch" rule on defensemen in front of the net, the new rules make it near impossible for dmen and goalies, as long as the coaches choose to test the limits of the rule.

They also discussed the "wrap your arms around holding" in the corners and behind the net, that the gophers used to eliminate the Sioux cycling and totally negate an affective forecheck all weekend. Shephard said a short wrap your arms around shouldn't be called, as long as the arms come off the player immediately. If the arms remain wrapped and the player is held, a call should be made. He (Shephard) seemed to infer that calls should have been made.

We are back to the Denver type D of two years ago, when, after the season, the holding and obstructing rules were emphasized and we saw all the ticky tack calls during the first few months of last season. I expect we'll soon be there again, if not this season, then next year. Thank you, Minnesota (and whomever else begins playing this kind of D, which I suspect will be most everyone until the calls are made).

[Goon]

In no way, shape or form did I rub this weekend in, I said take the losses with a bit of class and stop whining about the supposed ref conspirancy. Gopher fans are no more hated for what they actually do than any other fanbase but whatever floats your boat.

Oh no your hated, don't kid yourself. Really honestly.

[sprig]

A screen is not interfernace. I believe it was Ryan Stoa in front of the net, hes just doing his job, yes his skate was in the crease but Parise had room to make that save. Had Stoa been like a foot further into the crease, you might have an argument, but I think he right call was made on that one.

Actually, on every PP, Stoa set up entirely in the crease, not just one foot. By the rules, that's not necesarily interference, and probably wasn't in this case. Gophs took advantage of the current rule, which will more than likely be changed again.

[mksioux]

It was discussed with Shephard Sr. during a between period interview, and he said the coaches (Lucia) is taking advantage of a rule change to an extent beyond the rule's intent. The change was meant to eliminate the inadvertant skate or more in the crease that had nothing to do with the puck going into the net, but would have resulted in a waived off goal last year. The Gophers were taking it a step farther by setting up Stoa in the crease, rather than in front of it, on the PP. With the practically "no touch" rule on defensemen in front of the net, the new rules make it near impossible for dmen and goalies, as long as the coaches choose to test the limits of the rule.

I took G. Shepard's comments differently. I thought he was implying that if parking a man in the crease violated the intent of the new rule, it should be enforced accordingly. After all, the referee still has discretion.

[Kermit]

Actually, on every PP, Stoa set up entirely in the crease, not just one foot. By the rules, that's not necesarily interference, and probably wasn't in this case. Gophs took advantage of the current rule, which will more than likely be changed again.

Good post. There is too much subjectivity now and I think the rule should be changed again. I thought that the spirit of the rule change was to avoid having goals disallowed when (for example) a player on the backside incidentally had a toe in the crease when a goal was scored. I don't think a player should be allowed to stand in the crease directly in front of the goaltender. Why have a crease?

[sprig]

I took G. Shepard's comments differently. I thought he was implying that if parking a man in the crease violated the intent of the new rule, it should be enforced accordingly. After all, the referee still has discretion.

You may be right there; Shephard didn't seem to make it entirely clear. Would like a tape on his sr. to jr. critique following the games.

Having watched the job junior does on the ice over the last several years, having him responsible for judging intent may be way to much to expect

[PCM]

FSSN replayed the overhead view (as well as other angles), and, you couldn't see the puck in the overhead view (at least I didn't). If that's the only replay view it didn't look like it would be called a goal.

The funny part about this is that when Briggs was asked about this ruling after the game, he gave the official explanation for "no goal" and said something like, "That was fine by me."

Usually, a goalie will say something like "It definitely wasn't in" when he's confident that he made the stop, but Briggs didn't do that. He was happy that Shepherd ruled as he did. Even though the replays we saw in the press box didn't show the puck crossing the line, Briggs' answer gave me reason to believe that it did.

As far as the in the crease on Friday, Stoa wasn't pushed in, nor did he interfere with Parise, so, the way the rule reads now, the goal was OK.

Technically, it was correct. But I wholeheartedly agree with Greg Shepherd that the intent of changing the crease rule wasn't to allow players to park with both skates in the crease, which is what Stoa did. There isn't any point in having a crease if that's allowed to happen. The whole idea is to give the goalie an area in which to freely operate. Having a stray skate in the crease when a goal is scored is far different from having someone standing inches from your face during a power play.