PDA

View Full Version : Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

UMICH
02-01-2014, 04:49 PM
honest to god why is this so difficult? the argument isn't about whether it was a goal or not, it's about should the shooter have gotten a redo

In the end it doesn't matter. You still won the s/o...

D2D
02-01-2014, 05:07 PM
I think we should all just agree that shootouts are a silly, stupid way to end a hockey game and move on.

Gophers need to start coming out with more intensity and focus or they aren't going to go far in the postseason....... but this Gopher team is capable of playing at a higher level than they have the past few weeks.

Totally agree. There were so many times last night where they seemed too casual, instead of being focused and determined. All too often their passes were off, or were on but not caught, and they just didn't handle the puck well like they're so capable of doing. There were several very dangerous "D2D" [;)] passes that shouldn't have been attempted as they nearly resulted in breakaways going the other way.

Hopefully we'll witness a better effort all around tonight and the team gets three points.

Stauber1
02-01-2014, 05:48 PM
I never stated there is "no distinct clarification or amendment" that applies here. There is "conjunctive" NCAA rule clarification regarding a goalie's "intentionality" in dislodging the net specifically in a shootout or penalty shot as mentioned in my post (Rule 91.3, 25.2). Arguably it's not crystal clear and subject to referee discretion, which is why the refs deliberated for a significant amount of time. But a specific NCAA ruling regarding a goalie's intentionality in net displacement within the context of a shootout/penalty shot as in Rule 91.3 and 25.2 (e.g. net displacement, goalie intentionality, shootout/penalty re-shot) would carry more binding authority for a referee over a general ruling regarding "defending players" in this officiating result.

Seems like you're contradicting yourself in your post as that's essentially what you are agreeing to in your statement, "Additionally, in all circumstances when the goalkeeper is considered outside the definition of a "defending player" it is duly noted in the way the rule is written". It's simply like case law in which a judge is obligated to respect a binding precedent to resolve similar cases. Such serious hockey talk here...wow. :D

Where I disagree is the application of either of those two rules in this particular circumstance.
- 25.2 deals with a foul or rules infraction, which is not in play. 25.2 has no bearing on the play in question, and the referees should not have considered it in making a decision one way or another.
- 28.7 deals with the specific instance of a deliberate net dislodgement by a netminder, which again has no bearing on the play in question.

The rule dealing with unintentional net dislodgement does not delineate between a netminder and a defending player, and this rule states that a goal may be awarded if:
- The net becomes dislodged from a defending player's actions
- The attacking player was in a position to shoot prior to the net becoming dislodged
- The puck would have entered the net if it had been in its normal position

I don't see any contradiction in my previous post. When a rule deals with the netminder specifically as opposed to other defending players it references the netminder in particular. The rules revision dealing with net dislodgement as of 2012 does not specifically consider the netminder any differently from a defending play.

28.7 does not conflict with the 2012 rule revision to net dislodgement. All it does is state that in the case of deliberate dislodgement by the netminder a goal "shall" (read: must) be awarded, whereas in unintentional dislodgement a goal "may" be awarded.

The rules allow for the shoot-out goal to have been counted, and I can't find any reason why it should not have been. I think we agree that this particular scenario will likely be addressed and clarified in upcoming rules committee meetings.
-

4four4
02-01-2014, 05:55 PM
honest to god why is this so difficult? the argument isn't about whether it was a goal or not, it's about should the shooter have gotten a redo

This isn't a video game.

Slap Shot
02-01-2014, 06:41 PM
Do you understand english? He said the MSU player deserved a second chance since the net came off before the attempt.

He may have been wrong, which of course makes it ok to be a spaz.

mnstate0fhockey
02-01-2014, 09:15 PM
Much better game tonight. If the Gophers can play as well as they did tonight defensively, and get the offensive zone time and chances they had, this team is going to be really tough to beat in the postseason.

Driftryder
02-01-2014, 09:19 PM
Nice win by the Gophers tonight, msu goalie was outstanding and kept them in the game. The gophers played much harder with intensity tonight and carried play. Hope they can keep that going forward.

firstpusk
02-01-2014, 09:52 PM
As long as the BIG is going to end a game in such a silly way maybe a pie eating contest at center ice. Or, an encore game of musical chairs from the 1st intermission.

It would have more intensity and hold more interest than the current arrangement. The rules would be better understood by the officials as long as there were no reviews.

HarleyMC
02-01-2014, 10:54 PM
Typical MSU recipe tonight as last night (i.e. strong forecheck, physicality, good goaltending, protect the paint/block shots, get sticks in shooting lanes, storm the net, etc.), although they looked like they had more gas in the tank last night on offense. With Marshall back with a full head of steam, the Gophers clearly played tighter D giving Sparty a "taste of their own medicine" by blocking many more shots tonight in front of Wilcox. Tough physical game with only one goal in the game scored by Rau, who hacked at the puck in front and slipped it by the heavily screened Hildebrand, who was superb in nets for MSU all weekend. Wilcox was his stellar self making key save after save, giving the Gophers a chance to win each night, tallying his third shutout of the season tonight. Overall, an excellent series featuring a goalie duel between two Hobey candidates.

I like the team systems formula that Anastos forged for his squad on "how to skate and beat the #1 Gophers". IMO he's an impressive coach. Coming off a disappointing sweep by Michigan at home, he got his team prepared to battle at a high compete level for the first time on the big sheet in Mariucci, a tough place to win this season, and fashioned an excellent game plan against a much more talented, but young Gopher team. IMO what we saw this weekend and the last series in December with Sparty at Munn, was a game plan that exploits the weaknesses in the Gopher's armor. If MSU had a better offense, at the very least they split this series. I expect more teams to apply some of these criteria down the road against the Gophers as we enter the "meat grinder" of the season. The Gophers will need to make better on ice adjustments to be more effective against equally physical, strong forechecking teams with good goaltending and much more potent, aggressive offenses to win down the stretch and in the playoffs. Next up: BADgers in Madison. Go Gophers! RAH! :)

HarleyMC
02-01-2014, 11:03 PM
Where I disagree is the application of either of those two rules in this particular circumstance.
- 25.2 deals with a foul or rules infraction, which is not in play. 25.2 has no bearing on the play in question, and the referees should not have considered it in making a decision one way or another.
- 28.7 deals with the specific instance of a deliberate net dislodgement by a netminder, which again has no bearing on the play in question.

You're wrong here Stauber... 25.2 applies because the 2013-14 NCAA Rules and Interpretations (Appendix B) in accordance with Rule 91.3 on NCAA Ice Hockey Shootout Protocol clearly states it does ("All rules governing a penalty shot (Rule 25.2) shall be in effect") and therefore has binding authority specifically in shootouts and penalty shots over a generalized ruling on net displacement for "defending players".

You contradicted yourself when you stated, "there is no distinct clarification, or amendment, to the rules as they are applied to shoot-outs and penalty shots" (which is not true, see above) and then later you stated, "...in all circumstances when the goalkeeper is considered outside the definition of a "defending player" it is duly noted in the way the rule is written" which is true and exactly what Rule 25.2 is intended to define, as well as specific clarification on penalty shot/shootout procedures and under what specific circumstances a re-shot is awarded.

Rule 28.7 Net Dislodgement defines "deliberate" as a foul committed by a goalkeeper (see language in 25.2 on Penalty Shot/Shootouts Procedure) which Rule 25.2 states, in additon to the two conditonal criteria mentioned in the ruling, represent the ONLY probable cause specifically provided in the NCAA R & I for a re-shot. Finally, you missed the most important point in how the refs decided this one >>> "conjunctive" interpretation of the ruling on the ENTIRE sequence of events for this "specific" case.

I agree, hopefully the Rules Committee deals with some of this ambiguity on this ruling in the very near future.

Spartanforlife4
02-01-2014, 11:19 PM
I hate, HATE, moral victories, but tonight was one of them. Played a great game on both sides of the puck against the number one team in the nation. However I would like to know how in the heck Anastos can get a team to play 4 great games against #1 but flop against teams like OSU. Maybe the fire he lit under them after UM will carry through for the rest of the season, and if that's the case there's a chance for a large amount of momentum to be built going into the B1G Tourney. Getting the third seed is going to be a big deal this season, as PSU has some bite but is certainly a much easier test to get to the semis than going through MSU/OSU or whoever ends up in the 4 and 5 seeds.

mnstate0fhockey
02-01-2014, 11:21 PM
Typical MSU recipe tonight as last night (i.e. strong forecheck, physicality, good goaltending, protect the paint/block shots, get sticks in shooting lanes, storm the net, etc.), although they looked like they had more gas in the tank last night on offense. With Marshall back with a full head of steam, the Gophers clearly played tighter D giving Sparty a "taste of their own medicine" by blocking many more shots tonight in front of Wilcox. Tough physical game with only one goal in the game scored by Rau, who hacked at the puck in front and slipped it by the heavily screened Hildebrand, who was superb in nets for MSU all weekend. Wilcox was his stellar self making key save after save, giving the Gophers a chance to win each night, tallying his third shutout of the season tonight. Overall, an excellent series featuring a goalie duel between two Hobey candidates.

I like the team systems formula that Anastos forged for his squad on "how to skate and beat the #1 Gophers". IMO he's an impressive coach. Coming off a disappointing sweep by Michigan at home, he got his team prepared to battle at a high compete level for the first time on the big sheet in Mariucci, a tough place to win this season, and fashioned an excellent game plan against a much more talented, but young Gopher team. IMO what we saw this weekend and the last series in December with Sparty at Munn, was a game plan that exploits the weaknesses in the Gopher's armor. If MSU had a better offense, at the very least they split this series. I expect more teams to apply some of these criteria down the road against the Gophers as we enter the "meat grinder" of the season. The Gophers will need to make better on ice adjustments to be more effective against equally physical, strong forechecking teams with good goaltending and much more potent, aggressive offenses to win down the stretch and in the playoffs. Next up: BADgers in Madison. Go Gophers! RAH! :)

That's the thing though, Michigan State doesn't have a better offense (they're only averaging 2.2 goals per game), which is why they play the style they do. You aren't going to score as much against a team that sells out to stiffle you offensively, but you aren't going to get scored on by those teams as much either.

The Gophers have shown that they can play against, and beat, teams that play a variety of styles and employ a variety of game plans to beat them.

The key for me is how well the Gophers play defensively in front of Wilcox. If they play strong team defense like they did tonight, and dominate possession like they did, this Gopher team is going to be awfully tough to beat in the postseason. Thing is, they haven't been consistent in those areas lately.

mnstate0fhockey
02-01-2014, 11:23 PM
I hate, HATE, moral victories, but tonight was one of them. Played a great game on both sides of the puck against the number one team in the nation. However I would like to know how in the heck Anastos can get a team to play 4 great games against #1 but flop against teams like OSU. Maybe the fire he lit under them after UM will carry through for the rest of the season, and if that's the case there's a chance for a large amount of momentum to be built going into the B1G Tourney. Getting the third seed is going to be a big deal this season, as PSU has some bite but is certainly a much easier test to get to the semis than going through MSU/OSU or whoever ends up in the 4 and 5 seeds.

If your team can play at the level you played us this season, they will be dangerous come conference tourney time. You've got one heck of a goaltender.

Greyeagle
02-01-2014, 11:28 PM
I hate, HATE, moral victories, but tonight was one of them. Played a great game on both sides of the puck against the number one team in the nation. However I would like to know how in the heck Anastos can get a team to play 4 great games against #1 but flop against teams like OSU. Maybe the fire he lit under them after UM will carry through for the rest of the season, and if that's the case there's a chance for a large amount of momentum to be built going into the B1G Tourney. Getting the third seed is going to be a big deal this season, as PSU has some bite but is certainly a much easier test to get to the semis than going through MSU/OSU or whoever ends up in the 4 and 5 seeds.

I thought Sparty was a better team when they didn't have the lead and played more aggressively. When they sat back with the lead the really lost a lot of passion.

Stauber1
02-02-2014, 12:02 AM
You're wrong here Stauber... 25.2 applies because the 2013-14 NCAA Rules and Interpretations (Appendix B) in accordance with Rule 91.3 on NCAA Ice Hockey Shootout Protocol clearly states it does ("All rules governing a penalty shot (Rule 25.2) shall be in effect") and therefore has binding authority specifically in shootouts and penalty shots over a generalized ruling on net displacement for "defending players".

You contradicted yourself when you stated, "there is no distinct clarification, or amendment, to the rules as they are applied to shoot-outs and penalty shots" (which is not true, see above) and then later you stated, "...in all circumstances when the goalkeeper is considered outside the definition of a "defending player" it is duly noted in the way the rule is written" which is true and exactly what Rule 25.2 is intended to define, as well as specific clarification on penalty shot/shootout procedures and under what specific circumstances a re-shot is awarded.

Rule 28.7 Net Dislodgement defines "deliberate" as a foul committed by a goalkeeper (see language in 25.2 on Penalty Shot/Shootouts Procedure) which Rule 25.2 states, in additon to the two conditonal criteria mentioned in the ruling, represent the ONLY probable cause specifically provided in the NCAA R & I for a re-shot. Finally, you missed the most important point in how the refs decided this one >>> "conjunctive" interpretation of the ruling on the ENTIRE sequence of events for this "specific" case.

I agree, hopefully the Rules Committee deals with some of this ambiguity on this ruling in the very near future.

I believe YOU are the one who has missed the most important point :p
25.2 doesn't apply because there was no foul or rules infraction. The goal coming off didn't affect the play, was incidental and not a rules infraction.
28.7 also does not apply for the same reason. The goal coming off was not deliberate.
25.2 ONLY deals with a rule infraction (which didn't occur) and 28.7 ONLY deals with a deliberate action (which didn't occur).

It doesn't make sense to pull together 2 or 3 different rules in an attempt to infer a new, unwritten rule when there is already a rule in place that applies to the situation - primarily the 2012 rule revision that allows a goal to be awarded in this type of situation.
I'm not arguing that there should have been a re-shot. I'm saying the rule exists to have awarded MSU a goal on the play, and I don't see any reason why that rule shouldn't have been applied.

There is nothing written into the rules to deal with an unintentional net dislodgement in the specific situation of a penalty shot - therefore the general rule on an unintentional net dislodgement should apply.

And I concur with your agreement that the rules committee needs to clarify this going forward :)

D2D
02-02-2014, 12:06 AM
Typical MSU recipe tonight as last night (i.e. strong forecheck, physicality, good goaltending, protect the paint/block shots, get sticks in shooting lanes, storm the net, etc.)...

What I noticed most on their forecheck - which I agree was very strong - was that as soon as they sensed they were going to lose possession they immediately gave up the forecheck and quickly retreated to a prevent defense, as if they were playing shorthanded. With four guys back defending, the Gophers rarely got an odd-man rush going and when they did it came from a quick transition that started with a center ice turnover, as opposed to a quick breakout from their own end. From a strategic standpoint against a more talented opponent, their game plan worked almost to perfection - very well done by both the coaches and the players.

Bertogliat
02-02-2014, 06:12 AM
What I noticed most on their forecheck - which I agree was very strong - was that as soon as they sensed they were going to lose possession they immediately gave up the forecheck and quickly retreated to a prevent defense, as if they were playing shorthanded. With four guys back defending, the Gophers rarely got an odd-man rush going and when they did it came from a quick transition that started with a center ice turnover, as opposed to a quick breakout from their own end. From a strategic standpoint against a more talented opponent, their game plan worked almost to perfection - very well done by both the coaches and the players.

I said something similar on GPL, MSU plays like they are in the penalty kill for 60 minutes.

I understand why there are so few MSU posters on this board. The rest are in boredom comas. Yuck.

ScoobyDoo
02-02-2014, 08:06 AM
I hate, HATE, moral victories, but tonight was one of them. Played a great game on both sides of the puck against the number one team in the nation. However I would like to know how in the heck Anastos can get a team to play 4 great games against #1 but flop against teams like OSU. Maybe the fire he lit under them after UM will carry through for the rest of the season, and if that's the case there's a chance for a large amount of momentum to be built going into the B1G Tourney. Getting the third seed is going to be a big deal this season, as PSU has some bite but is certainly a much easier test to get to the semis than going through MSU/OSU or whoever ends up in the 4 and 5 seeds.

I'd like to know that as well. When you figure it out let me know. The coaching staff should be embarrassed by their win/loss record after the four games that team has put in against the Gophers.

NBrotenisdaMan
02-02-2014, 08:13 AM
Couldn't agree more! MSU still plays like they did when Mason coached: Muck it up and counter-punch. Effective but very, very dull!

Tipsy McStagger
02-02-2014, 09:11 AM
He may have been wrong, which of course makes it ok to be a spaz.

Wrong, can't read. Potato, clamato.