Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

See I don't know. I've always heard that a goal will be disallowed if its 'kicked in'. Which it was not. It looked in all likelihood that he turned his skate with an attempt to redirect the puck...and if that's what it takes, then it could be called a goal. But even then, he ultimately turned to face the goalie...and who's to say that Kloos changing the direction of his skate wasn't the start of a natural turn. I saw no kicking motion though and I'm guessing the refs didn't either.

I think, given his odd skate angle, Kloos is most definitely trying to deflect it in. (Which he should be trying to do.) And I'd even say he kicked it in. Following Shepard's soccer analogy, it's just like a pass deflected in. A guy doesn't need to have a "kicking motion" to kick in a ball passed in front of the net as the ball's own momentum carries it.

Except that the way the rule reads, I don't think you can disallow it. About the only time a goal seems to get disallowed is when it's loose in front and a guy with his stick tied up takes a swing with his skate and definitively 'kicks' it in. Even though the BTN guys were saying it should be disallowed I would have been shocked to see it. Given the way the rule reads, it should have been good.

MSU probably deserved the extra point anyway. While there were close chances both ways, (pipes; puck loose in the crease behind Wilcox) I felt they had the better of play on the night. Seems to me karma was served by the shootout win.

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

I know the rule. It looked like a kicking motion to me, but you all might be right in that it was just him redirecting while moving forward.

[Koho]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

I think, given his odd skate angle, Kloos is most definitely trying to deflect it in. (Which he should be trying to do.) And I'd even say he kicked it in. Following Shepard's soccer analogy, it's just like a pass deflected in. A guy doesn't need to have a "kicking motion" to kick in a ball passed in front of the net as the ball's own momentum carries it.

Except that the way the rule reads, I don't think you can disallow it. About the only time a goal seems to get disallowed is when it's loose in front and a guy with his stick tied up takes a swing with his skate and definitively 'kicks' it in. Even though the BTN guys were saying it should be disallowed I would have been shocked to see it. Given the way the rule reads, it should have been good.

MSU probably deserved the extra point anyway. While there were close chances both ways, (pipes; puck loose in the crease behind Wilcox) I felt they had the better of play on the night. Seems to me karma was served by the shootout win.

Used to be just changing your skate to deflect was no goal, but that changed in recent years to be like you said, an obvious kick. And he was clearly being hooked/interferred to prevent him from having any chance of getting his stick on it anyway, so could have been a penalty as well.

As for Gophs, when Ryan Reilly is one of the best players on the ice (not that he is horrible, he played great last night), you have a lot of guys not giving enough effort.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

And he was clearly being hooked/interferred to prevent him from having any chance of getting his stick on it anyway, so could have been a penalty as well.

True, but I'd really hate to see refs calling that kind of thing right in front of the net. Unless it's really blatant those kinds of calls would change the game itself.

[4four4]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

Deflected with a skate does not equal kicked.

On the radio broadcast last night, they were saying how they talked to Greg Shepard (supervisor of officials for the WCHA) last year or so, and Greg had said "think soccer" when the topic of kicking vs re-directing. There's a reason they use the term "distinct kicking motion"

Having said that, the Spartans definitely have something going that the Gophers are having problems with. I assume it's the amount of blocked shots. Credit to Sparty for figuring out how to keep MN off the scoreboard.

MSU knows they don't have the horses to play inspiring up and down hockey so they are smart by playing the trap. It's really painful to watch but effective.

[4four4]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

it took the guy in the big ten studio, rick pizzo i believe, to explain what anastos was arguing. that if the goalie knocks the net off before the opposing player even finishes his attempt, that player should be given another chance. not sure how he wasn't awarded one.

After seeing the replay the net came off before the puck went into the net. No goal.

[alnike]

2nd MN goal was fine, just changed the skate blade angle to redirect, no harm no danger!, no kicking

One could argue Wilcox innocently knocked the net off as the MSU player decked right on top of him in the crease. You could also argue that some goalies have that trick down to a science with extending back into the post and not making it look to obvious to get a stop in play during goalmouth scrambles. I think Wilcox acted to knock it off.

[state of hockey]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

I don't really get the player not getting another try in that situation, regardless of whether or not it was intentional.

[4four4]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

2nd MN goal was fine, just changed the skate blade angle to redirect, no harm no danger!, no kicking

One could argue Wilcox innocently knocked the net off as the MSU player decked right on top of him in the crease. You could also argue that some goalies have that trick down to a science with extending back into the post and not making it look to obvious to get a stop in play during goalmouth scrambles. I think Wilcox acted to knock it off.

It just goes to show why I hate the shootout. In a normal setting Wilcox doesn't have to purposely do it because the shooter doesn't have the time to make a play like that.

[streaker]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

I don't really get the player not getting another try in that situation, regardless of whether or not it was intentional.

Because no one (cough, Anastos as CCHA commish, cough) never thought of it with his director of officials. Don't see it too often in the NHL. I agree, should have been re-shot. Can't punish the shooter or his team.

[streaker]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

Deflected with a skate does not equal kicked.

On the radio broadcast last night, they were saying how they talked to Greg Shepard (supervisor of officials for the WCHA) last year or so, and Greg had said "think soccer" when the topic of kicking vs re-directing. There's a reason they use the term "distinct kicking motion"

Having said that, the Spartans definitely have something going that the Gophers are having problems with. I assume it's the amount of blocked shots. Credit to Sparty for figuring out how to keep MN off the scoreboard.

Technically the rule was enforced as written. I think the spirit of the rule has to allow some discretion here and give the on ice officials some latitude on interpretation. (I truly don't think they really want it, but....) In that case, the puck was directed, clearly, by the skate purposely. In the past, this would have been no goal.

[Koho]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

It just goes to show why I hate the shootout. In a normal setting Wilcox doesn't have to purposely do it because the shooter doesn't have the time to make a play like that.

Just looking at teams pts/gm for all the teams and dividing by number of minutes you get about 10.75 minutes of game per goal, meaning, all else being equal, a 5 min. OT will only settle about 46% of games. Add in the fact teams often play not to lose and the fact the refs are probably reluctant to call a penalty, and it drops further. So we are probably talking about 2/3 of games that are tied going to a skills competition. Go to 8 minutes, without the considerations I just mentioned, and you are at about 74% decided in OT. Which means, given the other factors, you are still probably over 50% of games decided by the game of hockey, not a SO. I say make OT 8 minutes, or more.

[Koho]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

Just looking at teams pts/gm for all the teams and dividing by number of minutes you get about 10.75 minutes of game per goal, meaning, all else being equal, a 5 min. OT will only settle about 46% of games. Add in the fact teams often play not to lose and the fact the refs are probably reluctant to call a penalty, and it drops further. So we are probably talking about 2/3 of games that are tied going to a skills competition. Go to 8 minutes, without the considerations I just mentioned, and you are at about 74% decided in OT. Which means, given the other factors, you are still probably over 50% of games decided by the game of hockey, not a SO. I say make OT 8 minutes, or more.

And I am too lazy to try to figure out how close these stats are to what has actually happened in OT games this year.

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Minnesota hosts Michigan State: 1/31 & 2/1

Overtime should really be 10 minutes. I don't understand how playing for an extra 1/12 of regulation is expected to decide things in a low scoring game. Basketball does 1/8 and that has tons of scoring. Soccer does 1/3 and baseball goes on forever.

Back in the days of manly men FIFA would replay the entire game the next day if a game was still tied.

[Tipsy McStagger]

After seeing the replay the net came off before the puck went into the net. No goal.

Do you understand english? He said the MSU player deserved a second chance since the net came off before the attempt.