PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

Tipsy McStagger
02-02-2014, 09:13 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!

How jacked are you for the 40th Brotversary?

HarleyMC
02-03-2014, 06:04 AM
A moot point since MSU won the shootout anyway, but an interesting discussion on a controversial play. Here's the VIDEO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H92VbpwRTM) of the controversial shootout attempt by Cox. The video shows the ref had a clear view of the attempt and initially called it a goal. But after a lengthy review and discussion the referee reversed the call. Did they get confused after reviewing the video evidence, resulting in a bogus call?

The video shows that Cox did not shoot the puck at all until AFTER the left post of the net was clearly dislodged. Anastos was quoted as saying the refs told him, "the net was not in place when the puck crossed the goal line". For the officials, that seemed to be the tipping point in reversing the call and indicates the refs made their final assessment to reverse the call primarily based upon Rule 26.2:

Rule 26 - Awarded Goals

26.2 Net Displacement - In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal. In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in position to shoot) at the goal PRIOR to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.

Based upon this ruling, the reversal was correct...no goal.

gopher wes
02-03-2014, 09:10 AM
I think the majority of us are in agreement that shootouts are lame, but I'm curious why everyone wants the 10min OT. There was nothing wrong with the 5min OT and a tie if no one scores. To me it goes back to the same argument as the continuous OT in a regular season game. Not that an extra five minutes is a ton, but you're still risking injury in a regular season game. Adding an extra five minutes doesn't guarantee one team will score. I just don't understand all the clambering for a 10min OT, I guess.

Koho
02-03-2014, 09:28 AM
I think the majority of us are in agreement that shootouts are lame, but I'm curious why everyone wants the 10min OT. There was nothing wrong with the 5min OT and a tie if no one scores. To me it goes back to the same argument as the continuous OT in a regular season game. Not that an extra five minutes is a ton, but you're still risking injury in a regular season game. Adding an extra five minutes doesn't guarantee one team will score. I just don't understand all the clambering for a 10min OT, I guess.
5 minutes - odds are the game goes to a gimmicky shootout. 10 minutes - odds are game gets decided by teams playing hockey.

If you are talking about an overtime only versus a shootout, then it is because organizers feel all games should have a winner so 10 minutes increases the odds of this happening. (I like 8, because the longer you make an overtime on un-resurfaced ice, the more likely it is ice conditions will affect outcome. Or a full 20 minutes.)

I put little in the argument of limiting hockey to limit the risk of injury. Show me the stats that support that a longer overtime results in more injuries per minute than a regular game. Maybe teams should only play one period in the regular season, instead of 3 to reduce the number of injuries. Then a full game could be played during playoffs and most teams would have all their players.

SanTropez
02-03-2014, 09:44 AM
The injury argument is foolish, play hockey not a skills competition.

mnstate0fhockey
02-03-2014, 09:47 AM
Not to mention, as many players get injured in practice (or on silly motorized vehicles off the ice :p).

I'm all for the 10 minute overtime.

gopher wes
02-03-2014, 10:02 AM
I'm with dx on the injury thing. I know I'd be disappointed if a player like Rau, Fasching, or Wilcox got hurt in extended OT of a regular season game. Sorry, I'd have a tough time swallowing that one.

bhadden
02-03-2014, 01:29 PM
I believe this is the rule that has not yet been mentioned, which makes it a goal:

Section 10. Rule 83.5 Goal Cage Dislodged

In the event that the goal post is displaced, either deliberately or accidentally, by a defending player, prior to the puck crossing the goal line between the normal position of the goalposts, the Referee may award a goal.

In order to award a goal in this situation, the goal post must have been displaced by the actions of a defending player, the puck must have been shot (or the player must be in position to shoot) at the goal prior to the goal post being displaced, and it must be determined that the puck would have entered the net between the normal position of the goal posts.

When the goal post has been displaced deliberately by the defending team when their goalkeeper has been removed for an extra attacker thereby preventing an impending goal by the attacking team, the Referee shall award a goal to the attacking team.

The goal frame is considered to be displaced if either or both goal pegs are no longer in their respective holes in the ice, or the net has come completely off one or both pegs, prior to or as the puck enters the goal. This rule also applies to other types of net anchoring systems.

Stauber1
02-03-2014, 01:55 PM
I don't like beating a dead horse, so I'll just give it 1 final poke.

We've narrowed down that the rules allow for a goal to be awarded so long as 3 criteria are met:
- The defending player dislodges the net
- The attacking player was in a position to shoot prior to the net coming dislodged
- The puck would have entered the goal had it been in its normal position.

All three of those criteria were met on Cox's shoot-out attempt. In fact I'd go so far as to say that except for the shoot-out aspect, the rule revision was made for this exact type of situation.

The refs blew it. MSU went on to win it anyway, so no harm no foul, but my guess is that they are being asked by the league to explain their rational on this one.

ShotFromThePoint
02-03-2014, 02:03 PM
Longtime lurker here. Without regards to what the rules do or do not say, as a Gopher fan, if the roles were reversed, I would have been pretty upset if my team hadn't gotten another shot at that. In the end the point is is that it needs to be clarified.


I don't like beating a dead horse, so I'll just give it 1 final poke.

We've narrowed down that the rules allow for a goal to be awarded so long as 3 criteria are met:
- The defending player dislodges the net
- The attacking player was in a position to shoot prior to the net coming dislodged
- The puck would have entered the goal had it been in its normal position.

All three of those criteria were met on Cox's shoot-out attempt. In fact I'd go so far as to say that except for the shoot-out aspect, the rule revision was made for this exact type of situation.

The refs blew it. MSU went on to win it anyway, so no harm no foul, but my guess is that they are being asked by the league to explain their rational on this one.

Tiggsy
02-03-2014, 04:02 PM
I'm with dx on the injury thing. I know I'd be disappointed if a player like Rau, Fasching, or Wilcox got hurt in extended OT of a regular season game. Sorry, I'd have a tough time swallowing that one.

Of course. But at the same time it could happen in practice so why would that be any easier to handle? I think the 10 minute OT is a decent idea. Then maybe go to a shootout if the powers that be insist on keeping them. You don't often see games won in the 5 minute OT. They will usually end a tie because both teams are usually playing not to lose unless they obsolutely need the extra point for a race.

gopher wes
02-03-2014, 04:06 PM
Of course. But at the same time it could happen in practice so why would that be any easier to handle? I think the 10 minute OT is a decent idea. Then maybe go to a shootout if the powers that be insist on keeping them. You don't often see games won in the 5 minute OT. They will usually end a tie because both teams are usually playing not to lose unless they obsolutely need the extra point for a race.
No doubt things can happen in practice. But I'd like to think the coaches have better chance of keeping the players out of risky or dangerous situations in practice than they do in an actual game.

mnstate0fhockey
02-03-2014, 05:25 PM
Longtime lurker here. Without regards to what the rules do or do not say, as a Gopher fan, if the roles were reversed, I would have been pretty upset if my team hadn't gotten another shot at that. In the end the point is is that it needs to be clarified.

Welcome :)

HarleyMC
02-03-2014, 11:58 PM
I don't like beating a dead horse, so I'll just give it 1 final poke.

We've narrowed down that the rules allow for a goal to be awarded so long as 3 criteria are met:
- The defending player dislodges the net
- The attacking player was in a position to shoot prior to the net coming dislodged
- The puck would have entered the goal had it been in its normal position.

All three of those criteria were met on Cox's shoot-out attempt. In fact I'd go so far as to say that except for the shoot-out aspect, the rule revision was made for this exact type of situation.

The refs blew it. MSU went on to win it anyway, so no harm no foul, but my guess is that they are being asked by the league to explain their rational on this one.

Wrong again Stauber, but at least you're consistent though.:p The video evidence clearly indicates Cox was still moving into position to shoot AFTER the net was dislodged AND it's nearly impossible based on the evidence to determine whether the puck would have been a goal had the net been in its normal position. He clearly shot the puck AFTER the net was dislodged and extremely close to where the left post would have been. The refs called it a goal and later overturned the call based on a lack of clear evidence to fully satisfy the ruling.

"In speculation I'd go so far as to say that except for the shoot-out aspect, the rule revision was made for this exact type of situation" - fixed your quote for ya.;) "...but my guess is that they are being asked by the league to explain their rational on this one", no need to fix this one, but "guessing" does not scaffold your argument as you intended either.:p

My guess...you'll take another poke in 4...3...2..:D

ShotFromThePoint
02-04-2014, 12:07 AM
And long after all (the only) MSU fans left, the debate raged on. Maybe the Gophers can invite Cox back and let him take one more shot. I'm sure HE is still upset about it.

Can we focus on Wisconsin now instead of arguing amongst our own fanbase? There's thinner to be discussed friends!

Stauber1
02-04-2014, 12:50 AM
Wrong again Stauber, but at least you're consistent though.:p The video evidence clearly indicates Cox was still moving into position to shoot AFTER the net was dislodged AND it's nearly impossible based on the evidence to determine whether the puck would have been a goal had the net been in its normal position. He clearly shot the puck AFTER the net was dislodged and extremely close to where the left post would have been. The refs called it a goal and later overturned the call based on a lack of clear evidence to fully satisfy the ruling.

"In speculation I'd go so far as to say that except for the shoot-out aspect, the rule revision was made for this exact type of situation" - fixed your quote for ya.;) "...but my guess is that they are being asked by the league to explain their rational on this one", no need to fix this one, but "guessing" does not scaffold your argument as you intended either.:p

My guess...you'll take another poke in 4...3...2..:D

Well, at least there was something correct in that post ;)

I'll let people judge for themselves as you were kind enough to track down a video of the play and post it here, but in my opinion it seems ludicrous to say he wasn't in a position to shoot. And almost equally as ludicrous to say the puck wouldn't have gone in if the net had stayed on.

Slap Shot
02-04-2014, 10:27 PM
Well, at least there was something correct in that post ;)

I'll let people judge for themselves as you were kind enough to track down a video of the play and post it here, but in my opinion it seems ludicrous to say he wasn't in a position to shoot. And almost equally as ludicrous to say the puck wouldn't have gone in if the net had stayed on.

Rack 'em.

Spartanforlife4
02-05-2014, 01:41 PM
You guys are still talking about this? Geez. Even we've let it go and we're the ones that got screwed on it.

Koho
02-05-2014, 06:36 PM
You guys are still talking about this? Geez. Even we've let it go and we're the ones that got screwed on it.

Ok, I haven't been reading all the posts, so I assume by now, Harley and Stauber have agreed upon the rule(s)?

And while I'm here, I am sure glad there aren't 10 minute overtimes, or we would probably be down to about 8 skaters with all the people we would have lost to injury in that extra 15-25 minutes of hockey they would have played all season.....