PDA

View Full Version : Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

J.D.
12-06-2014, 11:10 AM
As far as the non-waved off goal goes, does it matter if it is intentional on the part of the Penn St. player, he doesn't appear to make any attempt to make contact with Rumpel's stick (it's just hanging out too far). And from that top view, the defender is right there anyway, so he probably couldn't have avoided the goalie's stick if he had tried. So, does intent normally come into play for goalie interference?


penn state guy never entered the crease...assuming that also factors in?

Gurtholfin
12-06-2014, 11:14 AM
Heck, even Phil was late.



My guess is that Phil was at the volleyball match.

Buck 'em
12-06-2014, 11:16 AM
My guess is that Phil was at the volleyball match.

Yeah, he pantomimed a volleyball spike, so I'll cut him a little slack. Heck, even if he wasn't watching v-ball I wouldn't blame him. The game was truly hard to watch.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-06-2014, 11:34 AM
penn state guy never entered the crease...assuming that also factors in?


This is part of why they're constantly rewriting rules I suppose.

This: 83.6 Disallowed Goals: If an attacking player interferes with the goalkeeper in the crease physically or visually, preventing the goalkeeper from defending the goal. would seem to me to be what applies. And it seems to me that it says that you can't interfere with the goalie while the GOALIE is in the crease. Which obviously Rumpel is...

But is that what it says? Or does it say you yourself can't go into the crease and then interfere with the goalie? Which is a slightly different thing in this case. I have always assumed the former, (partly because there's a separate rule saying exactly the latter) but I'm no expert and wouldn't mind someone who actually is, clarifying just what the call should have been.

burd
12-06-2014, 11:45 AM
This is part of why they're constantly rewriting rules I suppose.

This: 83.6 Disallowed Goals: If an attacking player interferes with the goalkeeper in the crease physically or visually, preventing the goalkeeper from defending the goal. would seem to me to be what applies. And it seems to me that it says that you can't interfere with the goalie while the GOALIE is in the crease. Which obviously Rumpel is...

But is that what it says? Or does it say you yourself can't go into the crease and then interfere with the goalie? Which is a slightly different thing in this case. I have always assumed the former, (partly because there's a separate rule saying exactly the latter) but I'm no expert and wouldn't mind someone who actually is, clarifying just what the call should have been.

Every forward tries to interfere visually with the goalie, but they try to do it while staying just out of the crease. If a forward's stick physically interferes with the goalie, it's in the crease and an extension of the player. Is that right?

Wisko McBadgerton
12-06-2014, 11:51 AM
Every forward tries to interfere visually with the goalie, but they try to do it while staying just out of the crease. If a forward's stick physically interferes with the goalie, it's in the crease and an extension of the player. Is that right?

I would think that is correct and that logically the same would apply to the goalie's stick, which in this case, the butt end is technically out of the crease I suppose, but would be an extension of the goalie- who is in the crease?

My head hurts.

William Blake
12-06-2014, 11:58 AM
Here's what I see in the rule book:


Rule 73 Interference on the Goalkeeper: - A player of the attacking team may stand on the goal crease line or in the goal crease, or skate through the goal crease, unless, in the opinion of the official, the player is physically or visually preventing the goalkeeper from defending the goal.

PENALTY—If a goal is scored, it shall be disallowed. Faceoff at the nearest neutral zone faceoff spot.

Section 9 / Other Fouls
A player of the attacking team may stand or stay in the crease when the puck is in the crease or when the player has possession of the puck. If a player of the attacking team has been physically interfered with by the action of any defending player so as to cause the player to be in the goal crease, and the puck enters the net while the player so interfered with is still
within the goal crease, the goal shall be allowed. The privileged area (defined in Rule 1.6) includes the goal crease. The goalkeeper may not be body checked in this area (Rule 43). Incidental contact, at the discretion of the referee, may be permitted while the goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside the goal crease. The goalkeeper is allowed to freeze the puck in this area to prevent a goal.


83.6 Disallowed Goals: If an attacking player interferes with the goalkeeper in the crease physically or visually, preventing the goalkeeper from defending the goal.

I would guess that the Penn St. playing never being in the crease, and possibly that the goalie's stick is outside of the crease when contact is made (not sure how that works, goalie is in the crease but his stick isn't, is that interference?) is why is was still a goal. Seems like a lot of it is at the discretion of the ref, either way, from that rule book quote.

edit: oh, that last couple posts kinda went over this already.

burd
12-06-2014, 12:08 PM
I would guess that the Penn St. playing never being in the crease, and possibly that the goalie's stick is outside of the crease when contact is made (not sure how that works, goalie is in the crease but his stick isn't, is that interference?) is why is was still a goal. Seems like a lot of it is at the discretion of the ref, either way, from that rule book quote.


Refs have some discretion, but thankfully so do we fans when it comes to interpretation. I have never seen a good call that went against the Sioux, and you will not convince me otherwise. It's a warm and secure little place I go when the world gets out of line.

WiscDC
12-06-2014, 12:34 PM
Was there more in that section of the NCAA rulebook? The NHL rules are more clear, though they might not be the exact same. (http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480) It's more obvious when being in the crease does and does not matter.

solovsfett
12-06-2014, 01:48 PM
Mediocrity is a pie in the sky fantasy right about now.


It's one thing to lose to Penn State. It's a whole other thing to look like you don't belong on the same ice with Penn State.

That was the absolute worst Badger hockey team I have ever seen.

that sums it up.

FIRE MIKE EAVES, GARY SHUCHUK and MATT WALSH!

Seriously for the love of Badger hockey, 6 NCAA Championships and all the love they accumulated (for lack of a better word) over the years...FIRE THEM NOW!

Badger hockey should be WINNING hockey, should be INTIMIDATING to play against etc.

but eff it, I KNOW these incompetents won't be fired, they'll be given a long leash

whatever

Blackhawks at least will maintain while I await the UW Hockey resurgence..

btw...people should stop w/the "It's a GREAT DAY FOR HOCKEY" banners because this team and this coach are NOT WORTHY, period.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-06-2014, 02:28 PM
Was there more in that section of the NCAA rulebook? The NHL rules are more clear, though they might not be the exact same. (http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26480) It's more obvious when being in the crease does and does not matter.

Not that I can tell. And refs may be aware of NHL interpretations, but it shouldn't come into play here at all. I don't care about the goal, I just am curious as to what's right.

I think most watching the replay would say that what occurred isn't fair, and the goal should be washed out. But because of the way it's written, the rule is ambiguous as to how it actually applies in this case. The thing that surprises me then, is why if it's unclear, they wouldn't wash it out here, as that would seem the fairest outcome. There must have been some reasoning to it, but I have no idea what it was.

GoBucky!
12-06-2014, 02:48 PM
If Eaves had any dignity left he would resign and save the UW the trouble.

WiscDC
12-06-2014, 02:57 PM
If Eaves had any dignity left he would resign and save the UW the trouble.

If he does get fired, won't he "resign?" From what I heard, that was essentially the deal with Pete Waite.

solovsfett
12-06-2014, 03:18 PM
the funny thing to me is at 1-9-1 why is it even a question as to whether the coach should go?

badbye coach Eaves, hello coach Granato...please field winning teams with opportunities to win the NCAA's mmmmmmmmmmmmmmkkkkkkkkkkkk?

EDIT: Imagine how much fun it must be to be gopher or sioux fan right now and the schadenfreude they're experiencing...that is, for those who even remember UW Hockey USED TO BE great. so those who were cognizant of it 1993 and prior

Wisko McBadgerton
12-06-2014, 03:27 PM
Imagine how much fun it must be to be gopher or sioux fan right now

You were doing alright until you said this. No offense, but this part just makes you sound crazy.

Chuck Schwartz
12-06-2014, 03:40 PM
Tonight's game will probably be the most important of the season.

burd
12-06-2014, 03:40 PM
EDIT: Imagine how much fun it must be to be gopher or sioux fan right now and the schadenfreude they're experiencing...that is, for those who even remember UW Hockey USED TO BE great. so those who were cognizant of it 1993 and prior

Not this fan. UW and UND share too much great history between two powerhouses for the Badgers' current situation to be anything but sad. It diminishes their history for those who are not old enough to have experienced it. A history that was full of hard-fought battles for high stakes and a lot of fun for their fans. Win or lose, I can honestly say.

Now, if the Badgers were their old selves and got swept by a low seed, then it's fun. But this, no.

So get your head out of your azz, Bucky.

Wisko McBadgerton
12-06-2014, 04:01 PM
Tonight's game will probably be the most important of the season.

That's perhaps a little bit cliche' for a writer, but it's as accurate as anyone can be, I guess. I honestly don't think there's much the staff can do after last night's performance. When the boys hit the ice tonight they're either proud to wear the Cardinal and White and everything that entails, or they're not.

Win or lose, that much is going to be simple enough to find out.

Chuck Schwartz
12-06-2014, 04:06 PM
That's perhaps a little bit cliche' for a writer, but it's as accurate as anyone can be, I guess. I honestly don't think there's much the staff can do after last night's performance. When the boys hit the ice tonight they're either proud to wear the Cardinal and White and everything that entails, or they're not.

Win or lose, that much is going to be simple enough to find out.

I was referring to Boeser's visit.

Hammy
12-06-2014, 04:08 PM
Tonight's game will probably be the most important of the season.

Because?