Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Amsoil
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Originally posted by MinnesotaNorthStar View Post
    If the net becomes dislodged by a tUMD player and Maine immediately grabs possession and immediately transitions down the ice it's an offensive opportunity. Think of it this way, Maine scored, didn't they? I'd call that an offensive opportunity.

    It happens all the time during the season without getting whistled dead.
    While I agree they made the right call they were not consistent with an earlier whistle for a somewhat similar situation. In the first minute of the second period and Maine on a powerplay a Maine player skating behind the net dislodged the UMD net while Wade Bergman had puck possession for UMD and was starting to skate the puck out of the zone. He had no one near him and was clearly skating with the puck rather than shooting it out of the zone. In that instance they blew the whistle. Either they blew that call or it was not interpreted as an offensive opportunity. I believe they blew the call as the mere fact they were killing a penalty does not preclude a team from having an offensive opportunity in spite of the fact he was skating in the UMD zone but clearly skating the puck forward. Please comment on this situation. I believe that it could have had an impact on the players stopping on the play later in the period.

    Leave a comment:


  • bueller
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Seems like you can have plenty of offensive opportunity coming out of your defensive zone:

    Leave a comment:


  • WeAreNDHockey
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Originally posted by KnowItAll View Post
    last, if you have adobe you can do a search on the .pdf version for "offensive opportunity"
    I did check that out and what do you know, the term "offensive opportunity" is literally there just one time from what I can see, in the note to rule 6 section 10 subsection C. The term "scoring chance" appears twice, once in the same note, and once in the future considerations section where playing overtimes with fewer skaters is considered as something to consider since other hockey leagues do it.

    Leave a comment:


  • MinnesotaNorthStar
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Originally posted by KnowItAll View Post
    no, you nailed it.
    delayed penalties are whistled down once the offending team gains posession, not once they touch the puck
    if the rules writers wanted to say that when the net is dislodged by the team not in posession, then the whistle will be blown once posession is gained, then they would not have written "an offensive opportunity"
    I do not think maine had an offensive opportunity below their own face off circle

    last, if you have adobe you can do a search on the .pdf version for "offensive opportunity"
    If the net becomes dislodged by a tUMD player and Maine immediately grabs possession and immediately transitions down the ice it's an offensive opportunity. Think of it this way, Maine scored, didn't they? I'd call that an offensive opportunity.

    It happens all the time during the season without getting whistled dead.

    Leave a comment:


  • KnowItAll
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
    Without reading the entire current NCAA hockey rule book just right now, I don't believe it defines specifically what an "offensive opportunity" is. My guess is they rely on the controlling the puck interpretation, similar to deciding when the whistle is blown on a delayed penalty. If you are in possession of the puck, logically you have an offensive opportunity. I liken it to a football team going on offense on their own 5 yard line. Sure, the odds of them scoring from there are not good, but unless the offense is on the field, the offense cannot score at all (not talking about the defense scoring on a turnover). Ferris State made the Frozen Four without starting a single one of their successful offensive opportunities in the offensive zone in their regional.

    I admit reading a rule book is a giant pain in the rear end, full of seemingly contradictory rules and specifications. Sort of like reading a labor contract.
    no, you nailed it.
    delayed penalties are whistled down once the offending team gains posession, not once they touch the puck
    if the rules writers wanted to say that when the net is dislodged by the team not in posession, then the whistle will be blown once posession is gained, then they would not have written "an offensive opportunity"
    I do not think maine had an offensive opportunity below their own face off circle

    last, if you have adobe you can do a search on the .pdf version for "offensive opportunity"

    Leave a comment:


  • uniondutch21
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Originally posted by claver2010 View Post
    I like how the refs called 2 different games in the BC-UMD game. The 2nd period where attempted murder was acceptable to the 3rd where if you nudged someone you got a roughing call (see the call on Kreider).

    Inconsistency is always appreciated.
    As announced at the beginning of the game "We have an ECAC crew working the game today" Welcome to what we deal with all the time...ECAC Refs are brutal.

    Lets go U

    Leave a comment:


  • WeAreNDHockey
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Originally posted by KnowItAll View Post
    I do not think it is that simple. "an offensive opportunity" is usually not carrying the puck around your own net... the rule does not say "if the non offending team is in posession of the puck" it says "has an offensive opportunity" The ice is divided into offensive zone, devensive and neutral zones... shouldn't an offensive opportunity take place in teh offensive zone?

    I am just asking, because I think this is a gray area
    Without reading the entire current NCAA hockey rule book just right now, I don't believe it defines specifically what an "offensive opportunity" is. My guess is they rely on the controlling the puck interpretation, similar to deciding when the whistle is blown on a delayed penalty. If you are in possession of the puck, logically you have an offensive opportunity. I liken it to a football team going on offense on their own 5 yard line. Sure, the odds of them scoring from there are not good, but unless the offense is on the field, the offense cannot score at all (not talking about the defense scoring on a turnover). Ferris State made the Frozen Four without starting a single one of their successful offensive opportunities in the offensive zone in their regional.

    I admit reading a rule book is a giant pain in the rear end, full of seemingly contradictory rules and specifications. Sort of like reading a labor contract.

    Leave a comment:


  • KnowItAll
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
    Again I don't understand your reasoning. What they allowed to happen IS HOW THE RULE BOOK STATES IT SHOULD BE CALLED. To say differently is simply flat out wrong.

    What is it about "Note: If the non-offending team has an offensive opportunity and its defensive
    goal cage has been displaced, play shall be allowed to continue until the scoring chance is complete"
    that is so hard to understand. This is the rule. Had they stopped play, that would have been contrary to the rule as it is written in the rule book. The note is how they deal with the act of dislodging a net unintentionally. If the net is dislodged intentionally, the rule covers the punishment. But there has to be a provision for something that happens that isn't deliberate, and the rule makers came up with something that doesn't punish the team that had their net knocked off by the other team. Rule books are like reading a contract. Sometimes there are things that have to be read and taken in their entirety to determine the proper course of action. This situation is clearly one of them.

    If the rule is bad, change the rule. That's a different argument.
    I do not think it is that simple. "an offensive opportunity" is usually not carrying the puck around your own net... the rule does not say "if the non offending team is in posession of the puck" it says "has an offensive opportunity" The ice is divided into offensive zone, devensive and neutral zones... shouldn't an offensive opportunity take place in teh offensive zone?

    I am just asking, because I think this is a gray area

    Leave a comment:


  • KnowItAll
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Originally posted by Happy View Post
    So, leaving your skates, and hitting a player in the head is ok?
    anyone who says that swallowing the whistle is a good idea is not worth responding to.

    once the rules don't matter and players are allowed to hook, trip, grab, toss the net off its moorings, then just remove the officials from the ice.
    all they are on the ice for at that point is to call offsides and icing... two infractions that have infinitely less to do with scoring opportunities than hooking, tripping and interference.

    my idea... and I have posted it before, just throw the rule book out in the third period in the playoffs... put all 20 guys on the ice, move the nets around... have a couple huge defenders throw your net into the seats so that nobody can score... or if they do, then they have to launch the puck up over the glass... no whistles, just absolute mayhem.

    let the players decide the outcome, even if they are holding and tripping and tackling and picking the puckup off the ice and skating with it to put it into a goal manually.
    anyone who thinks they can do a better job, DO IT... go to a seminar in August where you live, sign up, start with youth hockey games and move up. you will learn to see an entirely different game

    Leave a comment:


  • Ref Hater
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Is it me or do the same guys always appear in the tournament...year after year? I watched most of the games without a rooting interest either, and I had to wince at both calls and non-calls. I agree that this may be the hardest sport to officiate, but if you take the entitlement out of some of these guys that are selected year after year, then the competition in the regular season would only improve the quality.

    Leave a comment:


  • claver2010
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    I like how the refs called 2 different games in the BC-UMD game. The 2nd period where attempted murder was acceptable to the 3rd where if you nudged someone you got a roughing call (see the call on Kreider).

    Inconsistency is always appreciated.

    Leave a comment:


  • WeAreNDHockey
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Originally posted by shiftyjedi View Post
    I can hear the argument that it wasn't intentional and thus not a penalty, but either way play should have stopped and there should have been no goal. This is not debatable. The refs didn't read their rule book on an obvious rule.
    Again I don't understand your reasoning. What they allowed to happen IS HOW THE RULE BOOK STATES IT SHOULD BE CALLED. To say differently is simply flat out wrong.

    What is it about "Note: If the non-offending team has an offensive opportunity and its defensive
    goal cage has been displaced, play shall be allowed to continue until the scoring chance is complete"
    that is so hard to understand. This is the rule. Had they stopped play, that would have been contrary to the rule as it is written in the rule book. The note is how they deal with the act of dislodging a net unintentionally. If the net is dislodged intentionally, the rule covers the punishment. But there has to be a provision for something that happens that isn't deliberate, and the rule makers came up with something that doesn't punish the team that had their net knocked off by the other team. Rule books are like reading a contract. Sometimes there are things that have to be read and taken in their entirety to determine the proper course of action. This situation is clearly one of them.

    If the rule is bad, change the rule. That's a different argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • CLS
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    I didn't see the MSU goal that was called back, but I have the feeling that if the reffing had been perfect, the same four teams would be headed tom Tampa.

    Leave a comment:


  • shiftyjedi
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
    I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. The rule book specifically covers this. Delay of game is basically a deliberate or direct act, like pulling the puck under your body as you lay on the ice. The UMD player accidentally knocked off the net. Why would you knock off the net you are trying to score on on purpose? And if the UMD player knocked off the net because he felt like Maine was going to break it right out of their end and go down and score, I think the punishment of letting the scoring opportunity play out was the PERFECT punishment on the play. But again, why would you INTENTIONALLY dislodge the goal you are trying to score on. They have a rule for this. They followed the rule they have.
    I can hear the argument that it wasn't intentional and thus not a penalty, but either way play should have stopped and there should have been no goal. This is not debatable. The refs didn't read their rule book on an obvious rule.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patman
    replied
    Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

    slam a prone guy into the boards... we're at the point that the refs almost always find an excuse... major for roughing, whatever. Either case it was a dangerous and unnecessarily hard check... wouldn't take much at all to knock him over.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X