Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

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

  • goblue
    replied
    Re: New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

    Originally posted by Cat lover View Post
    My only question is how much practice time does UNH devote to diving?

    Weekend totals 5on5 Vermont 4-1 PP's UNH 4-0.

    If I was so bad 5 on 5 I would flop to get PP's too.
    Well, UVM is pretty bad, if your record is any indication, so I'm guessing you're not Sneddon.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cat lover
    replied
    Re: New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

    Originally posted by GoUNH View Post
    whatever works.
    Nice quote Lance Armstrong

    Leave a comment:


  • GoUNH
    replied
    Re: New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

    Originally posted by Cat lover View Post
    My only question is how much practice time does UNH devote to diving?

    Weekend totals 5on5 Vermont 4-1 PP's UNH 4-0.

    If I was so bad 5 on 5 I would flop to get PP's too.
    whatever works. good luck the rest of the season.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cat lover
    replied
    Re: New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

    My only question is how much practice time does UNH devote to diving?

    Weekend totals 5on5 Vermont 4-1 PP's UNH 4-0.

    If I was so bad 5 on 5 I would flop to get PP's too.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoUNH
    replied
    Originally posted by GreenCat View Post
    More like the old college rules and the NHL rule today to prevent the against when the FLOPPERS come to town:

    "43.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed."
    Yea, no, doesnt apply in this case.

    Leave a comment:


  • GreenCat
    replied
    Re: New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

    Originally posted by GoUNH View Post
    Um, wuh?
    More like the old college rules and the NHL rule today to prevent the against when the FLOPPERS come to town:

    "43.1 Checking from Behind – A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed."

    Leave a comment:


  • GoUNH
    replied
    Originally posted by GreenCat View Post
    The boarding on Walls behind the net was technically boarding but there is a degree of the UNH player putting themselves in a vulnerable position and turning their back into the hit.
    Um, wuh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Umileated
    replied
    Re: New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

    Well, I just learned to always double check the start time...

    Leave a comment:


  • GreenCat
    replied
    Re: New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

    Originally posted by VermontFan View Post
    The majority of the UVM penalties were deserved, however I thought the Decenzo hook in the middle of the third was harsh (which led to the game winner). The referee closer to the play didn't make the call....it was made by the referee at center ice, per the UVM radio color commentator. Unfortunately, I sit at the opposite end of the ice so I couldn't see whether it was a hook or if his stick was lifted legally. The UNH falling down rather easily did help the referee make that call. For those watching on TV, was the hook legit?
    That was the worst call of the game. The game had a real flow at that point and the UNH player had made his shot attempt and half fell on Decenzo's stick as they passed the goal and fell down. I don't understand why referees feel they need to impact games? Most of the other penalties were legit although I did not see the slash by Brett B. The boarding on Walls behind the net was technically boarding but there is a degree of the UNH player putting themselves in a vulnerable position and turning their back into the hit. Palliota hit on the other hand could have been DQ worthy.

    Leave a comment:


  • sonar
    replied
    Re: New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

    Originally posted by VermontFan View Post
    The majority of the UVM penalties were deserved, however I thought the Decenzo hook in the middle of the third was harsh (which led to the game winner). The referee closer to the play didn't make the call....it was made by the referee at center ice, per the UVM radio color commentator. Unfortunately, I sit at the opposite end of the ice so I couldn't see whether it was a hook or if his stick was lifted legally. The UNH falling down rather easily did help the referee make that call. For those watching on TV, was the hook legit?
    yes

    Leave a comment:


  • UNH09
    replied
    Re: New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

    Originally posted by UVM Cat in Texas View Post
    Also, Sneddon was quoted as saying the 4th UNH goal, and eventual game winner, was a real softee (as Hoffman is occasionally prone to give up). For those watching on TV, what was your impression of the goal.
    Hoffman cannot move left to right, and two of UNH's goals proved that. The 4th goal was all about him attempting to move laterally, and leaving a huge five hole.

    Leave a comment:


  • New Hampshire 'Cats Fan
    replied
    Re: New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

    Originally posted by VermontFan View Post
    There is a nice 6 minute goal highlight package on hockeyeastonline.com. Turk's goal was great!
    Here are the video highlights of last night's game:

    Leave a comment:


  • VermontFan
    replied
    Originally posted by UVM Cat in Texas View Post
    Also, Sneddon was quoted as saying the 4th UNH goal, and eventual game winner, was a real softee (as Hoffman is occasionally prone to give up). For those watching on TV, what was your impression of the goal.
    There is a nice 6 minute goal highlight package on hockeyeastonline.com. Turk's goal was great!

    Leave a comment:


  • UVM Cat in Texas
    replied
    Re: New Hampshire v. Vermont (2/22, 2/23)

    Originally posted by VermontFan View Post
    The majority of the UVM penalties were deserved, however I thought the Decenzo hook in the middle of the third was harsh (which led to the game winner). The referee closer to the play didn't make the call....it was made by the referee at center ice, per the UVM radio color commentator. Unfortunately, I sit at the opposite end of the ice so I couldn't see whether it was a hook or if his stick was lifted legally. The UNH falling down rather easily did help the referee make that call. For those watching on TV, was the hook legit?
    Also, Sneddon was quoted as saying the 4th UNH goal, and eventual game winner, was a real softee (as Hoffman is occasionally prone to give up). For those watching on TV, what was your impression of the goal.

    Leave a comment:


  • VermontFan
    replied
    Originally posted by Chuck Murray View Post
    Looks like we have a new team worthy of the designation "Skating Mother Theresas" now, eh??

    Not wanting to sound cocky, but just saying it like it is ... last night was UVM's chance to "steal" one, as they popped in three goals on a limited number of legit scoring chances, and DeSmith was definitely struggling well below his usual form. If UNH can put in the same all-around effort, AND get the usual high quality play from DeSmith tonight - and he has been pretty good bouncing back from poor performances - they *should* complete the sweep ...

    BUT the story of UNH at this time of the season in years past is that they'll come up with clunkers out of nowhere against opposition they should be able to beat. UVM is still fighting for a playoff spot, and I'm sure they will be up for it. Question now is, will UNH start playing as well as they were earlier in the season, or are we still going to see them doing their "Jeckyl & Hyde" routine, and give it up with a substandard effort? For that reason alone, tonight will be VERY interesting ...
    The majority of the UVM penalties were deserved, however I thought the Decenzo hook in the middle of the third was harsh (which led to the game winner). The referee closer to the play didn't make the call....it was made by the referee at center ice, per the UVM radio color commentator. Unfortunately, I sit at the opposite end of the ice so I couldn't see whether it was a hook or if his stick was lifted legally. The UNH falling down rather easily did help the referee make that call. For those watching on TV, was the hook legit?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X