Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

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

  • ScottK
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by jcarter7669 View Post
    As far as rules are concerned two guys running a player is the same as two guys running a player, position is irrelvant. So Yes, I am glad to see were are making progress here.
    Except that there are different rules for goalies. So, position is not irrelevant.

    Rule 43 - Charging

    A player shall not charge or otherwise foul a goalkeeper while the
    goalkeeper is within the crease or privileged area (see 71.2).

    PENALTY—Minor or major at the discretion of the referee. A game
    misconduct or disqualification may be assessed at the discretion of the
    referee.

    Leave a comment:


  • BTV802
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by Cat lover View Post
    I find it funny that no one has thought to post this side of the story.

    How dumb is it to give the team you are most likely going to face in your next games another reason
    to really want to beat you. I think UML's coach should be more mad at the players for that then anything
    else.

    Hope those two guys have eyes in the back of thier heads if VT plays them.
    Well if Rob "Mad Dog" Hamilton has anything to do with it...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cat lover
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    I find it funny that no one has thought to post this side of the story.

    How dumb is it to give the team you are most likely going to face in your next games another reason
    to really want to beat you. I think UML's coach should be more mad at the players for that then anything
    else.

    Hope those two guys have eyes in the back of thier heads if VT plays them.

    Leave a comment:


  • jcarter7669
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by ScottK View Post
    Sure, because 2 guys running a goalie after the whistle is the same as a collision in the corner at the buzzer.

    As far as rules are concerned two guys running a player is the same as two guys running a player, position is irrelvant. So Yes, I am glad to see were are making progress here.

    Leave a comment:


  • jcarter7669
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by ScottK View Post
    Well, you (and a few others) were whining that there should have been supplemental discipline for the "incident". That sounds like complaining that the refs didn't get it right. Then again, that would be the logical conclusion and I wouldn't expect you to apply logic to any discussion.
    That would be an assumption, not a logical conclusion. A logical conclusion would first rule out other possibilities... like maybe the refs were turned the other way and not observing the ruckus, or maybe in their opinion it wasn't required or they just figured who cares the game is over. Bertanga has a mechanism in place to address such circumstances... to assert that it should be used does not require ref bashing. For example, UMO's lomberg was penalized, the refs never saw it... that's not their fault but the league took corrective action to ensure it did not go unpunished.

    Leave a comment:


  • BTV802
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by ScottK View Post
    Well, you (and a few others) were whining that there should have been supplemental discipline for the "incident". That sounds like complaining that the refs didn't get it right. Then again, that would be the logical conclusion and I wouldn't expect you to apply logic to any discussion.
    I think supplemental discipline is the league's territory, not the refs.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScottK
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by jcarter7669 View Post

    So I suppose if Hamilton and Paliotta took a run at Hellebuyck and just flat out plowed into him after the whistle it would be alright then with you guys because everyone gets a little hot under the collar and hey that's hockey...
    Sure, because 2 guys running a goalie after the whistle is the same as a collision in the corner at the buzzer.

    Leave a comment:


  • ScottK
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by jcarter7669 View Post
    Sorry my bad... no one is crying over the officiating as it relates to the incident that is the topic of discussion. But yes, if you go back through all the pages you could find a few instances of it, especially regarding the linesman. I figured most people would understand and other then you and Patronick everyone else did... it's like you guys share a brain, which may explain why you both act like you only have half of one...
    Well, you (and a few others) were whining that there should have been supplemental discipline for the "incident". That sounds like complaining that the refs didn't get it right. Then again, that would be the logical conclusion and I wouldn't expect you to apply logic to any discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • jcarter7669
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by HawkUnderground View Post
    Disagreeing with someone about a hockey call is one thing but this is just one of numerous times you've taken a shot at not only the school I graduated from, but the city I grew up in. Class is not always something found in sports debate, rarely ever in actuality but how about you take it easy. Lowell's always played a tough style and with it comes plays like Holmstrom's and Arnold's. I may not think it was as bad as you did, and I certainly think that penalties were warranted, but no team in HE or the any of the others haven't had moments like that where temps got too hot.
    If I make it down to Tsonga for the QF's I'll bring you a big box of tissues and an apology note for hurting your feelings. I'm sorry.

    All teams get hot under the collars, I've never said differently. This particular game it happened to be Arnold and Holstrom and just Lomberg from ME they should get an appropriate penalty. If it were a UVM player I'd say the same thing. You can play good and hard without playing dirty. No reason for that kind of BS.

    So I suppose if Hamilton and Paliotta took a run at Hellebuyck and just flat out plowed into him after the whistle it would be alright then with you guys because everyone gets a little hot under the collar and hey that's hockey...

    Leave a comment:


  • jcarter7669
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by ScottK View Post
    From this thread:







    And the best one of all.....



    But no one is crying over the officiating.

    Sorry my bad... no one is crying over the officiating as it relates to the incident that is the topic of discussion. But yes, if you go back through all the pages you could find a few instances of it, especially regarding the linesman. I figured most people would understand and other then you and Patronick everyone else did... it's like you guys share a brain, which may explain why you both act like you only have half of one...

    Leave a comment:


  • jcarter7669
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by Fishhawk View Post
    Holmstrom and Arnold combined have 18 penalties for 36 minutes on the season. Minors obviously.

    Paliotta and Hamilton combined have 32 penalties for 78 minutes on the season including a hitting from behind game misconduct for Paliotta and a facemasking major for Hamilton. Facemasking? Nice. Paliotta has 7 inches and 36 lbs on Arnold, suggesting Arnold took him down without major help from Hamilton slamming into the pile is a joke. Big, dangerous, dirty players who take too many penalties = GOONS in my book.

    BTW, it's been my experience in debates that when a participant resorts to childish insults (like calling someone a crack head) it's a clear indication that they are losing and getting desperate.
    I was going to respond but BTV802 has already done a nice job of it...

    Leave a comment:


  • ScottK
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by jcarter7669 View Post
    Actually no one is crying about the officiating...
    From this thread:

    Originally posted by Cat lover
    Anyone else notice alot of the HE refs seem to be losing their cool alot lately, some just are not able to handle the pressure.
    Originally posted by kdaddy1968
    And the God awful officiating continues...
    Originally posted by kdaddy1968
    And HE refs miss another obvious call...
    And the best one of all.....

    Originally posted by jcarter7669
    And man I can't get over how terrible the officiating is. It didn't favor anyone team and certainly didn't affect the outcome of the game but jeez... it's gotten to the point where pathetic is the only word that can adequately describe it. It seems the refs can't figure out where the puck should be dropped or even what icing is. How Brickley can carry the puck into the zone and get called for icing is just mind boggling. If HE isn't going to fix it they should at least let the coaches speak bluntly about it.
    But no one is crying over the officiating.
    Last edited by ScottK; 03-03-2014, 02:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BTV802
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Ultimately I don't believe either team is really particularly dirty...I actually thought Lowell was frustrating because of how few penalties they were taking (not that UVM knows what to do with a power play when they get it).

    Leave a comment:


  • BTV802
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by boblav1 View Post
    I'm so glad Vermont never does stuff like that........

    From the BC thread from a couple of weeks ago.
    I was at both games and I don't really remember anything particularly bad happening. I certainly wouldn't defend it if it did, but I can only comment on what I see and remember. FYI that was a REALLY physical pair of games with BC, much more so than this past weekend. Apples and oranges.
    Last edited by BTV802; 03-03-2014, 01:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BTV802
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by Fishhawk View Post
    Holmstrom and Arnold combined have 18 penalties for 36 minutes on the season. Minors obviously.
    I'm certainly not suggesting either players are goons. I'm suggesting they threw what amounts to a hissy fit.

    Originally posted by Fishhawk View Post
    Paliotta and Hamilton combined have 32 penalties for 78 minutes on the season including a hitting from behind game misconduct for Paliotta and a facemasking major for Hamilton. Facemasking? Nice.
    Weird that our top pair of defenseman who play a ton of minutes would have more penalty minutes than your team's forwards. You'd almost think there was a correlation?

    Originally posted by Fishhawk View Post
    Paliotta has 7 inches and 36 lbs on Arnold, suggesting Arnold took him down without major help from Hamilton slamming into the pile is a joke.
    Yeah it's clear Arnold needed help to take Paliotta down. The point is he was definitely trying to take Paliotta down for not other reason than simple frustration. It was dumb and uncalled for, of course UVM players came in after the fact to break it up. Defend it all you want but I wouldn't.

    Originally posted by Fishhawk View Post
    Big, dangerous, dirty players who take too many penalties = GOONS in my book.
    Hamilton is actually a pretty lanky 6 ft freshman more known for turning the puck over than for his physical play. He's really not this monstrous tough guy who are making him out to be but I'm sure he'd be flattered that you think so.
    Last edited by BTV802; 03-03-2014, 01:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X