Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

    Originally posted by William Blake View Post
    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?
    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.
    Originally posted by WiscTJK
    I'm with Wisko and Tim.
    Originally posted by Timothy A
    Other than Wisko McBadgerton and Badger Bob, who is universally loved by all?

    Comment


    • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

      And name Shuey interim? I admit that would be entertaining in it's own way.
      Originally posted by WiscTJK
      I'm with Wisko and Tim.
      Originally posted by Timothy A
      Other than Wisko McBadgerton and Badger Bob, who is universally loved by all?

      Comment


      • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

        Originally posted by UWisco View Post
        Band members are all in Indy.
        Originally posted by Gurtholfin View Post
        there have been instances in the past when the band is gone (bowl game) or it's over break where an alumni band will sit in
        Exactly. I don't think I have ever been to a home game when there wasn't some sort of band. It might've helped to take a little attention away from the lousy performance on the ice.

        Heck, even Phil was late.

        /Badger Hockey 2014-15 - going down in flames, does anyone even care?

        Comment


        • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

          Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton View Post
          And name Shuey interim? I admit that would be entertaining in it's own way.
          Keep the staff to the end of the season then fire the lot of em. This doesn't in any way resemble UW Hockey IMO. Unless mediocrity is the new norm and you could argue that 1994-2014 = UW Hockey which is just puke inducing to me
          Everything in its right place, Wisconsin Hockey National Champs!


          "but you're not as confused as him are you. it's not your job to be as confused as Nigel". Tap pt 1.

          "I think it's ****ing stock. What--? Which part of that is unclear to you? I think it sounds stock to my ears. I mean, do you want me to write it down?" Tap Pt. 2

          Who???! So What!!!! Big Deal!!!!

          Comment


          • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

            Originally posted by solovsfett View Post
            Keep the staff to the end of the season then fire the lot of em. This doesn't in any way resemble UW Hockey IMO. Unless mediocrity is the new norm and you could argue that 1994-2014 = UW Hockey which is just puke inducing to me

            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.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by William Blake View Post
              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?

              Comment


              • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

                Originally posted by Buck 'em View Post
                Heck, even Phil was late.

                My guess is that Phil was at the volleyball match.

                Comment


                • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

                  Originally posted by Gurtholfin View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

                    Originally posted by J.D. View Post
                    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.
                    Originally posted by WiscTJK
                    I'm with Wisko and Tim.
                    Originally posted by Timothy A
                    Other than Wisko McBadgerton and Badger Bob, who is universally loved by all?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

                      Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton View Post
                      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?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

                        Originally posted by burd View Post
                        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.
                        Originally posted by WiscTJK
                        I'm with Wisko and Tim.
                        Originally posted by Timothy A
                        Other than Wisko McBadgerton and Badger Bob, who is universally loved by all?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

                          Originally posted by Wisko McBadgerton View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

                            Originally posted by William Blake View Post
                            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.
                            Last edited by burd; 12-06-2014, 01:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

                              Was there more in that section of the NCAA rulebook? The NHL rules are more clear, though they might not be the exact same. It's more obvious when being in the crease does and does not matter.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Wisconsin Hockey: Episode XXXI: A New Hope

                                Originally posted by Gurtholfin View Post
                                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.
                                Everything in its right place, Wisconsin Hockey National Champs!


                                "but you're not as confused as him are you. it's not your job to be as confused as Nigel". Tap pt 1.

                                "I think it's ****ing stock. What--? Which part of that is unclear to you? I think it sounds stock to my ears. I mean, do you want me to write it down?" Tap Pt. 2

                                Who???! So What!!!! Big Deal!!!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X