Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

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

  • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

    Well, where to begin. After attending the games this weekend, and getting back into Ann Arbor at nearly 2:30 AM (thanks to NC$$ for scheduling the game at 8:05 on a Sunday night and having so many TV Timeouts) this wolverine fan is dissapointed in the result, but not in the effort. Boy, if this team had played like this all year, we maybe dont have to beat a Miami to get the Frozen Four. For the first time since this late season run started, Michigan did not get the breaks, did not get the "puck luck" that Red always talks about.

    I posted last weekend that no matter if they totally flamed out against Bemidji, or "lost a heart-breaker" to Miami, that is was all gravy. What a ride this team gave us, it is a shame to lose it like that. Again, a quick whistle plays into the result, but you know what, they had PLENTY of additional opportunities to win it (cross bar, and a couple of other near misses). Knapp just did what he had to do, and made Blasi look like a genius by playing him over Reichard.

    I hope nobody on the team feels too bad, yes it hurts, but this was a hell of a run, one that this longtime fan will remember for a long time. Unfortunatley it will eventually fall into the pool of near misses and haertbreak in the NCAA tourney.

    Things are looking up for the program, pending any offseason defections. Should be an interesting fight for the starting goalie next year.

    Go Blue!!
    Infrequent poster, frequent reader.

    Comment


    • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

      Originally posted by Maineiak View Post
      Sorry to all the Michigan fans that had to experience the waved off goal by Hockey East's own Gravallese due to an early whistle. Those of us in Hockey East can sympathize...
      ANY touching of the puck by a Miami player would have resulted in a whistle; there was a delayed penalty on them. People keep harping on whether the puck was covered up or not; that wasn't the issue. It didn't NEED to be covered up for the whistle to blow, only touched by a Miami player (which it obviously was).

      Comment


      • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

        There is no God.

        ******* width="320" height="265">****** name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8A3M-d_eIqo&hl=en_US&fs=1&">****** name="allowFullScreen" value="true">****** name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">****** src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8A3M-d_eIqo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="265">

        Comment


        • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

          Originally posted by Chris_NH View Post
          ANY touching of the puck by a Miami player would have resulted in a whistle; there was a delayed penalty on them. People keep harping on whether the puck was covered up or not; that wasn't the issue. It didn't NEED to be covered up for the whistle to blow, only touched by a Miami player (which it obviously was).
          Not true. Touching it isn't enough. See the quote of the rules in this thread:

          http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?p=4728342
          Last edited by MichFan; 03-29-2010, 07:56 AM. Reason: Forgot hyperlink

          Comment


          • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

            Originally posted by Chris_NH View Post
            ANY touching of the puck by a Miami player would have resulted in a whistle; there was a delayed penalty on them. People keep harping on whether the puck was covered up or not; that wasn't the issue. It didn't NEED to be covered up for the whistle to blow, only touched by a Miami player (which it obviously was).
            No, not just touched- under control. That is the rule. The official couldn't see it anyway, he had his right arm in the air and the other one holding his throat, while he was twenty feet away in the corner. He lost sight of the puck and blew it dead, a gross mis-judgment considering how the same official allowed play to continue earlier for Miami to basically bang a puck under Hunwick who held it under his pad. At least he was in the proper position that time. Makes me wonder what the other official was doing, and why there are four of them out there.

            The puck ricocheted off of Knapp, and no other Miami player controlled it until Lynch put it in.

            Calling of Penalties
            SECTION 9. a. If an infraction of the rules is committed by a player of the
            side in possession of the puck, the appropriate on-ice official shall blow
            the whistle immediately and a referee shall assess the penalties.

            Furthermore:

            If, after the referee has signaled a penalty (but before the whistle has been
            blown)
            , the puck enters the goal of the non-offending team as the direct
            result of the action of a player of that team, the goal shall be allowed and
            the penalty signaled shall be assessed.
            c. The appropriate on-ice official shall use a “delayed whistle” when a
            foul is committed against the team in possession of the puck, thereby
            HR-50 RULE 4 / PENALTIES
            postponing the stoppage of play until the offending team shall have
            possession and control of the puck.
            The last player to control the puck, other than the goalkeeper, is the
            last player to be deemed in possession of the puck. Control of the puck is
            defined as the act of propelling the puck with the stick, hand or skate.
            Possession and control is not a rebound off the goalkeeper, an opposing
            player, the goal or the boards or any incidental contact with the body or
            equipment of an opposing player. Batting the puck with the hand or kicking
            the puck is considered to be controlling the puck. Touching the puck (e.g.,
            poke check or deflection) is not considered control of the puck.

            Michigan had enough chances to win this game, and Knapp was the difference, except on this play which should have ended the game. Tough loss when you take the #1 team to overtime, pretty well play them even and get screwed like this.

            Comment


            • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

              Originally posted by MichFan View Post
              Not true. Touching it isn't enough. See the quote of the rules in this thread:

              http://board.uscho.com/showthread.php?p=4728342
              He did have possession- Lynch dug it out from beneath him. Think about if that had been a stick from a D guy that he had to fight it for. Same thing.

              I know it sucks, but the puck was cleanly beneath the goalie, and he had it.

              It's one of those things that if there wasn't a penalty, then we'd have a lot more to complain about.

              Comment


              • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

                Originally posted by streaker View Post
                The puck ricocheted off of Knapp, and no other Miami player controlled it until Lynch put it in.
                I wish it were otherwise, but the play I saw, Lynch had to dig it out- it wasn't coming out from the goalie on it's own. Like I said just above, if he had to compete for the puck with a guy and a stick, they would have wistled it, too.

                Comment


                • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

                  Originally posted by alfablue View Post
                  I wish it were otherwise, but the play I saw, Lynch had to dig it out- it wasn't coming out from the goalie on it's own. Like I said just above, if he had to compete for the puck with a guy and a stick, they would have wistled it, too.
                  I'd have to watch the replay again because, thank god, the play isn't etched in my memory. From what I recall, the puck was loose between Knapp's leg pads on the ice, and he was still rotating. That's not a frozen puck. That's similar to trying to dig a puck from between a guys skates... no possession.

                  Regardless, it's no matter now. We gave Miami everything we had, and came up just short. Still an impressive run, and one which every member of that team should be **** proud of. I know I am.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

                    Originally posted by alfablue View Post
                    I wish it were otherwise, but the play I saw, Lynch had to dig it out- it wasn't coming out from the goalie on it's own. Like I said just above, if he had to compete for the puck with a guy and a stick, they would have wistled it, too.
                    Except that the rule says that possession by the goalie doesn't count for the delayed penalty. "The last player to control the puck, other than the goalkeeper, is the last player to be deemed in possession of the puck."

                    And as for freezing the puck, didn't Hunwick have the puck under his pads before Miami's second and they dislodged it?

                    I still think that the officials blew it.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

                      There are those of us here in Badgerland who feel the stars are aligning for us this year. With the exit of this talented Michigan club, a club that probably served as the greatest threat to Bucky's chances of winning the title, I would think that fellow Wisconsin fans are breathing a bit easier in part because Michigan is a team that is very close to being a mirror image of our own. With that said, congrats on a nice run, and we will see you next year.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

                        Originally posted by KC8NIY View Post
                        I'd have to watch the replay again because, thank god, the play isn't etched in my memory. From what I recall, the puck was loose between Knapp's leg pads on the ice, and he was still rotating. That's not a frozen puck. That's similar to trying to dig a puck from between a guys skates... no possession.
                        I don't think Knapp having partial possestion in his legs is like a normal player and skates- but even then, if the player even partially controls the puck with his skates- they will blow the whistle.

                        They showed it SO many time to see if the whistle lined up with the goal, so we got to see him dig at it. JUST like how Miami scored the second goal- too bad we didn't have a penalty lined up for that, eh?

                        Regardless, it's no matter now. We gave Miami everything we had, and came up just short. Still an impressive run, and one which every member of that team should be **** proud of. I know I am.
                        And that's the important part now...

                        Comment


                        • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

                          Originally posted by MichFan View Post
                          Except that the rule says that possession by the goalie doesn't count for the delayed penalty. "The last player to control the puck, other than the goalkeeper, is the last player to be deemed in possession of the puck."

                          And as for freezing the puck, didn't Hunwick have the puck under his pads before Miami's second and they dislodged it?

                          I still think that the officials blew it.
                          Well, if you really want to feel jobbed, ok. They blew it. Nothing we can do about it now. (and I agree about Miami's second goal- super slow whistle, when he clearly had the puck under his pads)

                          Except be happy that our team turned it around so much that we got to this point at all.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

                            Originally posted by alfablue View Post
                            I don't think Knapp having partial possestion in his legs is like a normal player and skates- but even then, if the player even partially controls the puck with his skates- they will blow the whistle.

                            They showed it SO many time to see if the whistle lined up with the goal, so we got to see him dig at it. JUST like how Miami scored the second goal- too bad we didn't have a penalty lined up for that, eh?

                            And that's the important part now...
                            Honestly, I think it's a moot point anyway. Once he lost sight of the puck, the play was over. I don't agree with the call, but it was the correct call based upon what the ref was seeing. Had he been in the other corner, or on top of the friggin net like Cannone's second goal, it may have been different.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

                              I too was upset about Miami's second goal, which in hindsight was a worse call than the OT call. After looking back on it though, if Wohlberg buries one of his breakaways, or we don't play the whole game (heck, the whole tournament) shorthanded, we're watching Michigan in Detroit in 2 weeks.

                              Still a tremendous effort of the boys in blue. Thanks for a great tourney run and see you next year.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Michigan Hockey 2010 - Delivery or Take Out?

                                I thought that was an outstanding game by both teams. Both teams were alternately on the ropes and just hanging by a thread. After the last 15 minutes of the 3rd period, I was really proud of the way that Michigan got their legs back and started skating again. They played with a lot of passion and did everything they could.

                                Lots of talk about the OT goal that wasn't. Did anyone else think that Hunwick had the puck under control under his pad on the second Miami goal? I thought that maybe that might have been a case of a slow whistle there.

                                EDIT - I see the other posts now on this topic.......

                                But no sour grapes, really. I wish Miami luck next week, after what they went through last year I hope they can pull it together for a championship in Detroit.

                                Thanks to the team and coaches and especially the seniors for a great season and year-end run.
                                Cornell '92, Michigan '97 - Go Red! Go Blue!
                                I flex a real hard juice card.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X