BU 2020-21 Season: The Road to … Nowhere?

[brassbonanza]

You are confusing two separate, but related, issues. Nobody is questioning whether BU was offsides - they were. However, offsides wasn't called on the ice. Because offsides wasn't called on the ice combined with the fact that St. Cloud gained control of the puck, offsides can't be reviewed by the officials in instant replay. Since offsides wasn't called originally, goal stands.

The NHL doesn't have this "rule". On the related issue, this season the NHL changed offsides rule such that if the skate is in the air but over the blue line, it is considered onside. In prior years, skate needed to be physically touching the blue line. College rule is that skate needs to be physically touching the blue line.

I wasn't addressing the specific play in the BU game. It was a general statement about offsides reviews.

But the NHL does have this rule - the player's skate can be over the blue line to be onside, it's the same "break the plane" concept. https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl...n%20the%20play.

[kbz]

Quinn was a good coach for BU and what they needed after Parker but they underachieved as well.

Bingo! I agree with all the frustration people have posted on this thread about Albie, but all those things happened with Quinn as well. I'd argue that they also happened with Parker going back to the beginning of my BU Hockey fandom in 1996-97 (was it both Coleman and Drury with ill-advised cross ice passes in 2nd period in NCAA championship game vs. ND?). I remember Quinn's last game versus Michigan. Leading up to the game, BU played smart, puck possession hockey and won the HE championship in order to make NCAAs. One of the things I noticed they did was move the puck out of their D-zone along the boards to avoid turnovers. That all reversed course in the Michigan game, starting I think with Hank Crone.

Now, I rather have Quinn's underachieving but exciting team over Albie's. That said, people were complaining about all the one year players. The team now has more "four year" players, though with NHL collective bargaining agreement there are always going to be guys leaving after their junior season. This team, while not having as much star power, was more balanced and scoring could come from many lines. So, let's see how this experiment continues. I actually think they are going to be above average because of Commesso and Duplessis.

To go back to something someone posted earlier in the thread, I like watching Lowell play because they play like a team. When Union and Yale won national championships, they executed a game plan with extreme precision I rarely saw as a BU fan. However, to the person who said to offer Bazin or Carvel big money that the State can't match, you'd be surprised. I remember the annual Boston Globe article that came out a couple months ago with the state's top paid employees. Bazin was over $700K (probably with bonuses because I think his base is around $500K). Carvel was in the $400K-$500K range. I don't see the BU administration offering a $1M salary again to a coach (I remember reading Quinn was around there when he left) unless it was tied to alumni giving or attendance/profit made by the program.

[DNAEagle]

Bum Phillips on being an NFL coach, "you either have been fired or you are about to be fired". Quinn was a good coach for BU and what they needed after Parker but they underachieved as well. His best moment was as an assistant when he told JP to pull the goalie early against Miami, they tied the game while Rico looked like a teen aged Umile. Then the hockey gods intervened and BU won a nattie

[J.D.]

In other news, David Quinn trending on Twitter. The angry mob not happy to see his return to the Rangers bench. When he is inevitably fired (that's life as an NHL coach)...would BU ever go back to him?

[Carmine Scarpaglia]

I did go back to watch the BC disallowed goal against UML to see if they ever "possessed" the puck after the offside

https://twitter.com/BCHockey/status/...657251331?s=19

Although it wouldn't surprise me at all if HE refs don't know this part of the rule lol. But from looking at that clip I don't think Lowell ever really touched the puck. Maybe along the boards but who knows.

I know this is the BU thread but this is interesting. That Lowell player has position on the side wall at 7:00 even on the clock and if this were a delayed penalty on Lowell that would absolutely have been blown dead for "possession." I can only guess that HE officials didn't even know the rules since their incompetence really has no bounds.

From yesterday's game, I think the hilariously stupid thing is that, sure given the new rule and the possession by SCSU, they actually got the call right. BUT... they WENT TO VIDEO REVIEW... to determine that it wasn't allowed to be reviewed on video? What a web of stupidness this has been weaved into. Toss this entire offside review nonsense into the toilet and flush it down a few times.

[kbz]

The NCAA can implement a simple solution to the offside review fiasco to make it easier on everyone:
- Get rid of the skate on the ice rule. If the any part of the player "breaks the plane" of the blue line - it counts as on side.
- The NCAA mandates cameras placed on both ends of the board directly on each blue line. That way if a review occurs, officials don't have to piece together off-angle cameras - they look at two cameras in perfect position. There's two so if a linesman blocks one, the other is there.
- If both of the above camera angles are inconclusive, the play stands as called.

You are confusing two separate, but related, issues. Nobody is questioning whether BU was offsides - they were. However, offsides wasn't called on the ice. Because offsides wasn't called on the ice combined with the fact that St. Cloud gained control of the puck, offsides can't be reviewed by the officials in instant replay. Since offsides wasn't called originally, goal stands.

The NHL doesn't have this "rule". On the related issue, this season the NHL changed offsides rule such that if the skate is in the air but over the blue line, it is considered onside. In prior years, skate needed to be physically touching the blue line. College rule is that skate needs to be physically touching the blue line.

[brassbonanza]

The NCAA can implement a simple solution to the offside review fiasco to make it easier on everyone:
- Get rid of the skate on the ice rule. If the any part of the player "breaks the plane" of the blue line - it counts as on side.
- The NCAA mandates cameras placed on both ends of the board directly on each blue line. That way if a review occurs, officials don't have to piece together off-angle cameras - they look at two cameras in perfect position. There's two so if a linesman blocks one, the other is there.
- If both of the above camera angles are inconclusive, the play stands as called.

[kbz]

I did go back to watch the BC disallowed goal against UML to see if they ever "possessed" the puck after the offside

https://twitter.com/BCHockey/status/...657251331?s=19

Although it wouldn't surprise me at all if HE refs don't know this part of the rule lol. But from looking at that clip I don't think Lowell ever really touched the puck. Maybe along the boards but who knows.

Starman actually called this the BU rule after UND scored to beat BU but then it was reviewed and called offside. Anyone have that clip? If he is correct it was a case where BU possessed the puck after the offside and then UND scored.

I actually hadn’t seen this replay but a BC friend of mine told me about the disallowed offsides goal. I then proceeded to tell him the “rule”. Looking at this, and I’d like to see a reverse angle, as I think #12 may have had control along the side boards unless the BC player got his stick in and moved the puck before #12 gained control.

[Carmine Scarpaglia]

The major call on BU was TERRIBLE. The major call on SCSU was an easy call and dirty as hell.

[kbz]

And the review of Skoog's goal looked at the skater's (Cockerill?) contact with the blueline, and whether SC had the required control of the puck?

The reason why the replay reviews you saw were only looking at the skate on the blue line was because the people in the ESPN truck didn’t know the rule, nor did the commentators. As defkit pointed out, a very similar thing happened in the UMD-ND game, but Dave Starman correctly pointed out the rule. In the review of the UMD goal, ND did not gain control of the puck therefore making offsides reviewable. It was determined to be offsides and the goal was disallowed.

As an aside I chuckled when Starman (who no surprise to me knows his stuff) answering Leah Hextall’s question as to whether he has seen a quadruple (I think she mistakenly said 5 OT, probably because that’s what the scoreboard ticker said) OT game, he made reference to his time with the Macon Whoopie

[Bomber]

Lots of good analysis already. My quick and dirty brain dump.

- Other than the two chaos moments (The pop fly puck and the shorthanded penalty shot.). Did this game entertain? defkit nailed it. It looked like a pick-up game on a Saturday afternoon. No flow. No plan.
- Add Cockerill to the list of in-zone goats. Before one of the goals (Who can remember which one.) he had the puck between the dots, with space, and just threw it at the side-boards. A Huskie said thank you very much and boom, the puck's in the back of the net. He had room to skate. He could have angled it out. Did neither. Goal. Perfect snapshot of this team
- It's a little odd that the two best games this team played were without their Hobey finalist, team captain, and #1 goalie.
- I thought of one thing they did well. Good physical game in the first.
- Both 5 minute majors were tough calls. It would be nice if common sense came back to officiating
- Speaking of 5 minute majors. Have you ever seen a worse 5 minute power play in all your years of watching hockey?
- Speaking of coaching, watch UMD play hockey. It's like a different sport. I feel like that team could plug in a random set of D1 players and make the tournament
- The off-sides millimeter micro management review crap has to go. It's ruining the sport. And yes, that means North Dakota wins in 2017. So be it.

I'm grateful we were able to enjoy any hockey this season, but the BU product needs to improve.

BU Hockey: Coach Me

[Mike799]

There were alot of things in this game that screams Albie has no idea what hes doing

Throwing Mastrisimone at center. Has he ever played it before in 2 seasons here?

Cockerhil at point on 5 min major which led to the bad play and penalty shot goal. Hes fast but definitely not a good decision maker

Players continually trying to stick handle through 3 guys to gain zone entry. Every other team this weekend seemed to have a set plan

Losing 90% of faceoffs

Team got worse during the season

In the previous tournamet game against Lowell they trailed going into the 3rd by a goal and recorded 2 shots in the 3rd. This tournament game they entered the 3rd trailing by a goal and were outscored 3-0 in the 3rd.


Yet, I read his postgame press conference comments and he just wants to talk about how it was a tricky covid season

[J.D.]

And the review of Skoog's goal looked at the skater's (Cockerill?) contact with the blueline, and whether SC had the required control of the puck?

Didn't see this goal/review. Only saw the one from UND-UMD.

[J.D.]

I did go back to watch the BC disallowed goal against UML to see if they ever "possessed" the puck after the offside

https://twitter.com/BCHockey/status/...657251331?s=19

Although it wouldn't surprise me at all if HE refs don't know this part of the rule lol. But from looking at that clip I don't think Lowell ever really touched the puck. Maybe along the boards but who knows.

Starman actually called this the BU rule after UND scored to beat BU but then it was reviewed and called offside. Anyone have that clip? If he is correct it was a case where BU possessed the puck after the offside and then UND scored.

[sk8tronthepond]

Allow me to help you guys out. The fact that the defending team gains possession and control (defined as moving the puck in a desired direction) -- as the rule book says, the same as determining when to blow the whistle on a delayed penalty -- only applies in regards to whether the possible offsides is reviewable or not. It has nothing to do with allowing play to continue or not on a potential delayed offsides.

Pardon the interruption. Just so you know, all goals are reviewed in the Regionals. They were looking to see if this was offside but the video angles were inconclusive - they couldn't tell if the back skate was touching the line or in the air. If it's inconclusive, then the call on the ice stands. It had nothing to do with possession.