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

[Scarlet]

It was truly disappointing to see how the team came out to start the third period. I didn’t see any spark or sense of urgency. And that’s on the coaching staff. How do you get to the NCAA tournament and play such a meh game? Listen, they were the lower seed, the outcome is probably what should have happened. It was just the way it happened. Those first two goals were flukes and Vlasic basically scored the second goal. What killed them was the quick goal right after Wise tied it up. If they could’ve ended that period tied, I think the third period would’ve been different. A good coaching staff can make adjustments and get the team into the proper mindset to play that final period.

And Rover, while I don’t disagree with anything you said, knock off the fat shaming. There’s plenty of other crap to dump on Albie, but you don’t have to be suck a *******.

[DNAEagle]

What is a mystery to me is how much talent comes to BU but little comes of it. Of course some are one and done guys but still, they have a lot of guys playing in the NHL. In future years some high end this talent is going to wind up at UMass. 2 FF in 4 years for Carvel, look out. Could easily win it this year.

[chickod]

We obviously couldn't attend games in person. So I know we only see snippets of shots on the bench. But is Albie the least animated coach? I see guys like York "coaching" the entire game. Leaning over, encouraging and advising players all game long. Albie just stands there behind the bench. If a team takes on their coach's character, no wonder they had long periods where they were flat and had no jump.

[Lemonade]

Well that was one of the weirdest games I have ever seen. Honestly I can’t tell
if St. Cloud is good/really good/damn lucky. Those goals today were so odd. The behind the net to our front and no one saw it just summed up the game. For giving up 6 you really can’t fault him on maybe 1 or 2 max? The call on Peterson hurt big time as he was an impact player as late. In the end it just wasn’t BUs day and the better team won. BU is young but they have to find more offense. Getting outshot every game is a great recipe for long term success. If BU wants to take the next step the coaching needs to improve as well. It just looks like players are tossed out there with no plan.

[kbz]

Are you saying that only in terms of whether a goal can be waived off? Meaning if a goal is scored, and upon review, it was offsides, if the defending team ever possessed the puck, it won't negate the goal?

Because every college hockey game I see, the offfensive team still goes to clear the zone after the defending team corrals the puck. Until they all get out, it's still a delayed offsides.

If what you say is correct, then I think that is good. Personally, I think offsides should not be reviewable. But if it has to be, then something that eliminates the ridiculous times where it can be 30 seconds after the zone entry that the goal is scored, is good by me.

You see the offensive team clear the zone because if they didn’t it would be intentionally offsides. If they didn’t, the ref would blow the whistle and the face off would be back in the offending team’s defensive zone. This is because the ref saw the offside and had his hand up.

in the BU-SCSU game, the ref didn’t see the offside, hence the review. Because SCSU had “control” of the puck after the infraction, the offside is negated. Kind of like if BU touched puck with high stick and the ref has arm raised, but if SCSU touches puck first then the high stick is negated. In the BU-ND game, ND scored like 30 seconds after the offsides during which time BU had control and opportunity to clear puck (perhaps multiple times but my memory is fuzzy).

And to be clear, chubby Charlie McAvoy was a term of endearment. He is not chubby anymore and he is turning into a heck of a player. He’s better for the Bruins then he ever was for BU because he is much more defensively responsible.

[Carmine Scarpaglia]

Because every college hockey game I see, the offfensive team still goes to clear the zone after the defending team corrals the puck. Until they all get out, it's still a delayed offsides.

kbz really wins some serious internet points for bringing this updated rule to light. And I think your point above is also a great point about why this rule is so gd stupid. It effectively eliminates delayed offsides once a defending team gets possession without offending players clearing the zone, BUT ONLY if a goal is scored? Because that's what it seems like this rule is doing to the situation.

Rule 93.4-12 – Video Review of Offsides/Too Many Players.

This is a reminder of the video replay criteria dealing with reviews of offsides and too many players. The video replay criteria for offsides and too many players on the ice includes the following language: "In postseason competition, offsides and too many players infractions are permitted to be reviewed without a coach's challenge."

This is a difference from the regular-season, when a coach must use a challenge to review these situations. By rule, the opportunity for review exists during the time the puck entered the attacking zone illegally as the result of an offside infraction and until the puck either:
• Leaves the offending team's attacking zone;
• A stoppage of play occurs, and a faceoff is conducted; or
• The defending team gains possession and control of the puck (officials are guided to use the same judgment in possession and control as they would use when a delayed penalty is in effect).

Mind you all of this happened in less than 8 seconds when take out the time from the faceoff to the entry, so we're talking offside entry to goal in probably 4-5 seconds? So it's not like play continued for a good long while. It is what it is but this certainly makes me scratch my head with regard to this rule.

I generally hate even reviewing offsides but give me the NHL rule in regards to any part of the body out of the zone = onside and take away the possession bullet point and I think we're in a better place. Does it really matter if the guy's back skate is on the ice or not? Of course not.

[net presence]

kbz really wins some serious internet points for bringing this updated rule to light. And I think your point above is also a great point about why this rule is so gd stupid. It effectively eliminates delayed offsides once a defending team gets possession without offending players clearing the zone, BUT ONLY if a goal is scored? Because that's what it seems like this rule is doing to the situation.



Mind you all of this happened in less than 8 seconds when take out the time from the faceoff to the entry, so we're talking offside entry to goal in probably 4-5 seconds? So it's not like play continued for a good long while. It is what it is but this certainly makes me scratch my head with regard to this rule.

I generally hate even reviewing offsides but give me the NHL rule in regards to any part of the body out of the zone = onside and take away the possession bullet point and I think we're in a better place. Does it really matter if the guy's back skate is on the ice or not? Of course not.

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.

[kbz]

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.

Toe-may-toe, Toe-mah-toe. So you are saying offsides was not reviewable? Ergo, the goal stood despite it being seemingly clear that it was offsides. Why? Because they couldn’t review offsides once SCSU gained control of the puck. I think the long review was to determine whether he gained control. If he didn’t gain control, offsides would have been back on the table and the goal wouldn’t have counted.

[brassbonanza]

It was truly disappointing to see how the team came out to start the third period. I didn’t see any spark or sense of urgency. And that’s on the coaching staff. How do you get to the NCAA tournament and play such a meh game? Listen, they were the lower seed, the outcome is probably what should have happened. It was just the way it happened. Those first two goals were flukes and Vlasic basically scored the second goal. What killed them was the quick goal right after Wise tied it up. If they could’ve ended that period tied, I think the third period would’ve been different. A good coaching staff can make adjustments and get the team into the proper mindset to play that final period.

Nailed it.

They came out lethargic and disorganized to start the biggest period of the season - and that's the fault of coaching. They get the gift of the major early on and immediately give up a chance in the other direction. That shouldn't have been a penalty shot - but the chance should've never happened in the first place.

Every one of the fluke goals in the second period were preceded by a defensive turnover or a failed clearing attempt. Jarman on the first, McCarthy on the second, Vlasic on the third. All of those goals don't happen if our D make a fundamentally sound play.

Bad luck tends to happens when you put yourself in disadvantageous situations. Albie's teams repeatedly put themselves in these disadvantageous situations.

[defkit]

Toe-may-toe, Toe-mah-toe. So you are saying offsides was not reviewable? Ergo, the goal stood despite it being seemingly clear that it was offsides. Why? Because they couldn’t review offsides once SCSU gained control of the puck. I think the long review was to determine whether he gained control. If he didn’t gain control, offsides would have been back on the table and the goal wouldn’t have counted.

Thanks for pointing all of this out. It came up on the disallowed UMD goal in OT last night, and the announcers were on point, mentioning that if UND had gained control, then the play could not have been overturned.

[buoldtimer]

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.

So, it's just not a matter of touching the puck? The defending team must control the puck and start to make a play in some form?

[buoldtimer]

Nailed it.

They came out lethargic and disorganized to start the biggest period of the season - and that's the fault of coaching. They get the gift of the major early on and immediately give up a chance in the other direction. That shouldn't have been a penalty shot - but the chance should've never happened in the first place.

Every one of the fluke goals in the second period were preceded by a defensive turnover or a failed clearing attempt. Jarman on the first, McCarthy on the second, Vlasic on the third. All of those goals don't happen if our D make a fundamentally sound play.

Bad luck tends to happens when you put yourself in disadvantageous situations. Albie's teams repeatedly put themselves in these disadvantageous situations.

Exactly. These are the mistakes we've seen repeatedly while Albie's been coach. Also, they're the mistakes you see when you lose faceoffs in the d-zone and end up chasing. And, again, they lose so many of the one on one contests for the puck, or get knocked of the puck. It's such struggle to clear the d-zone that they can't make plays from their own end making use of their speed.

Disappointing seasons from Skoog and Mastrisimone.

[J.D.]

So, it's just not a matter of touching the puck? The defending team must control the puck and start to make a play in some form?

Supposed to be applied like when a delayed penalty gets blown dead. I actually think the spirit of the rule is good but tougher to interpret in real time. Some gray area for sure.

[buoldtimer]

Supposed to be applied like when a delayed penalty gets blown dead. I actually think the spirit of the rule is good but tougher to interpret in real time. Some gray area for sure.

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?

[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.