WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

[davyd83]

I don't believe so. There will still be a women's league. I assume they will still be custodians of the MacNaughton Cup.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The McNaughton Cup stays with Tech wherever they go.

[MTUHuskies]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

Will Michigan Tech own the WCHA rights after it blows up in 2021?

I don't believe so. There will still be a women's league. I assume they will still be custodians of the MacNaughton Cup.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[LSSULaker889294]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

Will Michigan Tech own the WCHA rights after it blows up in 2021?

[aparch]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

Oh come on. It's the Not So Good Sam Club.

[Lost_Husky]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

Are the ten to whom you refer the existing WCHA teams? Or the Severed Seven plus three others?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The MMO 7, UAH, and the two Alaska Schools.

[davyd83]

Has anyone heard about what potentially could happen with the 10 discussed teams or is it still quiet?

League and school personnel have been very tight lipped about it. All th AS t seems to be out there is fan or media speculation.

[MTUHuskies]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

Has anyone heard about what potentially could happen with the 10 discussed teams or is it still quiet?

Are the ten to whom you refer the existing WCHA teams? Or the Severed Seven plus three others?

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Lost_Husky]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

Has anyone heard about what potentially could happen with the 10 discussed teams or is it still quiet?

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

in my piece on UAH filing papers I called the seven schools that already announced the MMO (Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio) teams

[MavsFan]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

MMO? More like MOM, crying to her because of the meaniepants predecessors who made them play these meaniepants schools!

GFM

[gfmorris]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

MMO? More like MOM, crying to her because of the meaniepants predecessors who made them play these meaniepants schools!

GFM

[manurespreader]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

There's always the all-purpose charging call. And I think you're going to see more of that, particularly when the defender isn't making a play on the puck. Remember the point of emphasis: "Continued diligence is needed with regard to player safety rules, particularly contact to the head, contact against defenseless or unsuspecting players and hitting from behind."

Of course it's a judgment call, but the refs are being pushed to make that judgment call in favor of player safety. Hockey is changing. Ten years ago, those are both good, clean hits. But today, with neither of those defenders making a play on a puck that is right in front of them, a call is more likely than not.

There are a number of times in a game that making a play for the puck is the wrong move and ignoring the puck is the right move.

[UAFHockeyFan314]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

Is it asking too much for player with the puck to play "heads up"? If a hit comes from in front of them when they have the puck in most cases, it should be considered a clean hit. (Assuming no leading contact to the head or knee to knee.)

Seconded - also provided there's no elbow too

[Lost_Husky]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

He may not be unsuspecting, but he's certainly defenseless. And I think the ref's perspective would be that if you as the hitter have left yourself where you can't even play the puck, it's not a clean check.
Again, I don't view either of these 2 hits as "dirty." But I think there's a genuine concern about the long-term health of the college players, and the NCAA doesn't view it as enough to just say, "We don't tolerate fighting." They're trying to promote a game of skill. That will lead to a less physical game, but I think they view the tradeoff as acceptable.
Look at some YouTube Scott Stevens videos. Those hits were overwhelmingly legal at the time, and now almost all of them would result in penalties. Is the game worse because of that shift? Some would say yes, but attendance and TV ratings would contradict that.

Is it asking too much for player with the puck to play "heads up"? If a hit comes from in front of them when they have the puck in most cases, it should be considered a clean hit. (Assuming no leading contact to the head or knee to knee.)

[UAFHockeyFan314]

Re: WCHA 2019-20 season: We Can Do Better Than Two Bids and a First Round Exit

So here is a mash up of LSSU's penalty by Arvid Henrikson and MTU's penalty by Terrell Buckley. What do you think? Both 5s? Both 2s? Both good hits? somewhere in between? I'll add a threaded tweet to this with a poll. Tell us what yo think. #mtuhky #wcha #FollowTheHuskies pic.twitter.com/2oIU1UcHFB

— Tech Hockey Guide (@TechHockeyGuide) November 18, 2019

What do you think?

I'll bite.

The first penalty call is pretty textbook interference. Puck is loose away from both the LSSU and MTU players, who are both making an effort to reach the puck when Henrikson makes the infracting hit. From the first angle in the video you posted, contact looks like its initiated to the shoulder as Henrikson turns into the hit to lessen the angle and soften the blow. Presumably because he realized that the puck was not there at the last second. It also looks like the Tech player tenses up and dips his head right before contact, but kind of hard to tell without slow motion. The second angle shows simultaneous contact with the head and body. The head is not targeted I don't believe, and the LSSU player has a size advantage. I don't believe it warrants a major, and if it did, I would be astonished if the officials had that second angle available to them in replay. As far as I know, there's only the camera above both goals, and the main broadcast camera available for replay. If I'm the down official, my call on the ice would have been interference. And there likely wouldn't have been enough on the video from the first angle alone for me to conclusively say that would have been a major.

The second penalty call is interesting, and neither angle are really very good to see. I'm not going to go to the box score to see what was called, but from the first angle you can kind of see that he leads the hit with his elbow out. Second angle, it looks like he tucks it in to make the hit. I don't think video here is good enough to change a call to a major, or down to a minor either way. Certainly not interference though as the offensive player clearly had the puck. Whatever the official called on the ice is probably what they stuck with. That would be my bet, anyway.

But herein lies the issue with video replay. The second angles on both of these plays look completely different. But as I said earlier, I highly doubt these angles were available for officials to see. I'm familiar with Alaska's setup, and both of the side cameras and the angles right behind the goal aren't available in instant replay up here. And as far as I know, all of the schools use the same set up and software.

I tend to pay attention pretty closely to officiating and I've been critical of some calls over the years. However, I think the league has been pretty good at improving the overall quality of the officiating since realignment given what they've had to work with. A lot of new faces in stripes in the last couple of years.