Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

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

  • jcarter7669
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Why hasn't this thread died yet???

    BTW extra is free for like 10 days. Just sign up for it, take a screen capture of the rep and post so it can be settled. Keycub is just going to deny it until he is exposed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Keycube
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Originally posted by johnnypohlfan View Post
    Considering the negative rep that was sent my way as well ended up being gray (meaning it came from someone with a negative rep standing) and it was worded along the same lines as your posts in this thread, I think I'm pretty safe in saying it came from you. Before you deny it, perhaps you should read up on a nice little feature USCHO has called "Extra."
    "Pretty safe"? Really? You claimed I made a malicious remark. Now I'm asking you to prove it.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnnypohlfan
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Originally posted by Keycube View Post
    If you contact an admin and track the sender of that remark, you'll find it didn't come from me.

    Or don't, and just be content with the fact that I'm a jerk and deserve to have falsehoods lobbed my way. Or perhaps you even fabricated it yourself. Regardless, I'm sure you'll justify it somehow.
    Considering the negative rep that was sent my way as well ended up being gray (meaning it came from someone with a negative rep standing) and it was worded along the same lines as your posts in this thread, I think I'm pretty safe in saying it came from you. Before you deny it, perhaps you should read up on a nice little feature USCHO has called "Extra."

    Leave a comment:


  • gfmorris
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Originally posted by WSU Hockey View Post
    GFM, good luck at the tourney and can you tell Luongo that I said hello.
    Sure, if I knew who you were. You may email me to let me know.

    GFM

    Leave a comment:


  • WSU Hockey
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    The ramblings in this post have amused me enough to post on this. Those are thigh boards in the pictures... and yes they are illegal. The refs cannot do anything about them unless the opposing team calls them into question. The goalie would not be allowed to play until they were removed, but it is not a penalty. This issue came up in the women's CHA championship game this year. Before you jump on me, I am a certified E.M., and have been working hockey for 15 seasons.

    GFM, good luck at the tourney and can you tell Luongo that I said hello.

    Leave a comment:


  • fangers
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Originally posted by fantasticfrito View Post
    http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-40...2008-2010.aspx

    Page 32, section 3: All inner knee/thigh protection, whether attached to the leg pad or not, must be tightly wrapped around the leg. Thigh boards are illegal.
    Thanks, the printed version I have (previous version) does not have the word "tightly"...wasn't aware of the wording change...

    Leave a comment:


  • fantasticfrito
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Originally posted by fangers View Post
    I challenge you to find "tightly" in the rule book...

    And the shape of the wrap depends on the manufacturer...look at the Reeboks in the picture in sweatpants link...
    http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-40...2008-2010.aspx

    Page 32, section 3: All inner knee/thigh protection, whether attached to the leg pad or not, must be tightly wrapped around the leg. Thigh boards are illegal.

    Leave a comment:


  • fangers
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Originally posted by fantasticfrito View Post
    Those look like thigh boards to me. The leg wraps aren't that square on the top. The rule also calls for any thigh protection to be wrapped tightly to the leg, which in the picture they are not.

    I challenge you to find "tightly" in the rule book...

    And the shape of the wrap depends on the manufacturer...look at the Reeboks in the picture in sweatpants link...

    Leave a comment:


  • fantasticfrito
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Those look like thigh boards to me. The leg wraps aren't that square on the top. The rule also calls for any thigh protection to be wrapped tightly to the leg, which in the picture they are not.

    However, referees don't call goalie equipment infractions in ncaa hockey. The opposing coach needs to bring it up to the officials. If they don't point it out, it won't get called.

    An example is the goalie from the Duluth women's team. She wore her IIHF mask for the first month of the season because her team mask was at the painters. Her IIHF mask had a cat eye cage on it, which is illegal in NCAA play. She was never asked by a ref to wear a legal helmet.

    Leave a comment:


  • wnickelson
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Originally posted by Keycube View Post
    I've long since "let it go" when I realized no one here knew what they were talking about regarding the subject. Now I'm just watching from afar, bemused.
    And yet, you keep trolling.

    Leave a comment:


  • fangers
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Originally posted by Keycube View Post
    These are worn under the pants. The items I've highlighted in posted pictures are (being) worn outside the pants.

    The fact that the items being worn in posted pictures are thigh boards is not in doubt. Every fellow goalie I've asked has come to the same conclusion. I don't know why you've all gone bonkers trying to define them as otherwise. I never asked IF they were there, but WHY they were there.

    I've long since "let it go" when I realized no one here knew what they were talking about regarding the subject. Now I'm just watching from afar, bemused.
    You may have played goalie for 15 years but you've obviously not bought any new pads recently - at least not "pro sepc" pads. They are not NOT thigh boards, my son plays goal and we've looked all the major brands out there and they all have that style knee pad. For his last three sets we sat down with rep and custom built them, so I know what I am talking about. It may resemble the old style thigh boards, but as the picture sweatpants posted shows, they are much shorter and have an elastic strap with velcro that must be connected around the leg. Some goalies strap them tigher and wear them under their pads. Others, like my son, prefer to wear them a little looser and outside the pants. Both are legal as long as the strap is around the leg.

    You can put the people on here who don't agree with you down all you want, won't change the fact that you're wrong and have no clue what you are talking about. As part of agreeing to prohibiting the thigh boards, the NHL agreed to the thigh pads so that goalies would have proctection when they went down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Keycube
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Originally posted by sweatpants View Post
    Since you're not going to let it go, what I see are knee pads like the ones here.

    http://www.nhldigest.com/reebok-revoke-goalie-pads/
    These are worn under the pants. The items I've highlighted in posted pictures are (being) worn outside the pants.

    The fact that the items being worn in posted pictures are thigh boards is not in doubt. Every fellow goalie I've asked has come to the same conclusion. I don't know why you've all gone bonkers trying to define them as otherwise. I never asked IF they were there, but WHY they were there.

    I've long since "let it go" when I realized no one here knew what they were talking about regarding the subject. Now I'm just watching from afar, bemused.

    Leave a comment:


  • Keycube
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Originally posted by IrishHockeyFan View Post
    And most of the rep he leaves is unimaginative as well:

    "Go drink a bottle of bleach""


    What I don't understand is why USCHO bothers with the little button to report problem posters at all. I've know of people posting threats in the rep, seen people using slurs in posts, seen a number of posters (and most of us know who the worst few are) go on and on without being banned or even suspended, yet others have been banned for seemingly less. I guess I just wish I knew for sure what the standard was.
    Maybe the standard should be slander?

    You're right, that remark was unimaginative; one of the many reasons I would never say such a thing to anyone. If you contact an admin and track the sender of that remark, you'll find it didn't come from me.

    Or don't, and just be content with the fact that I'm a jerk and deserve to have falsehoods lobbed my way. Or perhaps you even fabricated it yourself. Regardless, I'm sure you'll justify it somehow.

    Leave a comment:


  • IrishHockeyFan
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Originally posted by Freddie View Post
    Seven of your nine posts have been argumentative, sarcastic and insulting to the intelligence of any sane human. The fact that it took so long for you to get slapped with some neg rep is proof of the tolerance of our readers.
    And most of the rep he leaves is unimaginative as well:

    Go drink a bottle of bleach
    What I don't understand is why USCHO bothers with the little button to report problem posters at all. I've know of people posting threats in the rep, seen people using slurs in posts, seen a number of posters (and most of us know who the worst few are) go on and on without being banned or even suspended, yet others have been banned for seemingly less. I guess I just wish I knew for sure what the standard was.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freddie
    replied
    Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville

    Seven of your nine posts have been argumentative, sarcastic and insulting to the intelligence of any sane human. The fact that it took so long for you to get slapped with some neg rep is proof of the tolerance of our readers.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X