2023 NCAA Tournament Mega-Thread

[Russell Jaslow]

The refs should have blown their whistles because a player was in a dangerous position and then proceed to a neutral face off. The call could have easily gone against Adrian for delay of the game as the player made no attempt to get up. Don't understand why a major was called just because Krug asked for a review. I don't know why the ref didn't call it when it happened, they didn't see it or just wanted to let the guys play on. If it was a penalty, and the operative word is "if", it would have been a two minute minor, much less harsh then a 5. I don't know what to think of the coach's decision to ask for a review. He's either very smart and strategic, or a lowlife coach who would do anything to win a game. I don't understand an ounce of how this played out. Can someone a lot more hockey wise explain it to me? Seems to me UNE lost unfairly because a technical rule backfired.

Let's bring it back to reality and get a grip on things folks.

Krug doesn't call the penalty. The refs and the replay official do. Krug just asks for a challenge, which he has every right to do.

Whether it's a bad call is on the refs, not Krug.

And it's not like Krug asking for a challenge does not come with consequences. If he's wrong, he losses a timeout. Maybe not a big deal, but if he's wrong a second time, it's a delay of game penalty against him. Think about that. If this call did not go his way, he plays the rest of overtime knowing that if he challenges again, he could a risk a penalty against his team. It was a gamble asking for that challenge. One that paid off.

As for the call, it appears it was for the digging out the puck on the player lying on it. If that's the case, then I don't get it. (When that play was happening live, I immediately thought why aren't the refs blowing this dead? That was the major error to me.) And it's a horrible way to end the game, especially since they didn't call the major challenge at the end of regulation, when that was borderline. They didn't want to make that call be the decider, but they felt this was an obvious one? Yeah, I don't get it.

[PrezdeJohnson09]

I never minded the purple ones. But that orange … gag me.

How long has it been since Hobart had purple in their jersey? Taylor has seemingly tried to forget those were the school colors as they have featured white, orange and navy blue jerseys for at least 15 years or more now until they tightened the brand on them a couple years ago.

[Russell Jaslow]

How long has it been since Hobart had purple in their jersey? Taylor has seemingly tried to forget those were the school colors as they have featured white, orange and navy blue jerseys for at least 15 years or more now until they tightened the brand on them a couple years ago.

You got a point there.

But, there are ways to use Orange (Miami, Syracuse) ... and I'm not sure their way of using Orange is the proper way to use Orange. :-)

[Fishman'81]

I waited until it was brought up before I said anything. They looked like someone put chlorine bleach in the color wash.

Looked more like somebody just threw the bleach on it *after* the wash...(And a disturbing amount of it appeared to end-up on the Hobart breezers, with the bulk of it hurled at the terminus of their GI tracts... Ouch, that was a baaaad look.)

But, hey, if it works, I'm fine with it.

Go 'bart, bring that trophy back East.

[17'sfanNU]

Let's bring it back to reality and get a grip on things folks.

Krug doesn't call the penalty. The refs and the replay official do. Krug just asks for a challenge, which he has every right to do.

Whether it's a bad call is on the refs, not Krug.

And it's not like Krug asking for a challenge does not come with consequences. If he's wrong, he losses a timeout. Maybe not a big deal, but if he's wrong a second time, it's a delay of game penalty against him. Think about that. If this call did not go his way, he plays the rest of overtime knowing that if he challenges again, he could a risk a penalty against his team. It was a gamble asking for that challenge. One that paid off.

As for the call, it appears it was for the digging out the puck on the player lying on it. If that's the case, then I don't get it. (When that play was happening live, I immediately thought why aren't the refs blowing this dead? That was the major error to me.) And it's a horrible way to end the game, especially since they didn't call the major challenge at the end of regulation, when that was borderline. They didn't want to make that call be the decider, but they felt this was an obvious one? Yeah, I don't get it.

Thanks Russell for your input. I'm glad you also thought the whistle should have come almost immediately and I'm pretty sure the refs wish they had done that to avoid these controversies, real or imagined. I do think it was a horrendous way to end such an important game and wonder if there will be an investigation into it, either official or unofficial. There was, I believe, a review asked by UNE earlier in the game (end of the second period) that was about a potential major against Adrian. It looked like the play in question was about a cross check/boarding/hit from behind. The refs looked at the replay for quite awhile and then decided there was no infraction. I agreed with their decission even though it could have been a two minute minor. Calling it after the fact is so dicy. The NCAA broadcaster even mentioned that no ref wants to make a judgement on a questionable call during such an important game. In the replay of both reviews, I honestly think the boarding call was more apparent and deserving of the review than the spearing incident. I question why they decided to make the call in sudden death OT and not to call the other one? The consequence of scoring on a power play during regulation time still allows the offending team time to score another goal to tie or win the game. In sudden death...well, you get the picture. The refs really exposed themselves to criticism this game and I can understand why so many people are angry and suspicious about Adrian getting an unfair advantage. Even after the Adrian team cleaned up their act, this call thrusts them back into the negative limelight. I don't think they want that or are deserving of it. You are right, this one is solely the responsibility of the officials.

[Bartman]

How long has it been since Hobart had purple in their jersey? Taylor has seemingly tried to forget those were the school colors as they have featured white, orange and navy blue jerseys for at least 15 years or more now until they tightened the brand on them a couple years ago.

Good question as far as hockey jersey's, not sure. You're right about 5 years ago the purple was brought back as the long time, now retired AD seemed to allow navy blue to creep in (think Chicago Bears kinda colors) until recently when the old time original purple returned. Clemson colors are the closest to Hobart colors. The Football and hockey teams have embraced the full orange option although football has more mix and match options . The lacrosse, basketball, soccer teams have rejected the single color sartorial statement.

[17'sfanNU]

I just thought of a question about challenging a call or no call. I think I am correct in saying that these challenges only happen in tournament play because they is no way each arena/school can afford and maintain the video equipment. It would also slow the game down considerably. A coach can speak to the refs but there is no looking back and definitely no saying "whoops, we missed it". The refs are human by the way, and can and do make mistakes. Is it unfair to the teams to all of a sudden change the rules? Im not saying we should get rid of the tournament replays and reviews, but just as we saw Friday night, it changes the game. However, the change is equally felt by both teams, so there is no unfair advantage. Who can say with certainty that had no penalty been assessed, that Adrian would not have scored anyways. It all goes back to the officiating and consistency of making unbiased calls.
My opinion is that the refs should have made a no infraction decision just as they did on the boarding call. Be consistently consistent constantly! Hard to do especially when part of the job requires the refs to make judgements.

Can a coach challenge any play such as offsides, or does it have to be a penalty situation? If the review is for a penalty, can it be a 2 minute minor? As it pertains to the Adrian/UNE game could the spearing call and the boarding call just be minors? Again, the refs have to make a judgment as to whether there was intent to harm or commit the infraction. Tough job, one that I would not like to do.

Looking forward to Sunday's game. Rooting for Hobet to win because I think they played the best of all 4 teams in the semis Friday. Hoping for a good, clean game without controversies!

[MELIN27]

Thanks Russell for your input. I'm glad you also thought the whistle should have come almost immediately and I'm pretty sure the refs wish they had done that to avoid these controversies, real or imagined. I do think it was a horrendous way to end such an important game and wonder if there will be an investigation into it, either official or unofficial. There was, I believe, a review asked by UNE earlier in the game (end of the second period) that was about a potential major against Adrian. It looked like the play in question was about a cross check/boarding/hit from behind. The refs looked at the replay for quite awhile and then decided there was no infraction. I agreed with their decission even though it could have been a two minute minor. Calling it after the fact is so dicy. The NCAA broadcaster even mentioned that no ref wants to make a judgement on a questionable call during such an important game. In the replay of both reviews, I honestly think the boarding call was more apparent and deserving of the review than the spearing incident. I question why they decided to make the call in sudden death OT and not to call the other one? The consequence of scoring on a power play during regulation time still allows the offending team time to score another goal to tie or win the game. In sudden death...well, you get the picture. The refs really exposed themselves to criticism this game and I can understand why so many people are angry and suspicious about Adrian getting an unfair advantage. Even after the Adrian team cleaned up their act, this call thrusts them back into the negative limelight. I don't think they want that or are deserving of it. You are right, this one is solely the responsibility of the officials.

The officiating has definitely left a bad taste and coming after questionable reffing in the Adrian-WSP game it is hard to swallow. I hope the final has no controversy and that the NCAA follows up with a review of the calls.

[Bartman]

The wait is over. Looking forward to attending tonights Final and rooting on the Hobart Statesmen. This is exactly the position the Statesmen wanted to be in, to have a chance to win our first title against the defending Champion Adrian Bulldogs after they ended our run last year. Hoping the game will be played cleanly and with maximum skill and effort by all without controversy . "Raise the Orange and Purple high, Let us shame them never."....the entire Alma Mater can only be sung should the triumph be realized.Go Bart!

[dinocoach]

Let's bring it back to reality and get a grip on things folks.

Krug doesn't call the penalty. The refs and the replay official do. Krug just asks for a challenge, which he has every right to do.

Whether it's a bad call is on the refs, not Krug.

And it's not like Krug asking for a challenge does not come with consequences. If he's wrong, he losses a timeout. Maybe not a big deal, but if he's wrong a second time, it's a delay of game penalty against him. Think about that. If this call did not go his way, he plays the rest of overtime knowing that if he challenges again, he could a risk a penalty against his team. It was a gamble asking for that challenge. One that paid off.

As for the call, it appears it was for the digging out the puck on the player lying on it. If that's the case, then I don't get it. (When that play was happening live, I immediately thought why aren't the refs blowing this dead? That was the major error to me.) And it's a horrible way to end the game, especially since they didn't call the major challenge at the end of regulation, when that was borderline. They didn't want to make that call be the decider, but they felt this was an obvious one? Yeah, I don't get it.

Russell, perhaps you can enlighten this old soul. In both situations, the UNE challenge at the end of the 3rd and Adrian’s challenge in the OT were of non-calls. In both situations, the ref was watching the pay unfold in real time. Why is a coach able to challenge a judgement call of the ref? In both situations, they determined that no call was required. I can see if the ref called a minor and the coach would like to get the major, then you challenge, but to challenge a non-call?

There must be some sort of list of challengeable situations for coaches, right? Also, are you aware of any “enlightening” meetings with the officials in preparation for tonight’s game?

Thanks.

[17'sfanNU]

Dinocoach you are right, the UNE challenge was at the end of the third. I got confused, so many periods!


I like your point about the no call challenges. It certainly is questioning the judgement of the officials watching it live. No doubt that opens the door for controversies. Looking forward to an explanation from Russell or anyone with more rule knowledge than we do. At this point we'll keep the experts busy for awhile!

[17'sfanNU]

Go Hobart, make the east proud! If Norwich isn't playing, I'll cheer for the team representing the NEHC, and in this case, you truly deserved the NEHC title. You had an excellent season with out a doubt. In my opinion, Hobart in the finals just proves that the NEHC is one of the most competitive conference in the league. However, that may change in the future with more conferences like the CCC gaining strength. DIV 3 ain't what it used to be!

[Russell Jaslow]

I just thought of a question about challenging a call or no call. I think I am correct in saying that these challenges only happen in tournament play because they is no way each arena/school can afford and maintain the video equipment. It would also slow the game down considerably. A coach can speak to the refs but there is no looking back and definitely no saying "whoops, we missed it". The refs are human by the way, and can and do make mistakes. Is it unfair to the teams to all of a sudden change the rules? Im not saying we should get rid of the tournament replays and reviews, but just as we saw Friday night, it changes the game. However, the change is equally felt by both teams, so there is no unfair advantage. Who can say with certainty that had no penalty been assessed, that Adrian would not have scored anyways. It all goes back to the officiating and consistency of making unbiased calls.
My opinion is that the refs should have made a no infraction decision just as they did on the boarding call. Be consistently consistent constantly! Hard to do especially when part of the job requires the refs to make judgements.

Can a coach challenge any play such as offsides, or does it have to be a penalty situation? If the review is for a penalty, can it be a 2 minute minor? As it pertains to the Adrian/UNE game could the spearing call and the boarding call just be minors? Again, the refs have to make a judgment as to whether there was intent to harm or commit the infraction. Tough job, one that I would not like to do.

That challenge you mention earlier was at the end of the third. Which is why it was so important, because the major penalty would have carried into overtime.

There is a list of challengeable plays. I can’t remember all of them. For offsides, a challenge can only be made if it resulted in a goal. And of course, a challenge can be made concerning whether the puck did or did not cross the line.

A challenge can never be for a two minute penalty. If you challenge, the call can either be a major or nothing (remember Adrian-Geneseo last year?). Conversely, if a minor was called at the time, a challenge can only be for a major upgrade or keep the minor, they can’t negate the minor.

In D3, challenges are only used in the semifinals and final in all sports. In D1, it’s for all games.

Also, there is also a replay official "in the booth" somewhere. He assists in the review. I usually know who that is, but I don’t know if he is working in Endicott (last year, they had him do a D1 Regional instead of Lake Placid), so I don’t want to mention his name. Nonetheless, the next time I see him, I will certainly be asking him about this. :-)

[MELIN27]

OK, being picky here but I have been hearing, and now reading, people say "offsides." Is that a football term because in hockey I've only ever heard "offside."

[Russell Jaslow]

OK, being picky here but I have been hearing, and now reading, people say "offsides." Is that a football term because in hockey I've only ever heard "offside."

You're being picky...