Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wisconsin Women's Hockey 2022-2023

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

  • Originally posted by Still Eeyore View Post
    Watching it live, I thought that it could have been a major, though I didn't think it was a stretch for the ref to decide that it was from the side. I can't find the game archived on BTN+, presumably because it was on BTN, to get another look. I'd note that Mark Johnson could have requested a review, and chose not to, so I'm not the only one who thought that it wasn't clear cut.
    Having now watched it, my take is fairly nuanced. It's a check that I very much want to be called a checking from behind major. However, it's also a check that WCHA refs never call as a major. They are unconscionably lax in enforcing the checking from behind rule.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Still Eeyore View Post

      The Simms hit was absolutely from behind, against a player bent at the waist who went headfirst into the boards. That they needed to go to video review on that was an embarrassment. And then they botched the rule by not giving her a game misconduct.
      My reading of the New Rule 50 is that a Hitting From Behind Major does NOT require a Game Misconduct. Assessing a 5 minute penalty and leaving it at that is now an option within the rule.

      If you're questioning judgment, and saying that no reasonable person could differ with the need for the misconduct call, then you have every right to that opinion. But they did not "botch the rule."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by pgb-ohio View Post
        My reading of the New Rule 50 is that a Hitting From Behind Major does NOT require a Game Misconduct. Assessing a 5 minute penalty and leaving it at that is now an option within the rule.
        I'm not sure how you arrive at this interpretation. I posted the text of Rule 50 in the Minnesota thread. It gives the referee discretion as to whether to assign a game misconduct or game disqualification (the distinction being that the latter comes with a one game suspension) on a check from behind into the boards. It does not allow for discretion in whether or not to eject the player from the current game. Rather, it lays out a specific action that can lead to a major penalty without a game misconduct. That criterion wasn't met on the play in question. It wasn't at all close to being met.

        What Rule 50 says is: "When a player receiving contact turns their body to create contact from behind into the side boards, end boards or goal cage, a major penalty may be assessed." Wethington did not turn her body at all. It then gives guidance for calling a major only. The first bit of guidance does not apply, because it refers to the offending player attempting to deliver a "full body check" that unavoidably becomes a check from behind. Simms never intended to deliver a full body check. It was a cross-check pure and simple. The second piece of guidance stipulates that the checked player materially altered their body position, which, again, Wethington did not do.

        Rule 50 mandated that Simms get tossed from the game. Bradshaw and Binkley did not follow the rule.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Still Eeyore View Post

          I'm not sure how you arrive at this interpretation. I posted the text of Rule 50 in the Minnesota thread. It gives the referee discretion as to whether to assign a game misconduct or game disqualification (the distinction being that the latter comes with a one game suspension) on a check from behind into the boards. It does not allow for discretion in whether or not to eject the player from the current game. Rather, it lays out a specific action that can lead to a major penalty without a game misconduct. That criterion wasn't met on the play in question. It wasn't at all close to being met.

          What Rule 50 says is: "When a player receiving contact turns their body to create contact from behind into the side boards, end boards or goal cage, a major penalty may be assessed." Wethington did not turn her body at all. It then gives guidance for calling a major only. The first bit of guidance does not apply, because it refers to the offending player attempting to deliver a "full body check" that unavoidably becomes a check from behind. Simms never intended to deliver a full body check. It was a cross-check pure and simple. The second piece of guidance stipulates that the checked player materially altered their body position, which, again, Wethington did not do.

          Rule 50 mandated that Simms get tossed from the game. Bradshaw and Binkley did not follow the rule.
          Upfront, let me acknowledge that you have been consistent in your concern for player safety. I applaud you for that. I am only focusing on what the rule allows vs. what the rule mandates. Here's how I'm reading the new rule:

          1. In the 21/22 Rule Book, two rules mandated that an offender get tossed from the game. Rule 45.1 (Contact To The Head) and Rule 50. (Hitting From Behind) In both cases, the only choice was between the Game Misconduct or a DQ.

          2. The 23/24 Rule Book was changed to allow a "5 Minute Major Only" as an option for both rules. No more mandatory tossing. Further penalties are now at the discretion of the referees, again for both rules.

          3. The language you cite is labeled as "guidance" in both cases. In Rule 45.1, very similar language is labeled as "considerations." My reading is that this explanatory material does not limit referee discretion. Put another way, there's nothing in the text to suggest that the rule change is limited to these two specific scenarios. The scenarios "ought" to be taken into account, but that is not required. Advice, Not a Mandate.

          4. I have no inside information as to what the Rules Committee intended, so of course I could be wrong as to their intent. But if the intent was to make a narrow change, strictly limited to 2 scenarios, why have the guidance and considerations labels? Why not delete the labels and give the 2 scenarios the force of a rule?

          5. Perhaps there's a loose analogy between the "Disciplinary Rules" and the "Ethical Considerations" that the legal profession uses.


          My reading of your position is that actual play in question was so different from scenarios described in the book, that no reasonable referee would take advantage of the rule change. That is an honorable position. But it is a factual claim. Your evaluation of the play may very well be the best one. But it's still your judgment against the ref's judgment.

          IMHO.

          Comment


          • No disrespect to you Eeyore but I've found over the years Mr.PGB has been very insightful in his posts. I feel he's correct in his application of the rules but I also appreciate your opinion as well. Each sharing our thoughts and counterpoints is what we're here for on forum.

            Comment


            • Is next weekends games going to be on tv, anyone know?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hockeybuckeye View Post
                No disrespect to you Eeyore but I've found over the years Mr.PGB has been very insightful in his posts. I feel he's correct in his application of the rules but I also appreciate your opinion as well. Each sharing our thoughts and counterpoints is what we're here for on forum.
                I appreciate the vote of confidence. At the same time, let's not forget that Eeyore has provided lots of helpful information over the years.


                Ultimately this is a pretty technical issue. Suddenly the rulemakers are using terms like "Guidance" and "Considerations" without really defining them.

                Note that in Rule 94.1 (Body Checking) that Rule includes "Examples." I would think that Examples would allow for relatively less discretion, while Considerations would allow for relatively more discretion.

                Also note that when the rulemakers want to remove discretion altogether, they can and do say "MUST." In all caps, no less. That appears in the Interpretations Section for Rule 93. (Video Replay - Major Penalty Review) Look under "Protocol/Guidance."

                Here's to hoping we get some clarification on this in the next rules cycle.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lindsay View Post
                  Is next weekends games going to be on tv, anyone know?
                  For the moment at least, the UW web site says only BTN-Plus. There is also a UW radio call of the game Sunday that will be available for free across the internet on iHeart radio. Unlikely that anyone will "add" a TV option at this point.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by robertearle View Post

                    For the moment at least, the UW web site says only BTN-Plus. There is also a UW radio call of the game Sunday that will be available for free across the internet on iHeart radio. Unlikely that anyone will "add" a TV option at this point.
                    The OSU website also indicates BTN+, but nothing more. Saturday at 4:00PM Eastern & Sunday at 3:00PM Eastern.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by robertearle View Post
                      For the moment at least, the UW web site says only BTN-Plus. There is also a UW radio call of the game Sunday that will be available for free across the internet on iHeart radio. Unlikely that anyone will "add" a TV option at this point.
                      BTN-Plus is really an excellent option. Yes the video and commentary can be low quality, but its way better than nothing, especially on the heels of whoever is doing UW's twitter feed like barely tweeting anything at all. They used to be way more active on twitter years ago.

                      I notice way less printed free tickets in the windows at the entrances these days, a victim of the digital tickets. I didn't think I'd like that, but after the pain in the butt downloading very convenient. I just need to figure out how to forward a digital ticket.
                      Wisconsin Hockey: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 WE WANT MORE!
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
                      "Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
                      Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Timothy A View Post
                        I just need to figure out how to forward a digital ticket.
                        If you go to the "My Account" section of the UW Ticketing site, there's a "Transfer" link. From there, it's basically as easy as picking the tickets to transfer and putting in the other person's email or phone number.

                        I'm actually surprised in this era of digital ticketing at how many tickets I still see in the windows, although it's certainly more "print at home" tickets these days. I know robertearle mentioned tickets being hung on the Kohl Center side, but I usually come in from the west, and they get hung up there too.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nowheresville View Post
                          I'm actually surprised in this era of digital ticketing at how many tickets I still see in the windows, although it'snto certainly more "print at home" tickets these days.
                          According to Duluth's ticket office my Frozen Four tickets are in the mail. I don't think they had a print at home option when I purchased them online but the did offer the choice of downloading them digitally to my phone. I like that I can still get real tickets. FF tickets will go inyo my collection of hockey memorabilia.
                          My men's hockey tickets are digital and transferable in the same manner as Wisconsin's.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Timothy A View Post

                            BTN-Plus is really an excellent option. Yes the video and commentary can be low quality, but its way better than nothing, especially on the heels of whoever is doing UW's twitter feed like barely tweeting anything at all. They used to be way more active on twitter years ago.

                            I notice way less printed free tickets in the windows at the entrances these days, a victim of the digital tickets. I didn't think I'd like that, but after the pain in the butt downloading very convenient. I just need to figure out how to forward a digital ticket.
                            At my day job, we went from paper tickets to a plastic card (like a card one might use at a grocery store.....one card is credit card sized with the seat number on it and two others that are key chain sized with out the numbers on them). To the best of my knowledge there are not digital tickets. So....it is very hard to "give" tickets to someone else as they would need the physical card to get into the gate. As a result is appears that attendance has been reduced (I won't say severely, but it is quite noticeable).

                            Interesting that it seemed to be Wisconsin night on BTN+ on Saturday with wrestling followed by men's basketball, followed by men's hockey, followed by women's hockey. Well, some of the results were good!
                            2016-2017 ECAC West Pick 'em Champion
                            2013-2014 SUNYAC Pick 'em Champion
                            2012-2013 NCHAMIACMCHA Pick 'em Champion
                            2003-2004 SUNYAC Pick 'em Champion
                            2004 Recipient of “The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Hockey”’s Punxsutawney Phil Award for Outstanding Prognostication.
                            2005-2018 Administrator of ECAC West Pick 'em & UCHC Pick 'em, the original D-III pick'em game; RIP
                            2009 D-III TOP runner-up
                            Wisconsin Hockey - NCAA Men's National Champions
                            1973, 1977, 1981*, 1983*, 1990, 2006

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nowheresville View Post

                              If you go to the "My Account" section of the UW Ticketing site, there's a "Transfer" link. From there, it's basically as easy as picking the tickets to transfer and putting in the other person's email or phone number.

                              I'm actually surprised in this era of digital ticketing at how many tickets I still see in the windows, although it's certainly more "print at home" tickets these days. I know robertearle mentioned tickets being hung on the Kohl Center side, but I usually come in from the west, and they get hung up there too.
                              Thanks.. My kids told me to screenshot the tickets and then text them the screenshots so that's what I did. Shockingly neither of them have Google wallet or something similar that I use to hold my tickets in.

                              Also shocking is the antiquated way you get your child's name on the jumbotron for her birthday. You have to fill out a form 5 days at advance and mail it and a check for 25 bucks to do it. No exceptions. This is really irritating. My wife's gonna call them tomorrow and see if she can't make it happen. It's a digital age for heavens sake.
                              Wisconsin Hockey: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 WE WANT MORE!
                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Come to the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Originally Posted by Wisko McBadgerton:
                              "Baggot says Hughes and Rockwood are centering the top two lines...
                              Timothy A --> Great hockey mind... Or Greatest hockey mind?!?"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Timothy A View Post

                                Thanks.. My kids told me to screenshot the tickets and then text them the screenshots so that's what I did. Shockingly neither of them have Google wallet or something similar that I use to hold my tickets in.
                                I don't know how your digital tickets work but the barcode on ours has a blue line that floats left & right over the barcode which somehow authenticated the digital tickets as genuine. Like the holographic strip in a paper ticket to foil copying. A screenshot of our tickets won't work with our ticket scanners at the doors. If you want to transfer one of ours it has to be done electronically.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X