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

[buoldtimer]

Even if he isn't he'll surely be back next year. You guys would know what your administration is like. Doesn't matter what a few diehard fans think. What would it take for the BU administration to pull the plug?

Wouldn't the issue turn on his contract status? I've never heard anything about the length of his contract. Overall, I'd say that until COVID has been resolved, the adm
inistration has far more pressing matters to address.

 

[kbz]

I thought BU had a nice start to this one. Sure the goal they got early to jump out to a lead was clearly offside but they were keeping SCSU to the outside and limiting grade A chances. SCSU didn't look that great to be honest through 20 mins and even a good way through the 2nd. Even on the major kill they kept the shots to reasonable distance and let Commesso see the shots and boxed out any potential rebounders and sticks (not sure why the announcers were going so crazy over the 9 saves, all seemed easy for Commesso except the glove save jam at the post). It seemed like SCSU needed a good bounce. They got it, in one of the weirdest goals I've ever seen, and then BU unraveled. Some teams wait a full 60 for a good bounce and never get it.

I'll be honest, seeing BU mismanage the puck has me worried BC will do the same tomorrow. And BC is well-known this season for their horrific puck management so we're going to be in for a wild one tomorrow.

So St. Cloud clearly was the better team and deserved to win. Odd that in a 6-2 loss I don't know if Commesso can be blamed for any goal. First off, the BU offsides goal was offsides but the call was correct. Why? Because of the "North Dakota" rule. Remember when chubby Charlie McAvoy scored in OT on a feed from Clayton Keller to beat North Dakota in Fargo? That happened after a ND goal was reversed due to offsides. The rule changed after that game such that if the defending team gains control of the puck (I think kind of like the control that would cause the whistle on a delayed penalty), then the offsides is negated. The St. Cloud player had control of the puck which Cockerill stole. Since he had control, offsides is waived off. The problem is the two ESPN guys don't know the rule (which is different than the NHL). I actually think it is a rule the NHL should adopt.

First St. Cloud goal was fluky.

Second St. Cloud goal was a double deflection but that was before the linesman kept the puck in the zone accidentally on the BU clear (it happens).

Third goal great pass from behind net, no chance for Commesso. Can't remember if that's the goal that Jarman (i think) fanned on the clear or whether that was the first one.

Fourth goal I actually may blame Commesso. Before the penalty watching live I thought that Commesso should have come out to clear the puck. There was plenty of distance so I can see why he didn't come out. Perhaps he didn't think that Farrance and Cockerill would take their sweet time getting back. Can't blame someone for giving up a penalty shot.

Fifth goal he made the save to the opposite direction and the d-man got beat to the puck. Even though he made the save where he supposed to, maybe that ones on him.

Sixth goal was a deflection.

So BU gave up six goals and not sure I can blame Commesso for any. He kept them in it.

Peterson with an incredibly stupid penalty. While it didn't seem like there was an intent to injure, I can't complain with the 5-minute call.

Absolutely dreadful 5-min PP by BU.

Overall, they didn't show up. Unfortunately this is the BU team i've come to expect.

Despite Albie, they have two good goalies which will keep them in games so they should be over .500 next year and contend for tourney. Shouldn't lose anyone early and if they do they are easily replaceable. I could see Vlasic leaving (mistake), O'Brien too (mistake).

 

[Rover]

Wouldn't the issue turn on his contract status? I've never heard anything about the length of his contract. Overall, I'd say that until COVID has been resolved, the adm
inistration has far more pressing matters to address.

That's a good point. I can't picture a first time head coach getting more than 5 years and he's already p!ssed away 3 of them. If we have the same season next year BU has to 1) extend his contract, 2) let him coach as a lame duck in year 5, or 3) fire him and hire a real coach. Tremendous pressure on double wide next season.

 

[defkit]

A disappointing end to a season that started with a lot of promise but inexplicably went south in a very bad way. In a way the game itself was a mirror image of the season.

- I disagreed with the major on Peterson. On replay, the SCSU player was sideways to the boards until the last second before being hit. I didn't mind a minor penalty as a compromise, but I didn't think it deserved a major at tall.
- I don't quite understand kbz's explanation of why the BU goal stood, but there was clearly a freeze frame that showed half the puck still on the line and Cockerill's skate completely over it. The announcers didn't help by focusing so much on the back skate. Yes it was elevated so the front skate is what we are all looking at...
- I thought the controversial SCSU goal absolutely should have been called back. Their guy clearly kicked it towards the net, and while he tried to get his stick on it to push it in, one angle clearly showed that his stick only hit Commesso's pad, not the puck.

What we saw in the second half of the season and this game absolutely creates serious questions about this coaching staff. Watching teams like Lowell, Bemidgi and UMass - these are teams that are being coached on how to play the game as a team. They clearly have designed forechecks, back checks, supporting the puck, etc. BU literally looks like a pick-up game. Half the time someone is trying to do things on their own and turning it over (Fensore and even Farrance especially), the other half of the time they are trying to make plays but since it doesn't look designed, it rarely works. I feel like the coaches just rely on the skill of the team to hopefully get it done. The team was outshot virtually every game this season. They were terrible on face-offs. That five minute Power Play was utterly embarrassing. (Ironically, I was actually glad when they called a penalty shot versus a two minute minor, because I figured it's probably 70/30 Commesso makes a save, and I'd rather have the full time on the Major PP - boy was I wrong). These are not signs of a well coached team.

Best of luck to the seniors/transfers. Cockerill, Witkowski, Farrance, Kaufman, Campolieto

 

[defkit]

So St. Cloud clearly was the better team and deserved to win. Odd that in a 6-2 loss I don't know if Commesso can be blamed for any goal. First off, the BU offsides goal was offsides but the call was correct. Why? Because of the "North Dakota" rule. Remember when chubby Charlie McAvoy scored in OT on a feed from Clayton Keller to beat North Dakota in Fargo? That happened after a ND goal was reversed due to offsides. The rule changed after that game such that if the defending team gains control of the puck (I think kind of like the control that would cause the whistle on a delayed penalty), then the offsides is negated. The St. Cloud player had control of the puck which Cockerill stole. Since he had control, offsides is waived off. The problem is the two ESPN guys don't know the rule (which is different than the NHL). I actually think it is a rule the NHL should adopt.

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.

 

[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 jackass.

 

[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.