Wisconsin Women's Hockey 2022-2023

[robertearle]

Great to see Wisconsin finally score some goals in transition.

When you get to February, freshmen aren't freshmen anymore?

(Simms' five minute penalty notwithstanding)

 

[Hockeybuckeye]

We put you into first, now let's take you back out.

We'll see. (Wink)

 

[robertearle]

Lots of hockey left to be played, but the win tonight moves Wisconsin up to #5 in the NPI/Pairwise. And 5th means no 'first round' game against #9, 10 or 11. And it maybe moves out of the "vs Minnesota or Ohio State" and into a match vs Colgate instead.

(Of course, being #6 maybe means a first round game vs LUI or other NEWHA team...)

 

[Still Eeyore]

O'Brien being checked into the boards should have been a five minute, like the cross-check delivered by Simms was.

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.

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.

That was followed by the cluster**** of the diving penalty. I'd have had no problem with them giving Murphy two for embellishment a few seconds earlier, but the actual call was ridiculous, followed by a three minute meeting to figure out how to extricate themselves from the hole they'd dug themselves into. Shortly after that, Wisconsin brought the puck into the zone, and took a shot that got deflected into the netting. The ref blew the whistle and then the Gopher net came off its pegs. The ref didn't let Minnesota make a line change, which would have been the right call if the play had been stopped for the Gophers causing the net to come off. But that's not what the whistle was for.

The officials completely lost the plot. Greg Shepherd was sitting eight feet from me, and I really wanted to ask that he hire some refs that know what they are doing.

 

[robertearle]

I can't find the game archived on BTN+, presumably because it was on BTN, to get another look.

A regular occurrence during volleyball season. The 'rule' is if it's on regular BTN, it doesn't show up on BTN-plus until the next day sometime. I don't know if it's just overnight or a full 24 hours or some such, but it will be there sometime tomorrow or Monday.

 

[Timothy A]

I didn't think the penalty against O'Brien was a 5 minute because she was closer to the boards than the gopher was when simms hit her. I would say The Simms hit was a lot more dangerous. It was shocking that ludwig wasn't reffing this weekend. Not that it would have mattered Other than he would have been the lead guy and Bradshaw would have probably deferred to him As in don't call anything.

 

[Timothy A]

Lots of hockey left to be played, but the win tonight moves Wisconsin up to #5 in the NPI/Pairwise. And 5th means no 'first round' game against #9, 10 or 11. And it maybe moves out of the "vs Minnesota or Ohio State" and into a match vs Colgate instead.

(Of course, being #6 maybe means a first round game vs LUI or other NEWHA team...)

So worst case thinking if we get no wins next weekend how does that affect our position?

 

[robertearle]

So worst case thinking if we get no wins next weekend how does that affect our position?

First, going the other way, if they win out including the WCHA tournament, there's still a pretty good chance they could catch Colgate for #4 and get home ice, though that would probably take a Colgate loss to Yale or other in the ECAC tournament. We'll get a much better idea when Grant's predictor with the nice interface goes live next week (?).

Otherwise, the top four are pretty locked in - Ohio State, Yale, Minn, Colgate in some order. Then the next three and maybe four are also pretty set - UW, Northeastern, Quinnipiac, with Duluth trailing. If things went bad for UW - losses next week and in the WCHA semi, they would slip to 7th and maybe even 8th. It would take a pair of losses to St Cloud/Mankato to go down any farther, and they still might hold on to 8th in that case. Because the gap from #8 down to #9 and 10 Penn State and Clarkson is pretty huge.

Even with a couple conference tournament upset winners, the top eight are going to make the NCAAs. The teams really sweating it will be Clarkson and Penn State; Penn State likely needs to win their tournament, and Clarkson needs no upset winners.

More directly and immediately, the answer to your question is two losses next week would pretty much negate the good this weekend did; four tough games off the schedule and 'safely' in 7th place in the NPI and 7 or 8 in the Pairwise (UW could be #7 in the NPI and still lose the Pairwise comparison to Duluth, because of head-to-head losses; it's really close).

 

[Hockeybuckeye]

So worst case thinking if we get no wins next weekend how does that affect our position?

Seems like it was not too many years ago you guys wouldn't mention or even think it possible to lose to Ohio State.
Fear the Muzinator!

 

[robertearle]

A regular occurrence during volleyball season. The 'rule' is if it's on regular BTN, it doesn't show up on BTN-plus until the next day sometime. I don't know if it's just overnight or a full 24 hours or some such, but it will be there sometime tomorrow or Monday.

The replay is up on BTN-Plus.

(It may be one to copy to the hard drive.

 

[Still Eeyore]

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.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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."

 

[Still Eeyore]

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.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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.

 

[Hockeybuckeye]

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.

 

[Lindsay]

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

 

[pgb-ohio]

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.

 

[robertearle]

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.

 

[pgb-ohio]

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.

 

[Timothy A]

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.