USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2021 NCAA Championship: No. 1 Northeastern Huskies vs. No. 2 Wisconsin Badgers
- Thread starter D2D
- Start date
Agreed. Nice play but not intentional.
robertearle
Well-known member
Why would she lie?
slapshot willy
New member
Hey a goal’s a goal. Good or bad, planned or not planned. But as a player don’t say you saw the goalie in the butterfly and banked it off her intentionally when that’s not what happened. It didn’t even touch Frankel.
She was trying to saucer the puck to #6 who clearly was signalling for the puck and it accidentally hit #27 from NE and went in.
She was trying to saucer the puck to #6 who clearly was signalling for the puck and it accidentally hit #27 from NE and went in.
robertearle
Well-known member
Once more, why would she lie?
She's says in the interview five minutes after that it's kind of a blur, etc. Would you be happy if instead of 'the goalie', she had said "I tried to bank it off that white jersey in front of me"?
She says she was going for a bank shot. She got a bank shot. Why would she lie? Why do you insist on disbelieving her?
WHY WOULD SHE LIE?!?
The drama and mystery makes it even better. Seems kind of high for a saucer pass? But also 27 wasn’t quite there to bank it off at time of release? If it didn’t hit 27 was it leaving the zone altogether? Why did that fan in the replay have his mask on his forehead?
It’s funny because we fight about it no matter what. When Giguere scored in OT 3 years ago there was debate about something then too. Its
great.
It’s funny because we fight about it no matter what. When Giguere scored in OT 3 years ago there was debate about something then too. Its
great.
TitleIXHockey
Golden Knight
I would imagine it was whether there should have been a tripping call had she not scored.
As someone who does not like Wisconsin, I am all for Watts saying weird stuff and adding to the mystique.
Oh come on, it was did Giguere hold the defenders stick, lol. But certainly marveled at her ability to recover and then bury it.
I'm with you. I believe Darryl Watts. (Regular Smilie Here)
What's more, why is attempting a bank shot so hard to believe? Before this conversation, I'd have said anyone who's ever played forward would have tried a bank shot at some point. OK, it's a low percentage play. More of a pick-up game thing. But sometimes it works.
Usually you are trying to bank it off a goalie. A goalie who's late getting to the post. But another player could work just as well.
Also, maybe you're not counting on the puck banking directly into the net. Creating a chaotic loose puck in the slot is also a good play.
Combining the replay with the interview, I believe that "banking it off that white jersey in front of me" is exactly what happened.
Last edited:
Hockeybuckeye
Well-known member
I don't think we should attempt to judge if Watts was truthful or not on her statement about the goal. There's no possible way for us to know so I think the ethical thing to do is to take her at her word otherwise we would be smirching her character over one statement.
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
Seems like maybe DW should have just said...I made a play and got lucky...That would be right out of the athlete book of cliches and then it wouldn't be over-analysed
I rewatched the OT last night just for fun. It was a great OT. Chances galore prior to the goal. Very poignant moment when the players were lined up on the blue line post game. All the NU players had arms by their side except for on the end. On the end 19 on NU put her arm around 27, and then 27 put her arm around 19. So sweet. What a great game, great teams and production. They set the bar high for worlds, where I honestly don’t know what to expect.
Lots of good perspectives here. It's definitely important to keep in mind that this is sports banter, not a criminal perjury trial. And of course it's true that giving a vanilla answer to avoid controversy is often the right call.
But while I respect all of the above comments, I still say it's a fun hockey question. I do believe how you feel about the play depends on whether you are a forward or a defender at heart.
For the D, you're just trying to take away the centering pass, like you'd try to take away any passing lane. You're just doing your job. Should the puck bank in off you, you understandably want to dam# the freakishly bad luck. But as a forward, it's a play you try on the odd occasion. Once in a blue moon, it works. And of course if such play decides a national title, those emotions are greatly amplified.
But while I respect all of the above comments, I still say it's a fun hockey question. I do believe how you feel about the play depends on whether you are a forward or a defender at heart.
For the D, you're just trying to take away the centering pass, like you'd try to take away any passing lane. You're just doing your job. Should the puck bank in off you, you understandably want to dam# the freakishly bad luck. But as a forward, it's a play you try on the odd occasion. Once in a blue moon, it works. And of course if such play decides a national title, those emotions are greatly amplified.
robertearle
Well-known member
If it were, her five-minutes-after TV interview would qualify as an "excited utterance" which would carry an "indicia of truth".
Seriously? The difference between I was trying to pass it and got a lucky bounce versus I am so awesome that I saw this ridiculous play and was able to strategically bounce it off the defenders skate at precisely the perfect angle for it to bounce in for the championship winning goal.
robertearle
Well-known member
Yes, seriously. And you did not answer the question. I understand you think you did, but you didn't. A Patty Kaz winner who might well win a second doesn't need to 'embellish' to try to impress anyone.
WHY would she lie?
I am not trying to besmirch her. Don't know her and she is probably very nice. I am just answering Robertearle's question with my opinion and some additional information that leads me in that direction. I cannot say one way or the other definitively.
FredsDeadFriend
New member
Thought you'd like this ballot since it's very pro-WCHA. Everyone here said the committee got it right when they put UMD in when they played so well. I think we must also admit they got it right by leaving Minnesota out, so I did as well.
Also I submit to The Ice Garden.
No one with any sense or knowledge of women's hockey is going to "admit they got it right" by leaving Minnesota out. In fact, quite the opposite. UMD's showing proved the opposite of what you think it did. Minnesota easily swept UMD. UMn also beat Frozen Four team OSU two times as well, and outscored them in their 6 meetings. What did NE do that UMn didn't do? Go on, tell me? UMn beat all the unranked teams it played, and by significant margins, NE can't even make that claim, can they? NE lost to UW in overtime? Whoopdeedoo, UMn did the same thing in it's last regular season matchup with UW, along with getting a tie vs UW as well, and NE also got an OT win over UMD? Again, Whoopdeedoo, UMn swept UMD, and it never took them going into OT to do it, either. What did OSU do in the tourney that UMn didn't do in the regular season? They lost to UW by 2 in the Semis. UMn lost to UW by 2 in the Semis of the WCHA tourney. What did Colgate do that UMn didn't do? They lost to UMD, UMn never did. What about BC, they lost to OSU by 2. 5 of UMn's 6 games vs OSU were 2 blow out wins by UMn and 3 one goal losses. Took 6 tries for OSU to get a multi goal win vs UMn, but they still got outscored by the Gophers. UMD may have deserved to get in, but UMn deserved it more. More than Providence for sure, more than BC would be my assessment, and more than UMD by any intelligent way of factoring it.
I'll grant that the East has gained some ground, mostly via stocking up Clarkson's roster with Canadians, but the West has gained as well, no longer being the 2 + the rest league it once was before UW emerged, or even the 3 + the rest. It's now got 4 legit tourney worthy teams.
Just looking at the conferences records vs the WCHA in the NCAA tournament, tells us alot. NE's OT win over a UMD team Minnesota easily swept during the season was Hockey East's first ever win vs a WCHA team in NCAA tourney history, by my count.
HE vs WCHA in NCAA tourney = 1-20.
CHA vs WCHA in NCAA tourney = 1-9.
ECAC vs WCHA in NCAA tourney = 10-25.
In total, the WCHA vs the rest of the country in NCAA tourney action = 54-12.
WCHA's opponents have only outscored the WCHA in NCAA tourney action ONCE, back in 2003, by a whopping goal differential of 15 goals to 12.
9 times the WCHA outscored their non-WCHA tourney opponents by at least a 2 to 1 goal margin.
And of course there is the most obvious, the 18 Titles won by WCHA compared to 3 for the ECAC, and 0 for HE & CHA.
All despite the NCAA's either purposeful, or accidental, or situational positioning the WCHA, as a whole, at a competitive disadvantage in comparison to both the ECAC and the HE, in one way or another. Not claiming it has to be a conspiracy involving nefarious forces, it could be purely coincidental and/or just how the chips fell, or it could have been well intentioned, "for the good of women's hockey"? Or, the evidence clearly suggests, it also could have possibly been a nefarious conspiracy. If there were more money involved I'd believe the latter, but my guess is it's more a combination of just how the chips fell combined with some so-called well intentioned actions/decisions made for the good of women's hockey as a whole. Either way, what the WCHA has accomplished, against the odds, should never be disrespected the way it is by some. No need for parades or song and dance or unadultered praise from the masses when a mere acknowledgement would suffice.
And just a little advice, before anyone goes and makes a fool of themselves, I've already done the research proving the disadvantages that went against the WCHA and went in favor of the ECAC and HE and will post that evidence later today.