What's new
By:
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.

Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

Carmine Scarpaglia said:
Have you seen a replay of this yet? It was textbook embellishment. The guys on tv were making fun of Noonan so bad for the dive.

They got that one right. There should be no doubts about that.
Click to expand...

I've written it before, and I will stick with my belief. Calling an embellishment on a penalty is a stupid rule. If it is a penalty, call the penalty. If it is not a penalty, then it can embellishment, and call it. One or the other, not both.
Having officials making judgements of intent, when there is an actual penalty, is not a position they should be put in.

The other worrying trend lately is referees anticipating penalties, raising their arms before anything actually happens, and nothing happens except an innocent player heading to the box.

The quality of officiating is so far behind the quality of play league-wide that it is a real shame. The ECAC isn't much different.
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

Harry Cleverly said:
I've written it before, and I will stick with my belief. Calling an embellishment on a penalty is a stupid rule. If it is a penalty, call the penalty. If it is not a penalty, then it can embellishment, and call it. One or the other, not both.
Having officials making judgements of intent, when there is an actual penalty, is not a position they should be put in.

The other worrying trend lately is referees anticipating penalties, raising their arms before anything actually happens, and nothing happens except an innocent player heading to the box.

The quality of officiating is so far behind the quality of play league-wide that it is a real shame. The ECAC isn't much different.
Click to expand...

Nope, you would wrong here. When a ref sees someone making a marginal cross check to the back....and its followed up an obnoxiously obvious dive, he's got to call them both. If he calls just the cross check that really isnt one to start with and ignores the dive its a joke. If he calls just the dive, he gets 5 earfuls from Jackie for not calling the "cross check". Its the simple, safe and only call you'll see the ref ever make.

All you people saying its got to be one or the other simply dont see the whole picture.
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

So heard Privitera's injury wasn't as serious as it could've been (doesn't require surgery). Yay for that?
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

Bumbles said:
So heard Privitera's injury wasn't as serious as it could've been (doesn't require surgery). Yay for that?
Click to expand...

Word is fractured wrist, 4 weeks, so maybe the NU series? Nicastro is day to day with his shoulder.
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

brassbonanza said:
Word is fractured wrist, 4 weeks, so maybe the NU series? Nicastro is day to day with his shoulder.
Click to expand...

4 weeks would be great but I wouldn't be surprised if it took somewhat longer, especially if it's his dominant shooting wrist.

Hopefully Nicastro can go by Friday, I don't see us beating Merrimack running the same lineup we had yesterday.
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

acs64 said:
Nope, you would wrong here. When a ref sees someone making a marginal cross check to the back....and its followed up an obnoxiously obvious dive, he's got to call them both. If he calls just the cross check that really isnt one to start with and ignores the dive its a joke. If he calls just the dive, he gets 5 earfuls from Jackie for not calling the "cross check". Its the simple, safe and only call you'll see the ref ever make.

All you people saying its got to be one or the other simply dont see the whole picture.
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that embellishment when there is a penalty being called is a stupid rule.
That is my opinion. You can disagree with my opinion, and make your own points. But you can't tell me that I am wrong, just like I won't tell you that you are wrong. Just that we disagree.

The embellishment call in the Rangers - Flyers outdoor game, when the fouled player would have had a breakaway with an empty net is another example of why it is a stupid rule. Why would a would go down in that situation unless he was brought down. There is no other reason. But because the referee is asked to judge intent, and in this his his judgement was so wrong, shows why he shoudn't even be asked to make that judgement. Just make the **** call.

The more cut and dry you can make it for the officials, the higher level of officiating we'll get. The more judgement, and particularly judgement of intent, you add into the equation, the more inconsistency and lower level of officiating we'll get.
Right now, the level is pretty low.
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

Harry Cleverly said:
It is my opinion that embellishment when there is a penalty being called is a stupid rule.
That is my opinion. You can disagree with my opinion, and make your own points. But you can't tell me that I am wrong, just like I won't tell you that you are wrong. Just that we disagree.
Click to expand...

Nope, you are still wrong.
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

Carmine Scarpaglia said:
[/b]

As I posted on the Maine thread. Learn the rules. You fanboys are hilarious. You're the greatest fans in the world because you wear jerseys but don't even know the rules. OK.

[/b]
Click to expand...

No doubt that is the rule as it reads, but honestly how many times have you ever seen a slash called when no contact is made?
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

Harry Cleverly said:
The quality of officiating is so far behind the quality of play league-wide that it is a real shame. The ECAC isn't much different.
Click to expand...

This.

It really is a joke night in and night out. The fact that Bertanga puts his head in the sand and trots out the same idiots with the same result every year is insulting.
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

I know that Cisse was benched for indifferent play, of late. However, he was dressed and epoxied to the bench for the first period. He was nowhere to be found for the third period. Does anyone know what transpired?
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

Harry Cleverly said:
It is my opinion that embellishment when there is a penalty being called is a stupid rule.
That is my opinion. You can disagree with my opinion, and make your own points. But you can't tell me that I am wrong, just like I won't tell you that you are wrong. Just that we disagree.

The embellishment call in the Rangers - Flyers outdoor game, when the fouled player would have had a breakaway with an empty net is another example of why it is a stupid rule. Why would a would go down in that situation unless he was brought down. There is no other reason. But because the referee is asked to judge intent, and in this his his judgement was so wrong, shows why he shoudn't even be asked to make that judgement. Just make the **** call.

The more cut and dry you can make it for the officials, the higher level of officiating we'll get. The more judgement, and particularly judgement of intent, you add into the equation, the more inconsistency and lower level of officiating we'll get.
Right now, the level is pretty low.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I agree with you.
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

buoldtimer said:
I know that Cisse was benched for indifferent play, of late. However, he was dressed and epoxied to the bench for the first period. He was nowhere to be found for the third period. Does anyone know what transpired?
Click to expand...

Someone might want to check with the BC hockey blogger before heading over to the Freep. He'll probably have the scoop before they do... just sayin...
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

Harry Cleverly said:
Agganis will never be able to duplicate the atmosphere at Walter Brown, which had the low metal roof to hold all of the noise in. Even if 6,300 people individually made the same noise that 3,700 could make at WBA, it wouldn't be as loud.
That is the price of progress.
Click to expand...

I plan on saying this every time someone mentions the atmosphere will never be the same as WBA for the next month (so y'all should say it a lot if you want me to pad my post count): Buy tickets to the game on 3/3 at NU, ideally the front half of 26, 25 or 24. You'll have your WBA atmosphere back.
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

Sorry Harry, but I disgree with you.

An infraction followed by an imbelishment call are two different offenses. 1) is the infraction. i.e., Player A is cross-checked in the back. 2) is the "sell job." Player B (the cross-checkie) trying to "sell the call" with the ref, by shooting his head back and flopping to the ice like he's been shot. (See any NBA game.) I agree that #2 should be called when it happens. And 90% of the time, they get it right.

BU Hockey: SFA Trained
 
Re: Boston University 2011-2012 Season Thread: Part III: Now What?

Bomber said:
Sorry Harry, but I disgree with you.

An infraction followed by an imbelishment call are two different offenses. 1) is the infraction. i.e., Player A is cross-checked in the back. 2) is the "sell job." Player B (the cross-checkie) trying to "sell the call" with the ref, by shooting his head back and flopping to the ice like he's been shot. (See any NBA game.) I agree that #2 should be called when it happens. And 90% of the time, they get it right.

BU Hockey: SFA Trained
Click to expand...

BU Hockey: Last week, handshake protocol
This week, acting reviews
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top