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 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is well!
- Thread starter mookie1995
- Start date
- Status
I. Know.
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
Took one more super-slow motion look at the Greenway breakaway in the third. About 15 feet from the top of the crease, Kim’s hook turns Greenway sideways and pulls him down to one knee. Combined with the follow-through on Greenway’s shot, he ends up on both knees, still sideways moving at a quick speed toward the net. In that position, without his blades on the ice, he had no way to avoid or lessen the hit on Demko. Kim certainly deserved two there, but at that point, the refs had put away the whistles as evidenced by the Moran non-call.
Also re-watched the BU power play sequence late in the first when McAvoy tried to duplicate his goals against NU. After the whistle, Santini cross-checked Greenway to the ice right in front of the ref. A blatant non-call. Just seconds later, White cleverly grabs McAvoy’s stick as he’s falling to draw an undeserved penalty. Yuuuuge manpower swing in a matter of seconds.
Took one more super-slow motion look at the Greenway breakaway in the third. About 15 feet from the top of the crease, Kim’s hook turns Greenway sideways and pulls him down to one knee. Combined with the follow-through on Greenway’s shot, he ends up on both knees, still sideways moving at a quick speed toward the net. In that position, without his blades on the ice, he had no way to avoid or lessen the hit on Demko. Kim certainly deserved two there, but at that point, the refs had put away the whistles as evidenced by the Moran non-call.
Also re-watched the BU power play sequence late in the first when McAvoy tried to duplicate his goals against NU. After the whistle, Santini cross-checked Greenway to the ice right in front of the ref. A blatant non-call. Just seconds later, White cleverly grabs McAvoy’s stick as he’s falling to draw an undeserved penalty. Yuuuuge manpower swing in a matter of seconds.
brassbonanza
Super Serial
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
Then once again I refer you to this:
"45.1 Contact to the Head - A player shall not make direct contact from any
direction with an opposing player’s head or neck area in any manner
(including, but not limited to, with the shoulder, stick, elbow, etc.).
PENALTY—Major and game misconduct or disqualification at the discretion of the referee."
Then once again I refer you to this:
"45.1 Contact to the Head - A player shall not make direct contact from any
direction with an opposing player’s head or neck area in any manner
(including, but not limited to, with the shoulder, stick, elbow, etc.).
PENALTY—Major and game misconduct or disqualification at the discretion of the referee."
SonofSouthie
Misanthrope
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
Yo Mookie, need a women's medium for my lady friend before Valentine's Day.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...MWQxfIji8aEBPO8OwplUwN/story.html?p1=story_hp
Yo Mookie, need a women's medium for my lady friend before Valentine's Day.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...MWQxfIji8aEBPO8OwplUwN/story.html?p1=story_hp
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
**** happens and it all evens out. Next game
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Mookie no longer a student. But I'll keep my eyes open
Stay. Away. From. Mine. :
:Though it's BU red so he probably wouldn't want it.
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
I'm pretty sure intent is irrelevant to the major vs minor penalty here. If the refs thought he was intentionally going for the head they'd have ejected him. I believe major vs minor in things like boarding or contact to the head is how dangerous the play was. Do you think every time there is a major boarding penalty given out they're saying there was intent to injure? It's the severity of the infraction. The kid leaned with his head and made contact with the other player's head first. It's up to him to avoid doing that. And are you saying he shouldn't have been suspended? Because you say that we should listen to an announcer when he says it didn't look that bad because he's "respected." Are the league officials who suspended him not respected?
As much as we like college hockey here I think we'd all like players to get out of college with as few concussions as possible. The reason they give out majors is to heavily discourage players from even attempting certain hits that could potentially be dangerous not to stop them from intentionally trying to injure other players. The latter is kind of just a basic idea behind organized sports (or really society in general).
I'm pretty sure intent is irrelevant to the major vs minor penalty here. If the refs thought he was intentionally going for the head they'd have ejected him. I believe major vs minor in things like boarding or contact to the head is how dangerous the play was. Do you think every time there is a major boarding penalty given out they're saying there was intent to injure? It's the severity of the infraction. The kid leaned with his head and made contact with the other player's head first. It's up to him to avoid doing that. And are you saying he shouldn't have been suspended? Because you say that we should listen to an announcer when he says it didn't look that bad because he's "respected." Are the league officials who suspended him not respected?
As much as we like college hockey here I think we'd all like players to get out of college with as few concussions as possible. The reason they give out majors is to heavily discourage players from even attempting certain hits that could potentially be dangerous not to stop them from intentionally trying to injure other players. The latter is kind of just a basic idea behind organized sports (or really society in general).
OConnor always seemed jittery to me never trusted him. I'm more sold on Maquire as the season progresses . Plus the gambling thing still makes me curious
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
If you go back and look at that post, it was a reply to tater who mentioned something about intent.
Although you yourself say intent is irrelevant but also say if the refs thought he intended to hit him in the head he would have been tossed. So does it matter or not?
Regardless of that, my point is i have seen guys get hit in the head and there only be a 2 minute penalty. Quote the rule book all you want, i am basing things off how i have seen refs handle these things before. History, precedent...whatever you want to call it.
It was a penalty as wood is responsible for where contact is made. I didn't say you should listen to anyone. Draw your own conclusion. I was citing someone most respect to illustrate that this isn't something everyone will see the same way. Based on how i have seen refs officiate, they absolutely got it right with a 2 minute penalty. If you wanna cry about the rule book, they got it wrong. Seen a lot worse hits than that go for just 2 minutes. I prefer some discretion rather than the black and white of how the rule is written. If you prefer the rule be enforced as written (which it isn't), that's fine. For that hit alone, no i don't agree with a suspension.
If you go back and look at that post, it was a reply to tater who mentioned something about intent.
Although you yourself say intent is irrelevant but also say if the refs thought he intended to hit him in the head he would have been tossed. So does it matter or not?
Regardless of that, my point is i have seen guys get hit in the head and there only be a 2 minute penalty. Quote the rule book all you want, i am basing things off how i have seen refs handle these things before. History, precedent...whatever you want to call it.
It was a penalty as wood is responsible for where contact is made. I didn't say you should listen to anyone. Draw your own conclusion. I was citing someone most respect to illustrate that this isn't something everyone will see the same way. Based on how i have seen refs officiate, they absolutely got it right with a 2 minute penalty. If you wanna cry about the rule book, they got it wrong. Seen a lot worse hits than that go for just 2 minutes. I prefer some discretion rather than the black and white of how the rule is written. If you prefer the rule be enforced as written (which it isn't), that's fine. For that hit alone, no i don't agree with a suspension.
SonofSouthie
Misanthrope
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
It'd be the perfect color for Valentines Day.Stay. Away. From. Mine. :
Though it's BU red so he probably wouldn't want it.
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
Intent is a matter of opinion in many of these cases and this is one of them. I guess my point is that Wood lead with his head and he wouldn't be leading with his head to hit him in the shoulder. Is this an egregious hit? Not really, but they are going to protect the player when the head is involved. I agree, fairly or unfairly, that Wood's prior incidents played a role in him receiving extra punishment.
Intent is a matter of opinion in many of these cases and this is one of them. I guess my point is that Wood lead with his head and he wouldn't be leading with his head to hit him in the shoulder. Is this an egregious hit? Not really, but they are going to protect the player when the head is involved. I agree, fairly or unfairly, that Wood's prior incidents played a role in him receiving extra punishment.
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
I've had serious issues with Miller and Koharski all season. I was very disappointed when I saw Miller was one of the refs for the game Monday night. I am not surprised at all that there were many issues in that game. I really wish there was some type of public accountability for these idiots. Of course, if Hockey East could just step up and get competent officials, accountability wouldn't be a problem.
I've had serious issues with Miller and Koharski all season. I was very disappointed when I saw Miller was one of the refs for the game Monday night. I am not surprised at all that there were many issues in that game. I really wish there was some type of public accountability for these idiots. Of course, if Hockey East could just step up and get competent officials, accountability wouldn't be a problem.
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
Just throwing in my two cents here...as we know, I'm not shy. I refereed basketball at the high school and college level for 17 years. Different sport, yes, but my point is a general one. Most people don't like to be scrutinized to a ridiculous degree. I said years ago (and still maintain) when replay first came in that it would make officials tentative. The ONE thing that an official has to be is reactive. It's almost better not to think too much. You have to instantly be able to make judgments. When they know that every call they make is going to be looked at a thousand times from a million different angles, it causes an official to hesitate, which is about the worst thing that can happen, because the call is no longer instinctive. So the official will "err" on the side of caution, i.e., will make a decision which he/she knows is "reviewable," thus taking the decision (and, as a result, the blame) out of his/her hands. So for everyone who complains about the delays, length of games, etc., just remember that this Pandora's box was opened years ago and is only going to get worse as technology improves and/or becomes more affordable/accessible, even at lower levels. The game is played by humans; it should be officiated by them as well, not by technology. What's even more disconcerting is that there is STILL dissent even after the play is looked at several times. A perfect example is the "incomplete pass" in the Super Bowl which one announcer vehemently argued was a catch, in direct conflict with the actual call. If THEY can't get it right after looking at it frame by frame, what's the point? Let the officials officiate...on the ice...in real time.
Just throwing in my two cents here...as we know, I'm not shy. I refereed basketball at the high school and college level for 17 years. Different sport, yes, but my point is a general one. Most people don't like to be scrutinized to a ridiculous degree. I said years ago (and still maintain) when replay first came in that it would make officials tentative. The ONE thing that an official has to be is reactive. It's almost better not to think too much. You have to instantly be able to make judgments. When they know that every call they make is going to be looked at a thousand times from a million different angles, it causes an official to hesitate, which is about the worst thing that can happen, because the call is no longer instinctive. So the official will "err" on the side of caution, i.e., will make a decision which he/she knows is "reviewable," thus taking the decision (and, as a result, the blame) out of his/her hands. So for everyone who complains about the delays, length of games, etc., just remember that this Pandora's box was opened years ago and is only going to get worse as technology improves and/or becomes more affordable/accessible, even at lower levels. The game is played by humans; it should be officiated by them as well, not by technology. What's even more disconcerting is that there is STILL dissent even after the play is looked at several times. A perfect example is the "incomplete pass" in the Super Bowl which one announcer vehemently argued was a catch, in direct conflict with the actual call. If THEY can't get it right after looking at it frame by frame, what's the point? Let the officials officiate...on the ice...in real time.
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
Nice post, i agree. But, hey, what do i know, i still think hitting should be allowed in hockey
Nice post, i agree. But, hey, what do i know, i still think hitting should be allowed in hockey
brassbonanza
Super Serial
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
Good points. And rewatching it, it's understandable that the ref would have had a very difficult time seeing the head-to-head contact in real time, and easily could've misjudged it as a simple board or charge worthy of a minor. And I agree it would've been stupid for him to be forced to go to the replay booth and review the play and reassess a major or whatever. That said, on replay it's clear what happened and the league's subsequent assessment of a suspension is justified. Replay has a role, and in this case was used properly after the fact.
Good points. And rewatching it, it's understandable that the ref would have had a very difficult time seeing the head-to-head contact in real time, and easily could've misjudged it as a simple board or charge worthy of a minor. And I agree it would've been stupid for him to be forced to go to the replay booth and review the play and reassess a major or whatever. That said, on replay it's clear what happened and the league's subsequent assessment of a suspension is justified. Replay has a role, and in this case was used properly after the fact.
buoldtimer
The social ramble ain't restful
Re: Boston University 2015-16 thread part 2-move along! nothing to see here! all is w
Chicks...the space bar, the return key, give us something, lad.
Chicks...the space bar, the return key, give us something, lad.
- Status