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.

Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

In the last game between NMU and Fairbanks, NMU's Dom Shine was given a DQ for Contact to the Head. From where I sat, it looked like a good, hard hit, with the only penalty possibility maybe being boarding. The refs not only called the major and game, but gave him a DQ. Now it seemed the league had preferred to have the game misconduct called and then add supplemental after review by the league office.

Further review showed absolutely no contact to the head. None. But because the on ice officials, Tommy Albindia and Ross Gibbs, DQ'd him, the DQ cannot be rescinded. Shine will have to miss Friday's game vs Minnesota State and has an undeserved DQ on his record and will face cumulative penalties if he actually earns one. John J MacInnes you were at a Michigan State/ NMU game a few years back when a similar situation occurred to NMU's Pat Bateman. Then commissioner Tom Anastos was standing next to me watching the replay and could not come up with a good answer as to why the league can add discipline on review, but would not rescind it. The same situation still exists in today's WCHA.
 
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

SJHovey said:
... If someone had just handed me the photos you guys posted earlier and asked me if I thought Tech was offside, knowing nothing more about the play, I would have told you they were offsides, even though I can't see the puck. I can see the players, and I can see the blade that is pushing the puck just about to enter the blue line as the other Tech player has clearly reached the far side of the blue line. Furthermore the Tech player with the puck is skating slightly diagonal to the blue line as opposed to directly across it, stretching the distance he must cross the blue line by a slight amount.

Seeing that, and applying my years of watching hockey, I would say Tech was offside.
Click to expand...

Interesting - seeing the same two photos, and I've been playing and watching hockey since the 60s, I would make the opposite call. I can't see that the puck is touching the line, nor can I see that the other player's skate is still touching the line. I'd have to say both are questionable. Then I look at the linesman's position. It looks like he can see both the puck and the other player's skate. I'd stick with the call on the ice, and would do so, whether it was called onside or offside.

manurespreader said:
...I do agree though that getting the call right is important and that refs do not always follow the rules if they think that they would not get it right by doing so.
Click to expand...

I agree with this too, but I just can't see (from those two photos) how the photos provide any better info than the linesman who's right there watching intently. At some point we have to admit to human judgement in real time.

But I've never really been a referee. I tried it once while in highschool, reffing a kids game and it was awful. I was awful and the players, coaches and parents were all jerks. I'm not good enough or thick skinned enough to be a ref.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

davyd83 said:
In the last game between NMU and Fairbanks, NMU's Dom Shine was given a DQ for Contact to the Head. From where I sat, it looked like a good, hard hit, with the only penalty possibility maybe being boarding. The refs not only called the major and game, but gave him a DQ. Now it seemed the league had preferred to have the game misconduct called and then add supplemental after review by the league office.

Further review showed absolutely no contact to the head. None. But because the on ice officials, Tommy Albindia and Ross Gibbs, DQ'd him, the DQ cannot be rescinded. Shine will have to miss Friday's game vs Minnesota State and has an undeserved DQ on his record and will face cumulative penalties if he actually earns one. John J MacInnes you were at a Michigan State/ NMU game a few years back when a similar situation occurred to NMU's Pat Bateman. Then commissioner Tom Anastos was standing next to me watching the replay and could not come up with a good answer as to why the league can add discipline on review, but would not rescind it. The same situation still exists in today's WCHA.
Click to expand...

I do remember that one. Tough that it happened again.
 
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

JohnsonsJerseys said:
My point in posting this wasn't to actually get an apology. The league is never going to admit they made a mistake and throw the refs under the bus. My point is why have video review if the refs will just go with their gut feel rather than what they see (or in this case can't see). If the ref's opinion is the deciding factor then there is no reason to have video review because they've already given an opinion on the ice in real time.

A puck going off the ref into the net is a legal play, just like a puck going off the Zamboni door, glass post, defender's rear, etc. It's all part of the surface of play. Going back and reversing a call with no evidence to do so is in a whole different category (which shouldn't exist). Full disclosure, if someone from Tech wouldn't have speared a Falcon in the crotch after the whistle, none of this would be discussed because Tech would have likely won the game outright. One stupid selfish play set the stage to let the refs make another stupid decision which will ultimately cost Tech one or more positions in the end of season league standings.

Ryan J
Click to expand...

I'm not addressing any specific play, but a puck going off the ref into the net IS NOT a legal goal. NCAA Rule 83.6 specifically states that a goal shall be disallowed "if the puck hits an official and goes directly into the net." This is true in every league not just the NCAA.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

The puck didn't go into the goal after hitting the ref, it just hit the ref and bounced directly into the path of a MTU player, which is a legal play. It's a bad bounce, but still not against the rules (in this specific case, anyway).
 
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

My $2...

Judging by the two stills posted, my gut says he was offside, but neither is definitive enough to overturn.
 
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

MinnesotaNorthStar said:
My $2...

Judging by the two stills posted, my gut says he was offside, but neither is definitive enough to overturn.
Click to expand...

I think many of us can accept that thought, but the point is that you don't overturn a call on gut feeling of where the puck was, especially when the linesman was in position.
 
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

Can I apologize to MTU instead? Sorry guys. So sorry... so very very sorry.
There you go.
 
Re: Dear WCHA - Feel Free to Post Your DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE or Apology to MTU Here

Jon said:
Can I apologize to MTU instead? Sorry guys. So sorry... so very very sorry.
There you go.
Click to expand...
Not unless your team agrees to lose any and all games in the post season. then ok. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top