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.
Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
- Thread starter Keycube
- Start date
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
The very definition you quoted clearly contradicts your inferrence.
I want whatever you guys are drinking. Life must be so much easier in such a massive state of denial.
The very definition you quoted clearly contradicts your inferrence.
I want whatever you guys are drinking. Life must be so much easier in such a massive state of denial.
johnnypohlfan
New member
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
Did Talbot beat up your kid brother or pee in your cereal or something? What's with your weird vendetta against him? Just because you don't like the answer to a question you asked doesn't mean you shouldn't accept it.
Did Talbot beat up your kid brother or pee in your cereal or something? What's with your weird vendetta against him? Just because you don't like the answer to a question you asked doesn't mean you shouldn't accept it.
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
I don't give a rip about him, UAH, Niagara, or the CHA. I caught a clip of something that looked suspicious, found evidence elsewhere that possibly backed up my assertion, came here looking for answers, and get a bunch of people telling me that what I'm looking at really isn't what I'm looking at. It was insecure hacks on here that started the whole conspiracy/vendetta talk. Seriously, you people think someone is going to come here and cry foul about that game due to an equipment issue? Get over yourselves.
I don't care if he wears 14" wide pads, uses overdrive blades, or has webbing in the crotch of his pants. Good on him. Maybe he in fact has them attached to his pads as such so they don't float independently, and gets around the rule somehow as them being part of his thigh rise..? That's cool. But if you're going to look right at something and say it doesn't exist, as opposed to offering up a realistic alternative as to what's happening (Here's a hint to start with: those ARE thigh boards) well...what more is there to say.
EDIT: Are you serious...someone thought it necessary to mess with my reputation over this? What a joke.
I don't give a rip about him, UAH, Niagara, or the CHA. I caught a clip of something that looked suspicious, found evidence elsewhere that possibly backed up my assertion, came here looking for answers, and get a bunch of people telling me that what I'm looking at really isn't what I'm looking at. It was insecure hacks on here that started the whole conspiracy/vendetta talk. Seriously, you people think someone is going to come here and cry foul about that game due to an equipment issue? Get over yourselves.
I don't care if he wears 14" wide pads, uses overdrive blades, or has webbing in the crotch of his pants. Good on him. Maybe he in fact has them attached to his pads as such so they don't float independently, and gets around the rule somehow as them being part of his thigh rise..? That's cool. But if you're going to look right at something and say it doesn't exist, as opposed to offering up a realistic alternative as to what's happening (Here's a hint to start with: those ARE thigh boards) well...what more is there to say.
EDIT: Are you serious...someone thought it necessary to mess with my reputation over this? What a joke.
Last edited:
johnnypohlfan
New member
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
Clearly you care quite a bit more than you'd like us to think. Someone gave you a rational answer based on the photo you provided, and you chose to argue it further. Instead of agreeing to disagree, you resort to name calling, telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are in denial, and so forth. Your mind was made up before you made your first post, but you (deviously) presented it as a innocent question from a curious observer. And if you think that no one would ever come on this board and cry foul over equipment, you're sadly mistaken. Its happened before and will surely happen again.
As far as your reputaion is concerned, I think you've taken care of that on your own. But I suppose you'd like us to believe you don't care about that either.
Clearly you care quite a bit more than you'd like us to think. Someone gave you a rational answer based on the photo you provided, and you chose to argue it further. Instead of agreeing to disagree, you resort to name calling, telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are in denial, and so forth. Your mind was made up before you made your first post, but you (deviously) presented it as a innocent question from a curious observer. And if you think that no one would ever come on this board and cry foul over equipment, you're sadly mistaken. Its happened before and will surely happen again.
As far as your reputaion is concerned, I think you've taken care of that on your own. But I suppose you'd like us to believe you don't care about that either.
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
You're right, forget it. I wouldn't want to let logic and observation get in the way of policing your little board so there's no hurt feelings. I forgot how cliquey it is around here.
Clearly you care quite a bit more than you'd like us to think. Someone gave you a rational answer based on the photo you provided, and you chose to argue it further. Instead of agreeing to disagree, you resort to name calling, telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are in denial, and so forth. Your mind was made up before you made your first post, but you (deviously) presented it as a innocent question from a curious observer. And if you think that no one would ever come on this board and cry foul over equipment, you're sadly mistaken. Its happened before and will surely happen again.
As far as your reputaion is concerned, I think you've taken care of that on your own. But I suppose you'd like us to believe you don't care about that either.
You're right, forget it. I wouldn't want to let logic and observation get in the way of policing your little board so there's no hurt feelings.
I forgot how cliquey it is around here.johnnypohlfan
New member
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
What logic do you speak of? Is it logical, when trying to make someone else see your point of view, to refer to them as delusional, in denial, or call them hacks? It has nothing to do with being "cliquey" at all. When you resort to personal attacks on someone making an honest observation or opinion, what do you expect to happen? Let's not forget that your first post in this thread was deceitful in itself. You presented yourself as a casual observer looking for others opinions, but when those opinions didn't fall in line with yours, your true intentions came out in for everyone to see. Not a great way to have a meaningful debate/conversation/argument.
You're right, forget it. I wouldn't want to let logic and observation get in the way of policing your little board so there's no hurt feelings.
What logic do you speak of? Is it logical, when trying to make someone else see your point of view, to refer to them as delusional, in denial, or call them hacks? It has nothing to do with being "cliquey" at all. When you resort to personal attacks on someone making an honest observation or opinion, what do you expect to happen? Let's not forget that your first post in this thread was deceitful in itself. You presented yourself as a casual observer looking for others opinions, but when those opinions didn't fall in line with yours, your true intentions came out in for everyone to see. Not a great way to have a meaningful debate/conversation/argument.
IrishHockeyFan
Still outranks his daughter
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
I'm surprised it took 10 posts for it to happen. Your attitude became overwhelmingly negative as soon as someone had an OPINION that differed from yours. Some of the people that have posted in this thread in response to your posts are among the classiest posters around this forum (and no I am not including myself in that) yet you do nothing but attack. I hope you aren't like this in real life.
I'm surprised it took 10 posts for it to happen. Your attitude became overwhelmingly negative as soon as someone had an OPINION that differed from yours. Some of the people that have posted in this thread in response to your posts are among the classiest posters around this forum (and no I am not including myself in that) yet you do nothing but attack. I hope you aren't like this in real life.
sweatpants
Registered User
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
Since you're not going to let it go, what I see are knee pads like the ones here.
http://www.nhldigest.com/reebok-revoke-goalie-pads/
Since you're not going to let it go, what I see are knee pads like the ones here.
http://www.nhldigest.com/reebok-revoke-goalie-pads/
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
Seven of your nine posts have been argumentative, sarcastic and insulting to the intelligence of any sane human. The fact that it took so long for you to get slapped with some neg rep is proof of the tolerance of our readers.
Seven of your nine posts have been argumentative, sarcastic and insulting to the intelligence of any sane human. The fact that it took so long for you to get slapped with some neg rep is proof of the tolerance of our readers.
IrishHockeyFan
Still outranks his daughter
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
And most of the rep he leaves is unimaginative as well:
What I don't understand is why USCHO bothers with the little button to report problem posters at all. I've know of people posting threats in the rep, seen people using slurs in posts, seen a number of posters (and most of us know who the worst few are) go on and on without being banned or even suspended, yet others have been banned for seemingly less. I guess I just wish I knew for sure what the standard was.
And most of the rep he leaves is unimaginative as well:
What I don't understand is why USCHO bothers with the little button to report problem posters at all. I've know of people posting threats in the rep, seen people using slurs in posts, seen a number of posters (and most of us know who the worst few are) go on and on without being banned or even suspended, yet others have been banned for seemingly less. I guess I just wish I knew for sure what the standard was.
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
Maybe the standard should be slander?
You're right, that remark was unimaginative; one of the many reasons I would never say such a thing to anyone. If you contact an admin and track the sender of that remark, you'll find it didn't come from me.
Or don't, and just be content with the fact that I'm a jerk and deserve to have falsehoods lobbed my way. Or perhaps you even fabricated it yourself. Regardless, I'm sure you'll justify it somehow.
Maybe the standard should be slander?
You're right, that remark was unimaginative; one of the many reasons I would never say such a thing to anyone. If you contact an admin and track the sender of that remark, you'll find it didn't come from me.
Or don't, and just be content with the fact that I'm a jerk and deserve to have falsehoods lobbed my way. Or perhaps you even fabricated it yourself. Regardless, I'm sure you'll justify it somehow.
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
These are worn under the pants. The items I've highlighted in posted pictures are (being) worn outside the pants.
The fact that the items being worn in posted pictures are thigh boards is not in doubt. Every fellow goalie I've asked has come to the same conclusion. I don't know why you've all gone bonkers trying to define them as otherwise. I never asked IF they were there, but WHY they were there.
I've long since "let it go" when I realized no one here knew what they were talking about regarding the subject. Now I'm just watching from afar, bemused.
These are worn under the pants. The items I've highlighted in posted pictures are (being) worn outside the pants.
The fact that the items being worn in posted pictures are thigh boards is not in doubt. Every fellow goalie I've asked has come to the same conclusion. I don't know why you've all gone bonkers trying to define them as otherwise. I never asked IF they were there, but WHY they were there.
I've long since "let it go" when I realized no one here knew what they were talking about regarding the subject. Now I'm just watching from afar, bemused.
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
You may have played goalie for 15 years but you've obviously not bought any new pads recently - at least not "pro sepc" pads. They are not NOT thigh boards, my son plays goal and we've looked all the major brands out there and they all have that style knee pad. For his last three sets we sat down with rep and custom built them, so I know what I am talking about. It may resemble the old style thigh boards, but as the picture sweatpants posted shows, they are much shorter and have an elastic strap with velcro that must be connected around the leg. Some goalies strap them tigher and wear them under their pads. Others, like my son, prefer to wear them a little looser and outside the pants. Both are legal as long as the strap is around the leg.
You can put the people on here who don't agree with you down all you want, won't change the fact that you're wrong and have no clue what you are talking about. As part of agreeing to prohibiting the thigh boards, the NHL agreed to the thigh pads so that goalies would have proctection when they went down.
You may have played goalie for 15 years but you've obviously not bought any new pads recently - at least not "pro sepc" pads. They are not NOT thigh boards, my son plays goal and we've looked all the major brands out there and they all have that style knee pad. For his last three sets we sat down with rep and custom built them, so I know what I am talking about. It may resemble the old style thigh boards, but as the picture sweatpants posted shows, they are much shorter and have an elastic strap with velcro that must be connected around the leg. Some goalies strap them tigher and wear them under their pads. Others, like my son, prefer to wear them a little looser and outside the pants. Both are legal as long as the strap is around the leg.
You can put the people on here who don't agree with you down all you want, won't change the fact that you're wrong and have no clue what you are talking about. As part of agreeing to prohibiting the thigh boards, the NHL agreed to the thigh pads so that goalies would have proctection when they went down.
wnickelson
New member
fantasticfrito
Registered User
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
Those look like thigh boards to me. The leg wraps aren't that square on the top. The rule also calls for any thigh protection to be wrapped tightly to the leg, which in the picture they are not.
However, referees don't call goalie equipment infractions in ncaa hockey. The opposing coach needs to bring it up to the officials. If they don't point it out, it won't get called.
An example is the goalie from the Duluth women's team. She wore her IIHF mask for the first month of the season because her team mask was at the painters. Her IIHF mask had a cat eye cage on it, which is illegal in NCAA play. She was never asked by a ref to wear a legal helmet.
Those look like thigh boards to me. The leg wraps aren't that square on the top. The rule also calls for any thigh protection to be wrapped tightly to the leg, which in the picture they are not.
However, referees don't call goalie equipment infractions in ncaa hockey. The opposing coach needs to bring it up to the officials. If they don't point it out, it won't get called.
An example is the goalie from the Duluth women's team. She wore her IIHF mask for the first month of the season because her team mask was at the painters. Her IIHF mask had a cat eye cage on it, which is illegal in NCAA play. She was never asked by a ref to wear a legal helmet.
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
I challenge you to find "tightly" in the rule book...
And the shape of the wrap depends on the manufacturer...look at the Reeboks in the picture in sweatpants link...
I challenge you to find "tightly" in the rule book...
And the shape of the wrap depends on the manufacturer...look at the Reeboks in the picture in sweatpants link...
fantasticfrito
Registered User
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4099-ncaa-mens-and-womens-ice-hockey-rules-two-year-publication-covers-2008-2010.aspx
Page 32, section 3: All inner knee/thigh protection, whether attached to the leg pad or not, must be tightly wrapped around the leg. Thigh boards are illegal.
http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4099-ncaa-mens-and-womens-ice-hockey-rules-two-year-publication-covers-2008-2010.aspx
Page 32, section 3: All inner knee/thigh protection, whether attached to the leg pad or not, must be tightly wrapped around the leg. Thigh boards are illegal.
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
Thanks, the printed version I have (previous version) does not have the word "tightly"...wasn't aware of the wording change...
Thanks, the printed version I have (previous version) does not have the word "tightly"...wasn't aware of the wording change...
WSU Hockey
Registered User
Re: Equipment question/Alabama-Huntsville
The ramblings in this post have amused me enough to post on this. Those are thigh boards in the pictures... and yes they are illegal. The refs cannot do anything about them unless the opposing team calls them into question. The goalie would not be allowed to play until they were removed, but it is not a penalty. This issue came up in the women's CHA championship game this year. Before you jump on me, I am a certified E.M., and have been working hockey for 15 seasons.
GFM, good luck at the tourney and can you tell Luongo that I said hello.
The ramblings in this post have amused me enough to post on this. Those are thigh boards in the pictures... and yes they are illegal. The refs cannot do anything about them unless the opposing team calls them into question. The goalie would not be allowed to play until they were removed, but it is not a penalty. This issue came up in the women's CHA championship game this year. Before you jump on me, I am a certified E.M., and have been working hockey for 15 seasons.
GFM, good luck at the tourney and can you tell Luongo that I said hello.