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.
ESPN sucks
- Thread starter MarkEagleUSA
- Start date
The Zlax45
Registered User
It looks like the rule says touch the line
From the rule book
86.1 Offside - Players of an attacking team must not precede the puck into the
attacking zone.
A player is offside when both skates are completely over the outer edge of
the blue line involved in the play at the instant the puck completely crosses
the outer edge of that line.
The position of the player’s skates and not that of the stick shall be the
determining factor in all instances deciding an offside.
A player is onside when either of the skates is in contact with or on the
player’s own side of the line at the instant the puck completely crosses the
outer edge of that line. A player in full control of the puck who crosses the
blue line ahead of the puck shall not be considered offside.
While the position of the player’s skates is what determines whether a
player is offside, the question of offside never arises until the puck completely
has crossed the outer edge of the line.
If a player legally carries or passes the puck back into his or her own
defending zone while a player of the opposing team is in that defending
zone, the offside shall be ignored and play permitted to continue.
If the puck is intercepted cleanly by a member of the defending team and
is carried or passed by the player’s team into the neutral zone, the offside shall
be ignored and play permitted to continue, even if a member of the attacking
team has preceded the puck into the attacking zone. (Officials shall carry out
this rule by means of the slow whistle.)
86.2 Delayed Offside - If an attacking player precedes the puck, which is shot,
passed or deflected into the attacking zone, but a defending player is able
to play the puck, the official shall signal a delayed offside.
SECTION 10 / Game Flow 73
The official shall drop the arm to nullify the offside violation and allow
play to continue if:
1. The defending team passes or carries the puck into the neutral zone;
or
2. All attacking players in the attacking zone clear the zone by making
skate contact with the attacking blue line.
If the attacking team does not clear the attacking zone, the official shall
stop play for the offside violation if any attacking player touches the puck,
or attempts to gain possession of a loose puck while the puck is still in the
attacking zone, or forces the defending puck carrier farther back into the
attacking zone.
The attacking zone must be completely clear of attacking players before
a delayed offside can be nullified with the puck still in the attacking zone.
Whenever a defensive player gains possession of the puck on a delayed
offside, play should not be stopped when that player has a clear opening for
advancing the puck.
If a puck is shot on goal during a delayed offside, the play shall be allowed
to continue under the normal clearing the zone rules. Should the puck enter
the defending team’s goal during a delayed offside, either directly or off the
goalkeeper, a player or an on-ice official, the goal shall be disallowed. The
fact that the attacking team may have cleared the zone prior to the puck
entering the goal has no bearing on this ruling.
The only way an attacking team can score a goal on a delayed offside
situation is if the defending team shoots or puts the puck into their own net
without action or contact by the offending team.
Re: ESPN sucks
He know s the game and may be very good in print, but he is a lousy TV play-by-play guy. ESPN should do some homework and go for more than just a name that die-hards may know. How about getting a polished, accomplished TV announcer with hockey knowledge instead of the other way around.
He know s the game and may be very good in print, but he is a lousy TV play-by-play guy. ESPN should do some homework and go for more than just a name that die-hards may know. How about getting a polished, accomplished TV announcer with hockey knowledge instead of the other way around.
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: ESPN sucks
No dog in this fight so I didn't care who won or lost, but I thought the linesmen were both terrible on faceoffs all night long. Lots of cheating by skaters from both sides, and it was on almost every faceoff. It was a Hockey East crew, for what that's worth.
No dog in this fight so I didn't care who won or lost, but I thought the linesmen were both terrible on faceoffs all night long. Lots of cheating by skaters from both sides, and it was on almost every faceoff. It was a Hockey East crew, for what that's worth.
Re: ESPN sucks
This was a rule change last season, and not one that I was aware of, so I can excuse Buccigross for not knowing about it.
This was a rule change last season, and not one that I was aware of, so I can excuse Buccigross for not knowing about it.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: ESPN sucks
Viewing yourself as the poor stepsister never moves you forward. They have made huge industries from people bashing into each other and throwing the ball, people bouncing the ball and throwing it into a net, guys wacking at a little white ball that you can't even see on the screen most of the time and people driving in circles for hours. They didn't do this because it was riveting for most people. They did it for cash. They created interest. Marketing made people interested.
So- yes I can ask for more. Having poor quality people on the broadcast does nothing for the sport. It misrepresents the product. If you have very good people doing something, people who are enthusiastic and knowledgeable that is a better sell than guys who are biased and have no idea of the sport's landscape.
:climbs off soap box:
Viewing yourself as the poor stepsister never moves you forward. They have made huge industries from people bashing into each other and throwing the ball, people bouncing the ball and throwing it into a net, guys wacking at a little white ball that you can't even see on the screen most of the time and people driving in circles for hours. They didn't do this because it was riveting for most people. They did it for cash. They created interest. Marketing made people interested.
So- yes I can ask for more. Having poor quality people on the broadcast does nothing for the sport. It misrepresents the product. If you have very good people doing something, people who are enthusiastic and knowledgeable that is a better sell than guys who are biased and have no idea of the sport's landscape.
:climbs off soap box:
Re: ESPN sucks
Gee, someone made a mistake? Are you 100% perfect in everything you do? Try doing a live broadcast sometime. You go through 1000 pieces of information a night. Let's see if you don't make an error or two. Of course we all know that fans are smarter than coaches, players, refs and now broadcasters too. Those who couldn't do any of those things always know how to do it better than those who do them.
Gee, someone made a mistake? Are you 100% perfect in everything you do? Try doing a live broadcast sometime. You go through 1000 pieces of information a night. Let's see if you don't make an error or two. Of course we all know that fans are smarter than coaches, players, refs and now broadcasters too. Those who couldn't do any of those things always know how to do it better than those who do them.
leswp1
Well-known member
Re: ESPN sucks
If you aren't sure don't say something? It isn't that someone made a mistake. It is they made a mistake about something that should be basic knowledge.
If you aren't sure don't say something? It isn't that someone made a mistake. It is they made a mistake about something that should be basic knowledge.
The NHL hasn't purchased time on ESPN. Nothing is free.
billmich88888
Registered Person
Re: ESPN sucks
Agreed ^^^^^
Making a simple mistake is when one of the guys said "Notre Dame" instead of "North Dakota", simple slip of the tongue,(quickly corrected too) we are all human.
Other mistakes that I cited are from a lack of preparation or knowledge of the sport, those are less forgivable. (especially when you repeat wrong remarks)
Agreed ^^^^^
Making a simple mistake is when one of the guys said "Notre Dame" instead of "North Dakota", simple slip of the tongue,(quickly corrected too) we are all human.
Other mistakes that I cited are from a lack of preparation or knowledge of the sport, those are less forgivable. (especially when you repeat wrong remarks)
The NHL hasn't purchased time on ESPN. Nothing is free.
billmich88888
Registered Person
Re: ESPN sucks
I am not a professional PxP broadcaster, nor do I pretend to be.
Compared to the regular conference PxP guys, some of the regional guys (Think Clay Matvick), or the PxP voice that was on there recently (Gary Thorne) Buccigross simply doesn't measure up.
This is fair criticism regarding the most visible broadcasts of the sport.
I am not a professional PxP broadcaster, nor do I pretend to be.
Compared to the regular conference PxP guys, some of the regional guys (Think Clay Matvick), or the PxP voice that was on there recently (Gary Thorne) Buccigross simply doesn't measure up.
This is fair criticism regarding the most visible broadcasts of the sport.
ZYanksRule
GO BOBCATS!!
Re: ESPN sucks
Quinnipiac will be wearing their gold jerseys. Those are the jerseys they wear, when given the option.
Quinnipiac will be wearing their gold jerseys. Those are the jerseys they wear, when given the option.
billmich88888
Registered Person
Re: ESPN sucks
I don't have the honor of seeing QC often, Does Quinnipiac even have a "White Jersey". if so, Is it worn very often?
Given the opportunity, Michigan also will wear their "Maize/yellow jersey" in tournament games. The game against Notre Dame was the 1st time since 1994 that they had done so in a NCAA tourney game.
I don't have the honor of seeing QC often, Does Quinnipiac even have a "White Jersey". if so, Is it worn very often?
Given the opportunity, Michigan also will wear their "Maize/yellow jersey" in tournament games. The game against Notre Dame was the 1st time since 1994 that they had done so in a NCAA tourney game.
Last edited:
ZYanksRule
GO BOBCATS!!
Re: ESPN sucks
I'm sure they have one, they never wear it anymore. They debuted their gold jerseys back in 2006, I think it was, and those have become their home jerseys. They wear gold at home, dark blue on the road.
I'm sure they have one, they never wear it anymore. They debuted their gold jerseys back in 2006, I think it was, and those have become their home jerseys. They wear gold at home, dark blue on the road.
Re: ESPN sucks
They do officially have a home white (you can see it on their Wikipedia page), and admittedly I don't follow them closely, but I haven't found any photo evidence of them wearing it this year at the very least, and I can't remember the last time I saw them not wearing it either. They even wore gold on the road in Lowell a couple of years back.
They do officially have a home white (you can see it on their Wikipedia page), and admittedly I don't follow them closely, but I haven't found any photo evidence of them wearing it this year at the very least, and I can't remember the last time I saw them not wearing it either. They even wore gold on the road in Lowell a couple of years back.
MarkEagleUSA
C'mon Q!
White was the original home jersey. Then they introduced the alternate golds. For a while they were wearing white on Friday and gold on Saturday. In 2013 they starting wearing the gold exclusively during the 21 game unbeaten streak. They also debuted the new gold jersey after their loss to SLU that year. I think they wore white once this year.
billmich88888
Registered Person
Re: ESPN sucks
Gold/Yellow/Maize as the road "jersey" is actually banned by the NCAA rules (2 minute penalty to start each period i believe) - you can thank former Maine Coach Shawn Walsh for that (I have a suspicion that he or one of his players in 1993 was color blind) maize vs white is very tough to distinguish on a B&W tv for example. - how I came to my hypothesis.
Was Lowell wearing their whites, or a special dark colored uniform at home?
Now there are exception to the above rule, as in season tourneys, or when teams expressly give their permission.
Michigan as road in Maize did beat MSU in home white in the 2014 GLI final, for example
Gold/Yellow/Maize as the road "jersey" is actually banned by the NCAA rules (2 minute penalty to start each period i believe) - you can thank former Maine Coach Shawn Walsh for that (I have a suspicion that he or one of his players in 1993 was color blind) maize vs white is very tough to distinguish on a B&W tv for example. - how I came to my hypothesis.
Was Lowell wearing their whites, or a special dark colored uniform at home?
Now there are exception to the above rule, as in season tourneys, or when teams expressly give their permission.
Michigan as road in Maize did beat MSU in home white in the 2014 GLI final, for example