Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

[jcarter7669]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

Disagreeing with someone about a hockey call is one thing but this is just one of numerous times you've taken a shot at not only the school I graduated from, but the city I grew up in. Class is not always something found in sports debate, rarely ever in actuality but how about you take it easy. Lowell's always played a tough style and with it comes plays like Holmstrom's and Arnold's. I may not think it was as bad as you did, and I certainly think that penalties were warranted, but no team in HE or the any of the others haven't had moments like that where temps got too hot.

If I make it down to Tsonga for the QF's I'll bring you a big box of tissues and an apology note for hurting your feelings. I'm sorry.

All teams get hot under the collars, I've never said differently. This particular game it happened to be Arnold and Holstrom and just Lomberg from ME they should get an appropriate penalty. If it were a UVM player I'd say the same thing. You can play good and hard without playing dirty. No reason for that kind of BS.

So I suppose if Hamilton and Paliotta took a run at Hellebuyck and just flat out plowed into him after the whistle it would be alright then with you guys because everyone gets a little hot under the collar and hey that's hockey...

 

[ScottK]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

Sorry my bad... no one is crying over the officiating as it relates to the incident that is the topic of discussion. But yes, if you go back through all the pages you could find a few instances of it, especially regarding the linesman. I figured most people would understand and other then you and Patronick everyone else did... it's like you guys share a brain, which may explain why you both act like you only have half of one...

Well, you (and a few others) were whining that there should have been supplemental discipline for the "incident". That sounds like complaining that the refs didn't get it right. Then again, that would be the logical conclusion and I wouldn't expect you to apply logic to any discussion.

 

[ScottK]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

So I suppose if Hamilton and Paliotta took a run at Hellebuyck and just flat out plowed into him after the whistle it would be alright then with you guys because everyone gets a little hot under the collar and hey that's hockey...

Sure, because 2 guys running a goalie after the whistle is the same as a collision in the corner at the buzzer.

 

[BTV802]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

Well, you (and a few others) were whining that there should have been supplemental discipline for the "incident". That sounds like complaining that the refs didn't get it right. Then again, that would be the logical conclusion and I wouldn't expect you to apply logic to any discussion.

I think supplemental discipline is the league's territory, not the refs.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

Well, you (and a few others) were whining that there should have been supplemental discipline for the "incident". That sounds like complaining that the refs didn't get it right. Then again, that would be the logical conclusion and I wouldn't expect you to apply logic to any discussion.

That would be an assumption, not a logical conclusion. A logical conclusion would first rule out other possibilities... like maybe the refs were turned the other way and not observing the ruckus, or maybe in their opinion it wasn't required or they just figured who cares the game is over. Bertanga has a mechanism in place to address such circumstances... to assert that it should be used does not require ref bashing. For example, UMO's lomberg was penalized, the refs never saw it... that's not their fault but the league took corrective action to ensure it did not go unpunished.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

Sure, because 2 guys running a goalie after the whistle is the same as a collision in the corner at the buzzer.

As far as rules are concerned two guys running a player is the same as two guys running a player, position is irrelvant. So Yes, I am glad to see were are making progress here.

 

[Cat lover]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

I find it funny that no one has thought to post this side of the story.

How dumb is it to give the team you are most likely going to face in your next games another reason
to really want to beat you. I think UML's coach should be more mad at the players for that then anything
else.

Hope those two guys have eyes in the back of thier heads if VT plays them.

 

[BTV802]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

I find it funny that no one has thought to post this side of the story.

How dumb is it to give the team you are most likely going to face in your next games another reason
to really want to beat you. I think UML's coach should be more mad at the players for that then anything
else.

Hope those two guys have eyes in the back of thier heads if VT plays them.

Well if Rob "Mad Dog" Hamilton has anything to do with it...

 

[ScottK]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

As far as rules are concerned two guys running a player is the same as two guys running a player, position is irrelvant. So Yes, I am glad to see were are making progress here.

Except that there are different rules for goalies. So, position is not irrelevant.

Rule 43 - Charging

A player shall not charge or otherwise foul a goalkeeper while the
goalkeeper is within the crease or privileged area (see 71.2).

PENALTY—Minor or major at the discretion of the referee. A game
misconduct or disqualification may be assessed at the discretion of the
referee.

 

[BTV802]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

Except that there are different rules for goalies. So, position is not irrelevant.

I've no idea what you are even debating anymore. You've moved the goalposts as far as they can go. They won't go any further.

 

[ScottK]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

I've no idea what you are even debating anymore. You've moved the goalposts as far as they can go. They won't go any further.

I'm not the one that moved them. Your pal jcarter is the one who compared the end of the game with 2 UVM players "plowing into Hellebuyck after the whistle."

 

[BTV802]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

I'm not the one that moved them. Your pal jcarter is the one who compared the end of the game with 2 UVM players "plowing into Hellebuyck after the whistle."

Could care less if he chose to use Hellebuyck as an example. He could have used any player on the ice as an example, still wouldn't make what happened ok.

 

[UML]

Could care less if he chose to use Hellebuyck as an example. He could have used any player on the ice as an example, still wouldn't make what happened ok.

That kind of stuff happens at the end of almost every game I have ever attended. . I'm not sure why we are still talking about it.

 

[ULowell'81]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

As I saw the play unfolding I thought “oh crap this is going to get ugly.” I won't make an excuse for Holmstrom’s or Arnold’s actions because every time I see an opponent pull one of those stunts I get PO’d. I cannot agree with your hyperbole JCarter; the Riverhawks aren’t a bunch of unsportsmanlike goons. Holmstrom plays with some edge; McGrath toes the Little Ball of Hate Lite line but Arnold’s one of the last guys I would have expected to be involved. Their reaction to Paliotta’s move back towards the boards was so quick and intentional it made me wonder if something had occurred between him and one of them (or a Lowell player) during either game that I'd missed (again…not condoning).

Regardless, I think the penalty fit the crime and that should be the end of it. I don’t know if it was egregious enough to give the Cats more incentive to beat Lowell than they would have otherwise but it certainly appears to have stoked the flames of the fan base.

PS – Thank you UVM for the game feed; I enjoyed watching both games from the friendly confines of home.

 

[UVM Cat in Texas]

Well if Rob "Mad Dog" Hamilton has anything to do with it...

Hmmm, I've always known him as "Raging" Rob Hamilton....

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

Except that there are different rules for goalies. So, position is not irrelevant.

How is the penalty different then ramming a guy from behind along the boards? Still the same chief, only different because everyone wants to protect the goalie.

And speaking of goalies, what is with Hellebuyck, nervous tick or something. The kids head twitches back and forth enough to give me whiplash. Can't argue with his results but man its distracting.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

As I saw the play unfolding I thought “oh crap this is going to get ugly.” I won't make an excuse for Holmstrom’s or Arnold’s actions because every time I see an opponent pull one of those stunts I get PO’d. I cannot agree with your hyperbole JCarter; the Riverhawks aren’t a bunch of unsportsmanlike goons. Holmstrom plays with some edge; McGrath toes the Little Ball of Hate Lite line but Arnold’s one of the last guys I would have expected to be involved. Their reaction to Paliotta’s move back towards the boards was so quick and intentional it made me wonder if something had occurred between him and one of them (or a Lowell player) during either game that I'd missed (again…not condoning).

Regardless, I think the penalty fit the crime and that should be the end of it. I don’t know if it was egregious enough to give the Cats more incentive to beat Lowell than they would have otherwise but it certainly appears to have stoked the flames of the fan base.

PS – Thank you UVM for the game feed; I enjoyed watching both games from the friendly confines of home.

I appreciate your level headed and unbiased assessment. Not having watched the river hawks much the past two season I can't speak to their unsportsmanlike goonship over those years, however in years past they have given MC a run for the title.

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

That kind of stuff happens at the end of almost every game I have ever attended. . I'm not sure why we are still talking about it.

Because if we weren't this thread would have ended, and since your next games are probably going to be against UVM why bother letting this thread die only to make a new one in two weeks. I thought throwing a cinder on the dried sticks in the mud that are Patrondick and ScottyK would suffice to keep the coals going for another week or two. Looks like I'm smarter then most of you give me credit for...

 

[jcarter7669]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

Well if Rob "Mad Dog" Hamilton has anything to do with it...

Hmmm, I've always known him as "Raging" Rob Hamilton....

I'd go with "Hacksaw Hamilton" or maybe Rob "Van Damme"

 

[Patronick]

Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

I find it funny that no one has thought to post this side of the story.

How dumb is it to give the team you are most likely going to face in your next games another reason
to really want to beat you. I think UML's coach should be more mad at the players for that then anything
else.

Hope those two guys have eyes in the back of thier heads if VT plays them.

Because if Vermont manages to get past Amherst they're going to get swept in Lowell anyway?

Vermont managed to come out on senior night and stave off almost certain NCAA elimination by getting the flukiest of fluke goals past the best goalie in the country and then hanging on for the last 30 minutes of the game despite the River Hawks continually putting themselves a man down.

Congrats, good win. There's the banner moment for your entire season.

Like I said before these weekend games, if these that series was played in Lowell it's a River Hawk sweep, and it's not close. Vermont fans, delusional as always, have somehow talked themselves into believing that they're a team Lowell doesn't want to see.

Nope.

Notre Dame is the team that no one wants to play. Bring on Vermont.