Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

[Go-UML]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

The issue for Merrimack is that the 6'4" Ross (and 6'5" Bigos) get a ton of bogus penalty calls because they are our biggest players, and focal points.

In present day hockey, the sizes of these two players aren't significantly larger than many opponents, so it may be as you said, related to how aggressive they play. It stinks, but not unheard of.

I remember some years back, you guys had someone 6'7" or 6'8" and they were definitely getting the shaft with elbowing penalties. He wasn't sticking the elbow out, it's just that the elbow was about head level for anyone roughly in the 5'7"-5'9" height range. Always wondered if he was supposed to raise his arms up over the head of the guy he's hitting, but would he get called for something else?

 

[topgun20]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

OK who would of thought that the UML/MC game would out draw the UML/UNH game by 700 people...Times are changing.

 

[UMLGoon]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

"bogus penalty calls" are the problem when your team gives up a six-spot. got it.

 

[RENCEB]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

"bogus penalty calls" are the problem when your team gives up a six-spot. got it.

When 3 of the "six-spot" are PPG's, 1 of them on a perhaps questionable 5X3 call, then yes, perhaps "bogus penalty calls" might be at least part of the problem (not making any assertions as to the "bogusness" of the penalties as I was not at the game; I'll leave that to others). Glad you got it.

ps. IIRC, Steve McKenna was the 6'8" Merrimack D-man referenced in another post.

 

[UMLGoon]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

Then your beef is with the penalty kill not the officials, isn't it?

 

[WarriorDJ]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

Then your beef is with the penalty kill not the officials, isn't it?

UMLGoon, you're right that our penalty kill was not effective last night, but it all comes back to the penalties that are called beforehand.

Merrimack used to have a reputation around the league as a bunch of thugs, yet despite the fact that we have recruited some skilled players, the league still maintains that view. We get our fair share of penalties called against us for physical play because I feel like the league is trying to clean up the hard-hitting game in place of more end to end offense.

Ryan Flanigan, a 6'0" player for Merrimack plays a very physical game and he gets called on body checks for roughing penalties all the time. A lot of these calls might have gone for not against another team...but we're Merrimack...

 

[dmjossel]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

When 3 of the "six-spot" are PPG's, 1 of them on a perhaps questionable 5X3 call, then yes, perhaps "bogus penalty calls" might be at least part of the problem (not making any assertions as to the "bogusness" of the penalties as I was not at the game; I'll leave that to others). Glad you got it.

ps. IIRC, Steve McKenna was the 6'8" Merrimack D-man referenced in another post.

John Jakopin was the other of the "twin towers". He was an inch shorter than Steve IIRC and they were usually paired together. Jakopin ended up logging time in the NHL as a forward.

As for the game-- I heard the action but did not see it, but it looks like between Merrimack's usually good PK and UML's usually good PP, Lowell came out on top. Merrimack is still scoring goals but they can't seem to stop anybody from scoring anymore; maybe a back-to-basics approach to defense is in the works?

 

[UMLWeatherman]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

Sitting in section H, right above where both hits occurred, it looked like both were penalties. While I agree the first one was more on the fluffy side of calls, the UML player was clearly facing the boards with the extra hit from behind coming from MC. This probably looked worse from where the ref was (on the other side of the net), thus the delayed penalty. The second call was pretty blatant, and directly in-front of the ref.

 

[Hokydad]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

To quote that esteemed philospher Rodney King "People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along".
Sorry, but as an double MC alum (Malden Catholic and Merrimack) there are couple of things worthy of comment.

At the time of Serino's departure, after the '04-'05 season, Merrimack hockey was ABSOLUTELY in shambles; 8-26-2 with only 1 win in HE. That team was on the verge of mutiny; whether it was the players, Serino, Iarbinno or Santagatti, the problems in the hockey program were hardly because the "school is disfunctional (sic)"

"They were on a huge spiral down down winning wise but Serino had success there". Wow, your bar for what consitutes success is awfully low. Here's the Serino record:

Season Wins Losses Ties HE Finish
'98-'99 11 24 1 8th
'99-'00 11 19 6 7th
'00-'01 14 20 4 8th
'01-'02 11 23 2 8th
'02-'03 12 18 6 7th
'03-04 11 19 6 7th
'04-05 8 26 2 9th
Totals 78 149 27
Total Games 254
Winning % 30.7%

I agree, he had a great rep at UNH, especially recruiting, and he did bring in some good players to MC: Aquino (left early), Foy (left early) Caron (left early). In fairness, Exter and Schmidt, along with Rosa were very very good players who stayed the 4 years.

"Dennehey rode Ricci and other Serino recruits first couple years". You do realize that Ricci was suspended for an entire season? Not exactly what I'd call "riding" a recruit. For that matter, Serino inherited some pretty good Anderson recruits when he first arrived (Reggie Stringer and Kris Porter were far better than any players that Serino left in the cupboard for Dennehy). Dennehy "rode" Serino's recruits to a 6 win season in '05-'06 and 3 wins in '06-'07. Yep, certainly able to "ride" Serino's recruits for the first couple of years

Dennehy's record:

Season Wins Losses Ties HE Finish
'05-'06 6 23 5 10th
'06-'07 3 27 4 10th
'07-'08 12 18 4 10th
'08-'09 9 21 4 9th
'09-'10 6 4 0
Totals 36 93 17
Total Games 146
Winning % 24.7%

Season Wins Losses Ties HE Finish
'07 through '10 27 43 8
Total Games 78
Winning % 34.6%

Again, less than scintillating, but some very positive signs: '08-'09, 14 losses in 1 goal games. Already this year, wins over Vermont, BC and BU, and a dramatically improved offense, backed up by a strong goalie tandem (although I agree, Cannata will see the majority of the time). These players are Dennehy recruits, and maybe, just maybe, they'll be right in the mix of HE this year.

"Amazing how as soon as serino (sic) left, Malden catholic (sic) had a few million dollars plus donations and built turf lacrosse fields, football fields etc. all with money and donors who used to support MC (assume that this "MC" refers to Merrimack". Are you privy to the list of donors? Turf fields were in well before Serino became AD; major benefactors include well know MC (Malden Catholic) Boston area businessman, who to my knowledge, has nothing to do with Merrimack College. Yes, he has built a very strong progran at MC, getting (recruiting?) a strong roster. I hope they beat CM this year.

Finally, I do agree with you that some outstanding people including Stu, Mike M, and some others were treated very poorly during the Sernio departure. To me, the college did not cover itself in glory in those cases.

Good luck to MC against Lowell. Used to be a GREAT rivalry (I got a chance to be on the ice for the '77-'78 playoff game ) and I'd love to see it get back to that level of intensity!!!

Good post, very accurate

Joe was justa puppet. Good guy who never does anything of substance on his own in that arena.

 

[Hokydad]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

None of them. Shemp, Joe, and Curly Joe.

And what will you be Squaw? A clown sitting by the computer copying and posting stuff off of the MC webpage telling us its a scoop??

You know nothing about MC hockey outside what they want you to know. We have google, we dont need a parrot.

 

[Hokydad]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

Went to the game last night and Chris Auger was an absolute beast!

It will be interesting to see how Merrimack responds after this. UML exposed a few holes in their game, namely the D folds BIG Time on strong forecheck pressure, and their goaltending (at least last night) is suspect. They also had a tough time defending down low on a strong cycle. UML set up two goals off the cycle that MC had no defense for. I fully expect other HE teams to exploit this stuff in the future after looking at the game film. MC needs to fix this or risk taking their customary place in the HE standings.

Very good up front, 2 solid tenders but the D cant skate. Will be exposed going forward.

 

[Hokydad]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

Sitting in section H, right above where both hits occurred, it looked like both were penalties. While I agree the first one was more on the fluffy side of calls, the UML player was clearly facing the boards with the extra hit from behind coming from MC. This probably looked worse from where the ref was (on the other side of the net), thus the delayed penalty. The second call was pretty blatant, and directly in-front of the ref.

They were 100% penalties and were so because they dont move their feet and cant skate. That is what happens when you are trying to catch someone. D like that do not do well in HE.

 

[Gibber]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

OK who would of thought that the UML/MC game would out draw the UML/UNH game by 700 people...Times are changing.

yup, changing from 5PM on a Patriots Sunday to Saturday night at 7

 

[HockeyJM1902]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

the towerish defenseman for merrimack in the most recent future was rob lalonde, who i believe is somewhere in the ECHL nowadays

From what i've heard about the game the penalty calling was questionable for both sides at multiple times. A good post was put up on warrior rink rat stating the consistencty of the officiating was way off across the board in HE this year, and there were some stats behind that too as well if i remember right. I'm very interested to see how this win for UML effects both teams. As for referee'ing. It is what it is. It is very rare to see a game completely won or lost based on a call/no call. What i coach the kids that i'm teaching right now i just say to move on because it's out of your hands. merrimack needs to live by that motto a little more often i feel.

 

[MCHOCKEY]

Re: Merrimack @ Lowell 11/21

Merrimack was really put behind the 8 ball in this game...after taking an early 1-0 lead, lowell came back to tie it. Then penalties started to come. The 1st penalty, and prob. the one that got me the most heated was the open ice check (good one too) where the UML player HAD THE PUCK, got hit, and what does the MC player get? AN INTERFERENCE CALL!!!!! HTF does that happen...the guy had the puck...how can you call interference on it? LOL Momentum gone, UML up 2-1.

Then the 5-3...the first was very ticky tack...the 2nd on DeCosta was a little bit more obvious...momentum to UML, up 3-1 and the flood gates opened.

I hated the 1st call...not only was in a BAD call, but took away any momentum MC had on the road.

Yes Goon...Cannata gave up 6 (3 on the PP)...he had no chance...his D was playing well in front of him until those 3 penalties...and then things went from bad to worse, almost like MC became afraid to take the body in fear of another penalty...look at the box score...we had "3 PP's"...we scored on one and the other 2 were cut short b/c of penalities given to MC...so, really, we were 1 for 1 on the PP. The other 2 were too short to be considered LOL

Just an ugly game...either 3 or 4 times this year already, MC has had the back to back penalty calls to set up 5 on 3's...that is UNHEARD OF!!! Past reputation is definitely forcing this team into some tough positions!!