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.

Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

bluevox said:
Then look it up.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4184-2011-2012-ice-hockey-rules-2-year-publication.aspx

I am absolutely sure that Brian Aaron looked at multiple angles of the play.
Click to expand...
The rulebook outlines video replay procedures for NCAA tournament events (hence the little script for the announcer). Conference play is governed by conference rules for replay. It's my understanding the CCHA restricts replay to the single camera above the net to level the playing field across the conference. If you say it's otherwise, I'm inclined to believe you, but it still sure as hell looked like a goal to me. And most of the folks sitting around me, who all had as good of an angle on the play as one can have in that arena.
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

bluevox said:
Then look it up.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4184-2011-2012-ice-hockey-rules-2-year-publication.aspx

I am absolutely sure that Brian Aaron looked at multiple angles of the play.
Click to expand...

I confirmed this by listening in with Piotrowski after the game, who was in a rather animated conversation with Dave Brandon. No conclusive evidence that the entire puck crossed the line, from multiple angles. From my section 11 view, I also thought it was a goal, real time. Sergott was actually late getting behind the net to see it before Moffie drew it forward away from the line. You can clearly see this on the replay we saw on the Branda-thon. That is what put Blasi over the moon.

Short of choking in the NCAA tourney against BU, this had to be one of his worst moments. (IIRC, there is youtube of him melting down and getting tossed from a game and giving the salute as he leaves the ice. He was close.)

Weber was smarting after Brown undressed him for that highlight reel goal. BUT, if Gups doesn't tap at Knapp's pads, the whole incident doesn't start. Miami was looking for a reason and got one. Now, they get to sit Weber against UAH while we lose Brown against MSU up there. It was a real dumb move, even if Brown did have to jump in there.
 
Last edited:
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

bluevox said:
The replay official has access to every camera angle. Above the net, TV and in house. From every angle = inconclusive.

Plus, the ref was behind the net, staring at the puck.
Click to expand...

Really?!? Very, very interesting. I, too, thought 1) it was a goal- Mrs Alfa and I are closer to the net than streaker is- she thought it didn't, I thought it did, and 2) that they were only allowed the above shot. That, and I totally forgot that the ref was *right there* looking closer than ANY camera angle would have (although, considering the glasses they had on all night, it wouldn't be all that stunning that they could have missed it).

One follow up question- when does whining to review become either delay of game or unsportsman like? I know the coach can earn a penalty for being, well, you know...
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

streaker said:
Weber was smarting after Brown undressed him for that highlight reel goal. BUT, if Gups doesn't tap at Knapp's pads, the whole incident doesn't start. Miami was looking for a reason and got one. Now, they get to sit Weber against UAH while we lose Brown against MSU up there. It was a real dumb move, even if Brown did have to jump in there.
Click to expand...

Weber's way overrated, and a thug. Great to see him being so embarased that he had to react by fighting. What Gups did was not only understandable, but Miami did it ALL WEEKEND. Nice to see Weber show that his team are a bunch of hacks in his eyes. :)
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

Caustic Undertow said:
That's quite a statement. Admittedly I haven't seen as many games in the recent years as you, but I can't argue with you. That Wilkins travesty from the UM-OSU CCHA semifinal in '02 looks tame by comparison. Anyone ever recall Red being so visibly upset about officiating before?
Click to expand...

And note- I don't base that purely on the idiotic calls that were made against us.

Unless anyone can tell me otherwise- since NOBODY in Yost was up in arms- the "hit to the head" against Miami was a joke call. Followed up by the same joke call against Pateryn. Incredibly dumb.

And while we got called for some incredibly weak boarding calls in the first period- we could have gotten some very easily later in the game.

One non penalty I thought was funny- Serville fell just inside the blue line, and managed to keep the puck in the zone with his hands, which we got in the corner. Should have been a pretty easy hand pass- duh.

And can they get SOME kind of consistency in the icing rule. We got the puck first a few times only to have it called icing. What IS the rule?

Basically, the game got out of hand partially due to rickii's team prep, but more due to incompetent reffing.
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

We were left wondering just what does constitute icing anymore, as well.

And the ref was Brian Hill, not Brian Aaron. My bad.
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

As to the icing, late in the game Michigan was called for icing. After watching a replay the Michigan player definitely passed the face off dot before the Miami player, and reached the puck first. Here's the rule;
g. Judgement of first player to touch puck. For the purpose of interpretation
of this rule, icing is completed the instant the puck crosses the goal line,
unless an attacking player, who is onside at the blue line and with no
opponent between that player and the goal line and is clearly in position
to be the first player to touch the puck. Icing shall not be called in
this situation. This decision by the official shall be made no later than
the first player reaching the end zone face-off dots. If the puck enters
the goal in this situation icing shall not be called and a goal shall be
awarded.
Click to expand...
The key word here is 'clearly'. I would just prefer they go back to the old icing. Now the Michigan player busts a nut getting down there to negate the icing and doesn't get it, and can't change.

As to the no goal. They showed the ref reviewing the call and he did look at views other than the overhead. One camera angle, probably from center ice, the tv guys said it was over and they saw white between the puck and goal line. From the overhead though, you could see there was a shadow from the crossbar about 3 inches in front of the goal line. The 'white' they saw was between this and the puck. The puck did reach the goal line and I would concede that most of the puck WAS over, but not all the way.
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

streaker said:
I confirmed this by listening in with Piotrowski after the game, who was in a rather animated conversation with Dave Brandon.
Click to expand...
A pure aside, but man, is Dave Brandon everywhere. And in an overbearing, hover-parent kind of way.
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

bluevox said:
Plus, the ref was behind the net, staring at the puck.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY

That is what I told the guy sitting next to me while they were looking at the review. Sergott was right there, looking at the play, and did not hesitate waving it off.
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

alfablue said:
Unless anyone can tell me otherwise- since NOBODY in Yost was up in arms- the "hit to the head" against Miami was a joke call. Followed up by the same joke call against Pateryn.
Click to expand...

When the call for the "Hit" on Pateryn was made I asked the guy next to me if he thought it was a "Make up" call. He said it was the same call as earlier. I replied that was "My exactly point".
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

alfablue said:
Weber's way overrated, and a thug. Great to see him being so embarased that he had to react by fighting. What Gups did was not only understandable, but Miami did it ALL WEEKEND. Nice to see Weber show that his team are a bunch of hacks in his eyes. :)
Click to expand...

I don't know if Berenson would agree that what Gups did was understandable. It gave Miami a reason to start a fight that has our best player tossed for next friday. I think there comes a point where you have to suck up your pride and let the scoreboard do all of the talking.
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

UMBand said:
A pure aside, but man, is Dave Brandon everywhere. And in an overbearing, hover-parent kind of way.
Click to expand...

I don't mind it. This series had powder keg written all over it and I am sure he was there to help send a few messages back to the league since Berenson can only do it cryptically.
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

streaker said:
I don't know if Berenson would agree that what Gups did was understandable. It gave Miami a reason to start a fight that has our best player tossed for next friday. I think there comes a point where you have to suck up your pride and let the scoreboard do all of the talking.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I think that game was going to end in a fight regardless of what Guptill did. The players wanted to send a message about hitting Hunwick, and sometimes the scoreboard isn't enough. Unfortunate to lose Brown for Friday (where's Gasoff when you need him??) but worth it if it makes a future opponent think twice about a cheap shot that might give Hunwick another concussion. I'm just bummed Brown didn't get an assist so he could've had a Gordie Howe hat trick!
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

Gotta say, the negative reps are funny. Apparently Miami fans expect some kind of dynasty or something... :)

As for the general Miami play- well- scoreboard says a lot.

Of the real play of us. The play with the puck in our defensive zone is looking a lot sharper- the blind dumps to nobody were very few, and the wingers seemed to place themselves to get out easier. Even the puck control scheme cycling back until they were ready wasn't all that nerve wracking. Much, much improved.

On the offense- well, they did get some cycling going, and spent great time in the Miami zone. Power play- puck movement is great. They'll get some in. PK- seemed to bottle up Miami even when they had control. And to get a shortie. By a defenseman, no less.

All in all, we are making great progress.

Had this not been SB weekend, I think Brown's undressing of Weber and the score right after that- he would have been Top 10 this morning on Sports Center. Sweet goal.
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

From the CCHA website here are their highlights from Saturday's game.

I didn't notice it until the broadcast crew mentioned it in this video but the celebration after Moffie's first goal was right in front of Miami's bench - a message. (1:00-1:10 mark)

They also give a very good view of the "No goal" you can very plainly see it was on the line but not over. (2:20-2:25)

Then there is Brown undressing Weber - they were so impressed with that move they showed it four more times (2:35-3:05). Also if you watch closely you will see Brown "Tebow" at the 3:08 mark.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYTO8pqhRDU&list=UUkNhN72d_q4Cx_Oztg_8_qQ&index=2&feature=plcp
 
Re: Michigan Wolverines 2011-2012 hockey thread

JoeZ said:
From the CCHA website here are their highlights from Saturday's game.

I didn't notice it until the broadcast crew mentioned it in this video but the celebration after Moffie's first goal was right in front of Miami's bench - a message. (1:00-1:10 mark)

They also give a very good view of the "No goal" you can very plainly see it was on the line but not over. (2:20-2:25)

Then there is Brown undressing Weber - they were so impressed with that move they showed it four more times (2:35-3:05). Also if you watch closely you will see Brown "Tebow" at the 3:08 mark.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYTO8pqhRDU&list=UUkNhN72d_q4Cx_Oztg_8_qQ&index=2&feature=plcp
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, Joe. Maybe you should post that on the Miami thread...:D

Edit: Although they would probably say that it was a goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top