Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

[Eeyore]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

Today's loss goes down as some combination of bad luck and coaching decisions. The attempt to get by with just four defensemen, two of whom are freshmen, went on too long. Collectively, they were completely out of gas by the third period. If Katie Robinson isn't ready to go next week, they have to move Skarzynski back to defense. Even if she is back, they should probably do so, because Baldwin/Marshall/Knowles/Brown are exhausted, and it cost us badly today. It wasn't just the two odd man rushes on which Bemidji scored. They also had nothing to give in trying to push for the comeback.

I'm also pretty sure that the officials got the call wrong on enforcing the penalty against Kippin Keller that occurred between Bemidji scoring their fourth goal and the retroactive video review that awarded it. Oddly, the rulebook doesn't seem to directly address such retroactive reviews at all. The closest I can find is in rule 83.6 - Disallowed Goals, where it says:

When video review confirms the scoring of a goal at one end of the ice, any goal scored at the other end during intervening action must be disallowed.

That certainly implies the ability to review retroactively, but I can't find anywhere that actually says that they can. Under Rule 93.4 - Video Replay Criteria, it says that the following can be reviewed:

To determine if a goal was scored before a penalty infraction occurred.

This implies that a penalty that occurs after a goal is scored shouldn't be enforced. It's hard to figure out what else that could mean. Clearly, in what happened today, the goal was scored more than a minute before the penalty infraction occurred.

All in all, the refs had a miserable series. The penalty calls/non-calls made no sense at all. They also missed an instance where the puck hit the netting ten feet above the glass and let play continue.

 

[FiveHoleFrenzy]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

Today's loss goes down as some combination of bad luck and coaching decisions. The attempt to get by with just four defensemen, two of whom are freshmen, went on too long. Collectively, they were completely out of gas by the third period. If Katie Robinson isn't ready to go next week, they have to move Skarzynski back to defense. Even if she is back, they should probably do so, because Baldwin/Marshall/Knowles/Brown are exhausted, and it cost us badly today. It wasn't just the two odd man rushes on which Bemidji scored. They also had nothing to give in trying to push for the comeback.

Even last night you could tell that Bemidji was really trying to put a lot extra forecheck pressure on Minnesota's D. Honestly, why wouldn't you with the opponent only having 4 D in their rotation?

 

[ManBehindTheCurtain]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

There were at least two former Gopher D in the house either of whom would have probably made a difference in the game if they had been allowed to play.

Introduced to the crowd were current Olympic team players, from Canada Sarah Potomak, from USA Amanda Kessel and Megan Bozek.

The Gophers could definitely have used Bozek.

Also in the crowd two players who would have helped a lot, Baylee Gillanders and Brook Garzone.

 

[KTDC]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

I'm also pretty sure that the officials got the call wrong on enforcing the penalty against Kippin Keller that occurred between Bemidji scoring their fourth goal and the retroactive video review that awarded it. Oddly, the rulebook doesn't seem to directly address such retroactive reviews at all. The closest I can find is in rule 83.6 - Disallowed Goals, where it says:

Yes, it seems they had to have gotten that wrong. They put the time the time back on the clock but still called the penalty that took place during the time that didn't exist. That means if we would have scored instead of committed a penalty our goal would have counted as well, right?

 

[KTDC]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

To me, the play of our forwards made it really difficult for the coaches to move Skarzynski back to defense.

Bemidji played a great game. I think we played the exact wrong game. People are hungry to beat the Gophers this year and this game should make it more difficult the rest of the way. Upcoming opponents will look at this and really want to feast on Gopher. Too many forwards looked like they didn't want to pay the price. We had two SOG 18 minutes into the game. 12 SOG after two periods. Something was wrong with Kippin Keller. Maybe she was sick but something was off.

The team's going to the game today at the X. I hope they have a great time, get inspired, and come back with a great response vs the Bulldogs next weekend.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

Yes, it seems they had to have gotten that wrong. They put the time the time back on the clock but still called the penalty that took place during the time that didn't exist. That means if we would have scored instead of committed a penalty our goal would have counted as well, right?

No. That's the one thing that's explicit in the rules: if a video review finds that a goal was scored earlier, then no goal scored during the wiped out play counts.

There is a legitimate issue of an action that's a penalty because it's dangerous (elbowing; high sticking; any number of other things) ought to be served even though the time was wiped out, but something that is a penalty only because it provides an advantage in play ought not. Keller's penalty for tripping, aside from being a weak call to begin with, was purely the latter.

 

[KTDC]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

There is a legitimate issue of an action that's a penalty because it's dangerous (elbowing; high sticking; any number of other things) ought to be served even though the time was wiped out, but something that is a penalty only because it provides an advantage in play ought not. Keller's penalty for tripping, aside from being a weak call to begin with, was purely the latter.

I agree.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

No. That's the one thing that's explicit in the rules: if a video review finds that a goal was scored earlier, then no goal scored during the wiped out play counts.

There is a legitimate issue of an action that's a penalty because it's dangerous (elbowing; high sticking; any number of other things) ought to be served even though the time was wiped out, but something that is a penalty only because it provides an advantage in play ought not. Keller's penalty for tripping, aside from being a weak call to begin with, was purely the latter.

what I'd like to know is if the Beavers had scored would they be given credit for both goals?
that adds a new wrinkle to hockey, hope the nearsighted refs don't see you score, score another quickly and get credit for both.
I can understand the Beavers wanting a review, it sure looked like it went in to me, but how far back can you go to review? If play had continued without a break for another 5 minutes would they have gone back?

as for Keller's penalty being weak, it seems to me the whole reason it was called was because they felt guilty about missing the goal, then they felt guilty about the consequences to the Gophers and called a penalty on the Beavers.
They let similar plays go earlier, hey refs, here's an idea, why don't you call the game consistently throughout?

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

Assuming that the refs interpreted the rule correctly, the Gophers skated for a number of minutes trying to score a goal that could not be scored, yet the Beavers apparently were eligible to score a goal. This penalizes the Gopher for an official’s mistake while at the same time giving a benefit to the Beavers. Why would you have a situation that penalizes one team for doing nothing wrong while giving a benefit to the other? It doesn’t make sense.
In this situation if the coach was absolutely sure he saw the puck go in he could pull the goalie without fear of being scored upon in hopes of the extra attacker helping his team score a "free" goal. The other coach would have to instruct his team to get a stoppage of play, taking a penalty if need be, to avoid the bizarre situation where his team is by rule unable to score.

 

[D2D]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

In his post-game interview Brad Frost almost seemed mad (not quite, but almost!).

http://www.gophersports.com/sports/...tm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=GopherDaily

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

what I'd like to know is if the Beavers had scored would they be given credit for both goals?

No. For the third time, the one thing that the rulebook is crystal clear on is that no subsequent goal can count. The one hinky thing about it is that, if the next whistle is for another Bemidji goal, they probably don't want the video review, because they have a two goal lead either way, and have less time left on the clock if it's the second one that counts.

I can understand the Beavers wanting a review, it sure looked like it went in to me, but how far back can you go to review? If play had continued without a break for another 5 minutes would they have gone back?

What the rulebook says is that once the puck is dropped for a face-off, the previous play can no longer be reviewed. It implies without ever just stating that the refs can go back to any call on the list of things that can be reviewed since the last face-off. So, yes, no matter how long play continues without a stoppage, there can be a review at the next whistle.

 

[robertearle]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

Only tangentially related to the on-going discussion here, but there was a weird sequence in the UW-UMD game Saturday.

A Badger and a Bulldog got tangled up in the UW offensive zone, with both ending up down on the ice. Up went the ref's arm. The puck was not in 'clear' control of either team, but both before and after Wisconsin more-or-less had control, so after a couple seconds UW goalie Campbell started heading for the bench. A UW player chips the puck back through center ice and it looks for a second that it might be headed for the open UW goal, so Campbell reverses direction, heading back towards goal as a UW defense player catches up to the puck. And then the ref blows his whistle. And after a few seconds of discussion, calls the penalty on Wisconsin! Everybody in the building had thought the penalty was on UMD, except (one of the two?) the refs.

No harm, no foul, and no reviews. But an odd, confusing sequence.

 

[pokechecker]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

No. For the third time, the one thing that the rulebook is crystal clear on is that no subsequent goal can count. The one hinky thing about it is that, if the next whistle is for another Bemidji goal, they probably don't want the video review, because they have a two goal lead either way, and have less time left on the clock if it's the second one that counts.



What the rulebook says is that once the puck is dropped for a face-off, the previous play can no longer be reviewed. It implies without ever just stating that the refs can go back to any call on the list of things that can be reviewed since the last face-off. So, yes, no matter how long play continues without a stoppage, there can be a review at the next whistle.

so why then allow play to continue if no subsequent goal counts? me thinks you are reading or repeating something wrong.
Maybe you should post where you are getting your rules from and let people decide for themselves.

 

[robertearle]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

so why then allow play to continue if no subsequent goal counts? me thinks you are reading or repeating something wrong.
Maybe you should post where you are getting your rules from and let people decide for themselves.

Maybe running through the 'cases' would clarify:

If the shot under subsequent review is ruled a goal, then can either team score a subsequent goal prior to the whistle and review?
If the shot under subsequent review is ruled no-goal, then can either team score a goal prior to the whistle and review?

I think Eeyore is saying if the shot is ruled a goal, then no subsequent goal can be scored; but if the shot is ruled a no-goal, then a subsequent goal can be scored and counted. But nobody knows which condition is in effect until the review is conducted, so play goes on.

 

[joecct]

Maybe running through the 'cases' would clarify:

If the shot under subsequent review is ruled a goal, then can either team score a subsequent goal prior to the whistle and review?
If the shot under subsequent review is ruled no-goal, then can either team score a goal prior to the whistle and review?

I think Eeyore is saying if the shot is ruled a goal, then no subsequent goal can be scored; but if the shot is ruled a no-goal, then a subsequent goal can be scored and counted. But nobody knows which condition is in effect until the review is conducted, so play goes on.

See Vermont - Air Force regional championship in 2010(?). It almost happened.

 

[KTDC]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

I've noticed that, no surprise to me. And additionally.........

Sydney Baldwin still leads the COU*NTRY in blocked shots AND points for a defenseman This player certainly has skills as pokechecker mentioned (and I believe the coaching staff agrees).

Alas, to me sometimes the glass has seemed more than half empty rather than more than half full. But I raise that very glass in a toast that she have a fantastic closing half-season to her Golden Gopher career. And salute her skills and all she has given the program.

Go Sydney!
Go Gophs!

On top of everything else our d Sydney is 2 month reigning WCHA Defensive Player Of The Month!

http://www.gophersports.com/sports/w-hockey/spec-rel/120417aaa.html

Good for you

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

so why then allow play to continue if no subsequent goal counts? me thinks you are reading or repeating something wrong.
Maybe you should post where you are getting your rules from and let people decide for themselves.

Play continues because the ref rules on the ice that there was no goal, as happened on Saturday. Then, at the next whistle, they review the play, because they are not sure that the ruling on the ice was correct. They let play go on because that is the natural flow of things if there was no goal scored. There really is no obvious stopping point short of the next natu rally occurring whistle.

As for the reference, go back and look at my initial post on the subject. It cites the paragraphs of the NCAA ice hockey rulebook that I'm working from.

 

[ne7minder]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

Maybe running through the 'cases' would clarify:

If the shot under subsequent review is ruled a goal, then can either team score a subsequent goal prior to the whistle and review?
If the shot under subsequent review is ruled no-goal, then can either team score a goal prior to the whistle and review?

I think Eeyore is saying if the shot is ruled a goal, then no subsequent goal can be scored; but if the shot is ruled a no-goal, then a subsequent goal can be scored and counted. But nobody knows which condition is in effect until the review is conducted, so play goes on.

Actually he quoted the rulebook that made that pretty clear.

 

[shelfit]

You expect pukechucker to read before he posts? The next thing you'll expect him to start acting like a decent human.

I prefer to call him peckerchecker.

 

[ne7minder]

Re: Minnesota Golden Gophers 2017-18 Season Thread

Only tangentially related to the on-going discussion here, but there was a weird sequence in the UW-UMD game Saturday.

A Badger and a Bulldog got tangled up in the UW offensive zone, with both ending up down on the ice. Up went the ref's arm. The puck was not in 'clear' control of either team, but both before and after Wisconsin more-or-less had control, so after a couple seconds UW goalie Campbell started heading for the bench. A UW player chips the puck back through center ice and it looks for a second that it might be headed for the open UW goal, so Campbell reverses direction, heading back towards goal as a UW defense player catches up to the puck. And then the ref blows his whistle. And after a few seconds of discussion, calls the penalty on Wisconsin! Everybody in the building had thought the penalty was on UMD, except (one of the two?) the refs.

No harm, no foul, and no reviews. But an odd, confusing sequence.

Years ago at the WCHA final 4our (TM) MN was playing OSU (IIRC) The refs arm went up while the Gophers had the puck in the Buckeye zone, the linesman pointed at Killewald who skated to the bench for a 6th skater. Gophers shot and OSU got the puck then turned it over to MN . . . no whistle. MN got a second shot, OSU got the puck, took it down and scored into the empty net. MN was called for a penalty. There was no explanation.