Timothy A
Let's go RED!
I guess if no one else wants to play for you, you take them from where you can get them. Maybe MN is becoming the Sue V2.
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.
Minnesota Gophers 2021-2022
- Thread starter FiveHoleFrenzy
- Start date
I guess if no one else wants to play for you, you take them from where you can get them. Maybe MN is becoming the Sue V2.
Bulldogs...lol
Speaking of the Sue, they always had a huge contingent of fans at Ridder for any ND game. A rowdy bunch, for sure, but they would spend the night between games, and I'm sure put a lot of coin towards restaurant and bar tabs. With such a dedicated fan base, it is still unconscionable that the school Administration ended the program the way they did. That team was certainly the No. 1 rival for the Gophers. A big thumbs down for that decision.
Timothy A
Let's go RED!
The Sue were a bigger rival than WI? Fascinating.
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
Not to me...The f'en hawks did have a run at it stirring up trouble like Ohio State, with the Lamourgoon sisters and the kid from SSP who had anger issues.
Last edited:
That was an awesome game! My wife was going to invite her mother, who has issues sitting in one place any length of time. 3 overtimes, a whole n'other game. Luckily she didn't accept.
ManBehindTheCurtain
Great and powerful wizard
I didn't have a clear view of the major penalty. Anyone who saw it care to comment?
The review took a very long time.
The review took a very long time.
robertearle
Well-known member
I thought definitely two, but I'm not sure about five. But they have so many 'mandatory' kind of rules; if there's head contact, or 'from behind into the boards' etc. So maybe there was something like that in there. The impression I had from the BTN stream and 'close-ups' of the refs as they were reviewing was one wanted to make it five and the other didn't. But I could be 'projecting'.
ManBehindTheCurtain
Great and powerful wizard
Live in the building I had this same impression. The guy who had made the call didn't seem to think five but the other guy seemed to be advocating for the major. I did not have a clear view live and have yet to see a replay so I absolutely do not know.
ManBehindTheCurtain
Great and powerful wizard
Clearly Wisconsin is good. They played a good game and had their chances. The Gophers won.
ManBehindTheCurtain
Great and powerful wizard
I have now looked at the BigTen+ stream.
The major penalty? Three people come together, one Gopher, one Badger, one zebra (Olson). Olson seems to turn away from where the contact occurs partially to keep from getting hit in the head by the upraised sticks. The contact occurs three quarters behind his right shoulder as he is turning to the left. No penalty is called immediately.
Penalties are almost always subjective.
The other zebra (who had a better view) seemed to talk Olson into it.
It isn't a penalty until the referee raises his/her arm. And then it is and you play on from there.
The major penalty? Three people come together, one Gopher, one Badger, one zebra (Olson). Olson seems to turn away from where the contact occurs partially to keep from getting hit in the head by the upraised sticks. The contact occurs three quarters behind his right shoulder as he is turning to the left. No penalty is called immediately.
Penalties are almost always subjective.
The other zebra (who had a better view) seemed to talk Olson into it.
It isn't a penalty until the referee raises his/her arm. And then it is and you play on from there.
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
Didn't get to see the game live so I just got done watching the replay. If #9, #22 (especially her) and #3 for the Gophers had been better the Gophers win 3 or 4 to 1.
What I don't like about the major penalty call is that It took so long for them to look at it. Like they were bound and determined to come up with something that wasn't called in live action. That is not a good look to use replay in that manner. I think they could have called a 2 minute penalty out of the live action and that would have been fine but they didn't. #16 overcame that and scored the game winner. seems fitting.
Oh and #5 scored and mostly stayed away from turning the puck over. Good for her. Also a tip of the hat to #33 who did a great job in net as well.
What I don't like about the major penalty call is that It took so long for them to look at it. Like they were bound and determined to come up with something that wasn't called in live action. That is not a good look to use replay in that manner. I think they could have called a 2 minute penalty out of the live action and that would have been fine but they didn't. #16 overcame that and scored the game winner. seems fitting.
Oh and #5 scored and mostly stayed away from turning the puck over. Good for her. Also a tip of the hat to #33 who did a great job in net as well.
Not so sure about that. The Badgers did a good job in checking our first line close and didn't give them the kind of room to operate that they're used to having.
Something I've come to expect is the longer the referees take to review the play the greater the odds become in calling it a major.
I was wondering how you were going to judge Madeline's play. Clearly one of her best games in quite some time, especially considering the quality of the opposition. And I thought Paul was outstanding in all respects, and the Gophers needed her.
FiveHoleFrenzy
Well-known member
What are you not sure about? #22 absolutely messed up the the 3 on 1 rush where #9 just teed it up for her to put into the open net. #22 also had 2 great opportunities to get empty net goals. Heise was set up beautifully by #22 in the slot and normally puts those shots in the back of the net but didn't get it done. #9 also hit the post on an ENG attempt. Any of those gets you to 3-1 or 4-1.
ManBehindTheCurtain
Great and powerful wizard
The morning newspaper analysis states that no penalty was called live. Video review can only be used in that circumstance if the zebras believe they have missed a major penalty. Because of that there were only two possible outcomes of the review, either a major or no penalty at all.
robertearle
Well-known member
That helps explain the really weak "interference" call on Watts two minutes later.
That helps explain the really weak "interference" call on Watts two minutes later.
It was an awfully weak call against Potomac. Watching on B1G+ there was very little to justify any penalty. If the offside ref saw a penalty when it happened, it should have been called. Of all the plays we have watched where gooning took place, the actual contact here seemed totally incidental. You fly around the ice, you circle the boards, you try to avoid hitting a ref; a bad call from my view.
I think the third period would have been just fine with no penalties called!