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.

Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

Stauber1 said:
Not sure where anyone sees an extended elbow in that hit. Looks pretty clear to me he drops and holds his arm tight against his body. The arm only extends after the hit when Sturtz is flailing through mid-air as the result of the unexpected contact.

I don't see that as an intentional hit. When I see that, I see a guy trying to maintain his speed to pursue the puck by trying to evade the player rather than put the breaks on. Putting the breaks on means puck pursuit ends, and if Motte had turned the other way (or turned a fraction of a second later) Sturtz would have had a great jump to track down the puck.

It was the wrong decision, but it wasn't a malicious one. It was also deserving of suspension. Regardless of intent, players are accountable for their bodies.

That's how I see it.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. If there was intent, it was disguised very well. It was brutal, that's for sure.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

I'll admit, I'm not unbiased, I'm a diehard Gopher fan, so my bias is obvious.

That being said, I did not see any intent in that hit. If there was intent, it was very well disguised. It was a slipt second decision, and maybe not the best decision, and hence the one game suspension, which was plenty punishment. I've seen intentional hits before, and that didn't look anything like an intentional hit. Hockey is a fast game and sometimes you are heading in a direction and just can't do much about where you end up a fraction of a second later.

Personally, MAYBE it was intentional? But what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? No one knows what was going through that young man's mind at the time of the hit. And imho, all those who are claiming it was obviously intentional, are people who simply WANT it to have been intentional. Otherwise benefit of the doubt should be given when there isn't absolute conclusive proof one way or the other. But what do I know? I'm NOT an expert. JMHO.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

Very encouraging win tonight for the Gophers. I liked the line changes (finally). Cammy apparently requested a change, and seemed very energized tonight with Kloos and Sheehy. Eight SOG, 1-1-2 in scoring for Cammy, if not a season high it's very close. Lots of zone time, lots of pucks on net, good puck movement, good transition game, some amazing scoring chances and Schierhorn looked extremely good tonight in net. Credit Skoff who made some great saves for the Nittany Lions and did his best to keep them in the game. One down...one to go, need a sweep.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

I see him trying to jump out of the way as well. Does it deserve a suspension? Yes. Intentional? Didn't seem to be.
 
FredsDeadFriend said:
I'll admit, I'm not unbiased, I'm a diehard Gopher fan, so my bias is obvious.

That being said, I did not see any intent in that hit. If there was intent, it was very well disguised. It was a slipt second decision, and maybe not the best decision, and hence the one game suspension, which was plenty punishment. I've seen intentional hits before, and that didn't look anything like an intentional hit. Hockey is a fast game and sometimes you are heading in a direction and just can't do much about where you end up a fraction of a second later.

Personally, MAYBE it was intentional? But what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? No one knows what was going through that young man's mind at the time of the hit. And imho, all those who are claiming it was obviously intentional, are people who simply WANT it to have been intentional. Otherwise benefit of the doubt should be given when there isn't absolute conclusive proof one way or the other. But what do I know? I'm NOT an expert. JMHO.
Click to expand...

How dare you!
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

D2D said:
And the Wolverines lost! :)
Click to expand...

1. Good to see a better effort last night than what we saw last week. Hope Cammi gets a load of confidence from last nights game.
2. MI drops a couple more unexpected games and I can imagine a scenario where the Gophs win the B1G and don't make the tourney.
3. The hit and suspension last week. (Stop reading now if completely sick of discussion.) Hitting him in the head was avoidable so worthy of a suspension. I think it was a lot like Seelers. Not a premeditated attempt to hurt, but a last second bad decision. Seeler went for the hip check and missed, so stuck his arm out to keep the guy from getting a breakaway and his head was all Seeler could catch so he did. Looked like the Penn State player was speeding up around net for a hit. Saw the puck was passed before he got there, so started to turn away, but when he realized there was going to be some contact, decided to make sure the MI player got the worst of it so leaned into it with his shoulder and the head was the thing to hit. He could have leaned away from the hit, seeing the head was the only target. This would have resulted in the Penn St player being off balance and going down, so not the natural reaction when you are going to collide, but still a choice he made. But I think the message needs to be to avoid hits to the head at all cost. That is why I think this hit and the Seeler one each deserved a game. Both appeared to be bad split second decision (not premeditated attempt to injure) yet the dangerous part of the hit could have been avoided.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

I liked the effort last night even if it didn't always translate into consistent cohesion. However to win by 3 despite not being at their best (my perception) is encouraging.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

Only change from yesterday is Sadek is out and Glover is in. Collins paired with Johnson instead of Seeler.

<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cajgvt7WwAAzZnc.jpg" alt="Embedded image permalink" style="width: 40%; top: -84px;">
 
Last edited:
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

SteveO said:
Only change from yesterday is Sadek is out and Glover is in. Collins paired with Johnson instead of Seeler.

<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cajgvt7WwAAzZnc.jpg" alt="Embedded image permalink" style="width: 40%; top: -84px;">
Click to expand...

Bad moves, it turns out. ;)
When teams keep wings high on the MN points it really befuddles the Gophers when they forecheck.

Solid game by PSU.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

The Gophers gave up too many odd man rushes, did not burying their chances and got some bad bounces in the 5-3 loss. I thought they looked out of sync and struggled early trying to generate any offense and let Penn St. storm Schierhorn to take the early lead off a rebound.

Gophers got better in the second, put a lot of SOG off a total of 62 attempts in the game, but allowed too many odd man rushes and turnovers which kept them chasing a Penn St. lead all game.

A bad bounce in the third off a block allowed Saar to bury the 4th goal late for the W. Both teams had good looks but PSU was opportunistic, and got the bounces they needed for their first ever W at Mariucci. The Gophers gotta play better and consistent D down the stretch if they expect a postseason.

<blockquote class="twitter-video"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Saar comes up big ripping one past off the faceoff giving <a href="https://twitter.com/PennStateMHKY">@PennStateMHKY</a> the lead 4-3 versus <a href="https://twitter.com/GopherHockey">@gopherhockey</a>. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HDM2016?src=hash">#HDM2016</a> <a href="https://t.co/jqi0JElzK8">https://t.co/jqi0JElzK8</a></p>— FOX Sports North (@fsnorth) <a href="https://twitter.com/fsnorth/status/696126257893801984">February 7, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Nice shortie by Kloos
<blockquote class="twitter-video"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/GopherHockey">@gopherhockey</a> Justin Kloos team up with Fasching and tally a shorthanded goal to tie <a href="https://twitter.com/PennStateMHKY">@PennStateMHKY</a> 3-3. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HDM2016?src=hash">#HDM2016</a> <a href="https://t.co/E3HolKXNFO">https://t.co/E3HolKXNFO</a></p>— FOX Sports North (@fsnorth) <a href="https://twitter.com/fsnorth/status/696114166352863233">February 6, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

I am a little confused overall by the coaches challenge by Penn State. I get that Cammarata was offside, so be it. But when did a coaches challenge get instituted in D1 hockey?

I have to imagine that is a little hard to do consistently since not all games in all arena's are televised. I know that years ago all arena's installed goal cams to look at goals and that's easy enough to do, but to be able to say that an offside can be challenged? What if the game wasn't televised last night? Would they still be able to challenge and see if the ref's would change their minds?
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

JoeGopher said:
I am a little confused overall by the coaches challenge by Penn State. I get that Cammarata was offside, so be it. But when did a coaches challenge get instituted in D1 hockey?

I have to imagine that is a little hard to do consistently since not all games in all arena's are televised. I know that years ago all arena's installed goal cams to look at goals and that's easy enough to do, but to be able to say that an offside can be challenged? What if the game wasn't televised last night? Would they still be able to challenge and see if the ref's would change their minds?
Click to expand...

Here a link to what reviewable.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-...o-replay-criteria-approved-mens-womens-hockey
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

Gophers #1 said:
Here a link to what reviewable.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-...o-replay-criteria-approved-mens-womens-hockey
Click to expand...

Interesting. Again, I am not disputing the call since Cammy was offside, but it seems a little strange that they can have a coaches challenge rule in place when it can't be used by all teams in all games.

Still doesn't change the fact that the team seems to be a little Jekyll and Hyde lately. Friday night they were really good and Saturday? Meh. Certainly PSU played a much tougher game and deserved it, but the Gophs were missing a lot of passes and looked disconnected at times. And I still don't get the whole "things worked great Friday so lets change the lineup for Saturday" bit. Not saying that having Sadek over Glover and Norman over Michaelson would have made a difference, but still...
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

Not sure more freshman in the lineup help win games late in the year. Thought 15 played pretty well on that 4th line.
 
Re: Minnesota hosts Penn State: 2/5 & 2/6

JoeGopher said:
Interesting. Again, I am not disputing the call since Cammy was offside, but it seems a little strange that they can have a coaches challenge rule in place when it can't be used by all teams in all games.
Click to expand...

Just because a game isn't being televised it doesn't mean there are no cameras in the rink. Not sure where you got the idea that the challenge isn't available in some games or for some teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top