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.

NCAA Tournament Games

TitleIXHockey said:
Also pretty sure that was a textbook call since you have to control your stick at all times. This happened in the NHL several years ago as a player got a "high" stick for whacking a player in the face that was on the ice.
Click to expand...

If that's true, they need to rewrite the textbook. How in the world do you expect a player to maintain control of their stick while falling from being cross-checked? The very fact that they are falling means they have lost control, through no fault of their own.
 
robertearle said:
If that's true, they need to rewrite the textbook. How in the world do you expect a player to maintain control of their stick while falling from being cross-checked? The very fact that they are falling means they have lost control, through no fault of their own.
Click to expand...

I think we're putting a lot into the word crosscheck here and I think not flailing your stick into another player's face, even as you fall, is not too much to ask.

That said, I watched it again and I didn't feel it was as flagrant as ARM did.
 
TitleIXHockey said:
I think we're putting a lot into the word crosscheck here and I think not flailing your stick into another player's face, even as you fall, is not too much to ask.

That said, I watched it again and I didn't feel it was as flagrant as ARM did.
Click to expand...

'Flailing' is a common feature of falling after being pushed. It isn't done voluntarily.
 
robertearle said:
'Flailing' is a common feature of falling after being pushed. It isn't done voluntarily.
Click to expand...

Not when you're an elite athlete who knows you need to be in control of your stick. On second thought, maybe it was kinda flagrant. I don't think it was an entirely natural reaction to being, uh "pushed". Maybe if every time you fall your stick flies up and bricks someone in the face, you shouldn't be playing hockey.
 
TitleIXHockey said:
Not when you're an elite athlete who knows you need to be in control of your stick. On second thought, maybe it was kinda flagrant. I don't think it was an entirely natural reaction to being, uh "pushed". Maybe if every time you fall your stick flies up and bricks someone in the face, you shouldn't be playing hockey.
Click to expand...

Once more, not voluntary. Control lost, through no fault of your own.

Shall we go another lap?
 
ARM said:
Syracuse had zone time on that PP, and some moments where it looked like a goal was developing that never did. On that play, I thought she got handcuffed by the puck as much as anything. Agree to disagree on the level of goodness from the Orange.
Click to expand...

Fine, just felt unnecessarily rude and disrespectful to the Orange, who was really an 18 seed (PWR) is all.
 
#28 for the sinners scored a nice goal but she made a boneheaded play to give Clarkson over a minute of 5-3 Power play. It is fortunate for the sinners that Clarkson didn't take advantage of that. It was also not smart for either #28 or the Clarkson player (#4 I think) to be engaging each other that far behind the play. Clarkson did get a goal out of that to make things somewhat interesting.
 
ARM said:
Was there a time when Syracuse was looking good? If so, I confess that I missed it.
Click to expand...

I fear I was too nice.

Wasn't it you who pondered whether it was a problem that you and Nicole are both WCHA fans as the only WoHo devotees on USCHO? I don't really think it is, but I think both of you being fans of teams that have won championships might be. Why would any SU fans want to come here when, during the program's greatest success, they see sarcastic dismissive comments like that? It's little wonder that 90% of the people on here don't stray from their team threads when the WCHA fans are going to belittle them into the ground. Sorry SU isn't ~~Minnesota~~ or ~~Wisconsin~~ or ~~Clarkson~~ or ~~UMD~~, they showed up as an 18th ranked PWR team against #7 and for half a game looked like they had a shot. That's not deserving of "was there a time when they looked good?" or "not threatening at all." This doesn't grow the game, it does the opposite.
 
FiveHoleFrenzy said:
#28 for the sinners scored a nice goal but she made a boneheaded play to give Clarkson over a minute of 5-3 Power play. It is fortunate for the sinners that Clarkson didn't take advantage of that. It was also not smart for either #28 or the Clarkson player (#4 I think) to be engaging each other that far behind the play. Clarkson did get a goal out of that to make things somewhat interesting.
Click to expand...

It was a bit odd. In the lead up 28 stops hard right before Winn (4) and kind of leans back, just kind of really weird body positioning, almost like she was trying to snow her, but there's no point in snowing someone's shin pads so I assume not. Idk if Winn felt like 28 was coming at her and had to give her a shove or there was previous in-game beef or what.

Wisconsin was uncharacteristically penalty-happy today, is that getting different refs? Is it Clarkson pushing the play more than expected?
 
TitleIXHockey said:
I fear I was too nice.

Wasn't it you who pondered whether it was a problem that you and Nicole are both WCHA fans as the only WoHo devotees on USCHO? I don't really think it is, but I think both of you being fans of teams that have won championships might be. Why would any SU fans want to come here when, during the program's greatest success, they see sarcastic dismissive comments like that? It's little wonder that 90% of the people on here don't stray from their team threads when the WCHA fans are going to belittle them into the ground. Sorry SU isn't ~~Minnesota~~ or ~~Wisconsin~~ or ~~Clarkson~~ or ~~UMD~~, they showed up as an 18th ranked PWR team against #7 and for half a game looked like they had a shot. That's not deserving of "was there a time when they looked good?" or "not threatening at all." This doesn't grow the game, it does the opposite.
Click to expand...

Good for you for pointing this out. We get spoiled when following a team that ends up in the top 4 on a regular basis. Getting the trophy shouldn't be the main point of playing a sport. There are winners and there are many more losers regardless of what sport you talk about. I have said this before: be kind when you have the chance. These are college kids, not some NFL millionaire who missed a slap shot. The better team generally wins -- that doesn't make the loser inferior human beings. Pulling the bottom ranked teams upwards, even if only by giving them rah rahs, is good for the sport overall. It costs nothing to credit any team for being in the competition. Sure we can play favorites, or tweak a poster who appears full of themselves, but these young ladies deserve every ounce of respect we can give them.
 
Steamboat said:
Good for you for pointing this out. We get spoiled when following a team that ends up in the top 4 on a regular basis. Getting the trophy shouldn't be the main point of playing a sport. There are winners and there are many more losers regardless of what sport you talk about. I have said this before: be kind when you have the chance. These are college kids, not some NFL millionaire who missed a slap shot. The better team generally wins -- that doesn't make the loser inferior human beings. Pulling the bottom ranked teams upwards, even if only by giving them rah rahs, is good for the sport overall. It costs nothing to credit any team for being in the competition. Sure we can play favorites, or tweak a poster who appears full of themselves, but these young ladies deserve every ounce of respect we can give them.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I know I can be a butthead sometimes, but I really pull for the athletes and I really like watching everyone from the title winners down to Post and St. Michael's, the last two in PWR. That's why I try to use "bottom" to describe teams in the lower half of the standings instead of "bad." Even from the 2018 tournament, which I was at and Clarkson won, I remember Presley Norby in tears and I'm glad she, and Wisconsin got that title in 2019, even though they ran right through Clarkson in the process. (My only beef that year really was it kind of sucked that all the Frozen Four games were shutouts.)
 
TitleIXHockey said:
Fine, just felt unnecessarily rude and disrespectful to the Orange, who was really an 18 seed (PWR) is all.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to be rude nor disrespectful to the Orange, and I'm sure not being sarcastic. I save that for people that I know. You said you thought Quinnipiac started poorly. I thought they had the upper hand throughout. This is D-I, and I know that Paul Flanagan understands that and schedules accordingly. You don't get judged by a different standard because you come from a different league once the tournament starts. Maybe that's why we viewed the game differently, if you were thinking Syracuse is #18, and I'm thinking they're just another team that has to win or its season will end, no matter how it got to this point.

Syracuse had a lot of success this year. I watched them win at times when I sure didn't think they had a chance. Outshot badly during their games at PSU, but leading almost all the way. They got pounded the first game of the final series with the Lakers and bounced back the next day and won. So I have mentally written the Orange off this year, and they've won anyway. My opinion when watching this game was that the Bobcats had the upper hand throughout. It doesn't make me right and you wrong.

My biggest takeaway from this game was that Quinnipiac likely benefits from having the extra round. If it started that slowly versus OSU, it might have been in an early hole like it was against Clarkson years ago. Come Saturday, Q will be more comfortable with the idea that this is the NCAA Tournament (but it's still just a hockey game) and playing in the OSU Ice Rink, which is also somewhere that they haven't been that often. I didn't have the same reaction to the Harvard / UMD game, because the Bulldogs were in the tournament last year and are very familiar with Ridder Arena, so I don't know if an opening round changes their prospects either way. UMD could have won Saturday without tonight's game.
 
TitleIXHockey said:
It was a bit odd. In the lead up 28 stops hard right before Winn (4) and kind of leans back, just kind of really weird body positioning, almost like she was trying to snow her, but there's no point in snowing someone's shin pads so I assume not. Idk if Winn felt like 28 was coming at her and had to give her a shove or there was previous in-game beef or what.

Wisconsin was uncharacteristically penalty-happy today, is that getting different refs? Is it Clarkson pushing the play more than expected?
Click to expand...

Wheeler has a bit of a chippy streak.

Usually UW plays a clean game, I don't know if Clarkson was trying to push their buttons to try and get pp time. I think they let too much go in the first period, which is the only period I have seen so far in it's entirety. It did have an increased level of intensity.
 
Q impressed me when they came to WI in January. I recall thinking WI won 4 of the 6 periods as far as flow of the play goes it wasn't like UW had them bottled up for minutes at a time or anything. Of course that was a few months ago, but OSU may have their hands full. I may be a western elitist, but I'd like to see OSU get dumped out of the tourney, it makes UW's slim chance of winning the title easier if they advance. And that means of course that I want the eastern MN to beat the western MN team.
 
Timothy A said:
Q impressed me when they came to WI in January. I recall thinking WI won 4 of the 6 periods as far as flow of the play goes it wasn't like UW had them bottled up for minutes at a time or anything. Of course that was a few months ago, but OSU may have their hands full. I may be a western elitist, but I'd like to see OSU get dumped out of the tourney, it makes UW's slim chance of winning the title easier if they advance. And that means of course that I want the eastern MN to beat the western MN team.
Click to expand...

Looking at Wisco is a reminder of how hard it is to three peat. If by some miracle they pull it off that has to be one of the biggest storylines. And even then the asterisk crowd will put their mark on it. There is a part of me that wonders if we’ll ever see it again, at least as long as college rosters provide Olympians.

NU has a heck of a path to try and win the championship. Having played no one in the entire field they have to go thru 2, maybe 3 WCHA teams to win it. They are an enigma. As ARM has pointed out tho the rest of the teams in their bracket have enough flaws that it’s possible they make it to the final.

OSU’s bracket only has one team that has been in a championship game before, and no one that’s won it all. The feel good side of the bracket for sure. If anyone has pressure or expectations on them at this point on that side of the bracket it’s OSU, and to a lesser degree Colgate. Yale has come out of nowhere at least in terms of press; I know the Bolding fans knew to expect it. If any one can play free this weekend it’s them.

Very exciting games on deck this weekend.
 
Chiming in on the SU QU discussion. I watched the first period and it was anyone’s game, but Cuse did give off a vibe that they were happy to get the puck in the QU zone and then just dump it to a safe space. I don’t know if the pick hopped on that pp or not but Cuse needed that goal considering how conservatively they were playing elsewhere. That is a credit to QU’s d I suppose.

Neither team got great chances in the first, 8 on QU stood out, but my main takeaway was this game could go to like 10 OTs if people don’t create some offense. Disappointed Cuse didn’t get a goal; I don’t think Hurst or Penn State would have got shut out, but of course they didn’t earn the right to be there. ;-)

It was absolutely fun to have the Starting Six or whatever it’s called although I don’t know that we learned anything new last night in any of the 3 games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top