Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

[leswp1]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

I agree that Welsh hit the Lowell man from behind, but had they called the penalty, the goal would have never happened in that form. Lowell would have gone on the PP and they struggled with that all game. So, all in all, on that play, I think Lowell came out ahead.

On the check from the side, I could see, maybe boarding, by strict rule definition, but not charging. The rule book provides an exemption for defenders that are checking a player with the puck. I am not surprised that the NCAA showed Jeremy Welsh a lot on the replay. He was the Region MVP and he is a serious pro signing when Union finally ends the season....It was unfortunate that the Lowell man got his bell rung. The game is much better when everyone is at full-strength and manpower.....

As for the empty-net goal, see my other post.....

Go Garnet!!!

Keith.

I agree about the PP. As I said, I don't think the refs made a difference in who would have won. Wasn't making comment re the goalbut that they missed things. The penalty that the guy went down and stayed down would have been a 5 min major if any of our league refs had been reffing a regular season game. Hits like that are dangerous. (disclaimer- trainer's wife- see too much of what happens when this stuff escalates and doesn't get called correctly)

 

[Patman]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

I agree about the PP. As I said, I don't think the refs made a difference in who would have won. Wasn't making comment re the goalbut that they missed things. The penalty that the guy went down and stayed down would have been a 5 min major if any of our league refs had been reffing a regular season game. Hits like that are dangerous. (disclaimer- trainer's wife- see too much of what happens when this stuff escalates and doesn't get called correctly)

I'll take a power play any time its given... I remember a convo on a board (not this one) way back about an international game (RUS-CAN, i think... U20?) anyhow, the reffing was pretty bad and I don't recall if it was a lot of diving or other stuff... but somebody said if "Canada were the better team they'd find a way"... well... no... not when certain calls go against you. Also, like the BU HEA championship game 3 years back... I'm not interested in the better team winning... I'm interested in my team winning.

 

[aallenpollreisz]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

Yes. I was expecting officiating to be wretched, and that expectation has been met.

 

[UMLFan]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

--The outrageous action by the WCHA crew that allowed the Union open-net goal to stand, even though an attacking player was at least ten feet offside. So far as the possibility of the play being legal because of the delayed offside rule goes, I watched the replays carefully and IIRC, there is no doubt that the offside player had not "touched-up" at the blue line when the puck entered the net. But that's irrelevant since linesmen are supposed to kill the play immediately if the puck is shot on goal to eliminate any possibility of a disputed goal. This was an egregious blown call by this crew that denied the trailing team a fair chance to tie the game. And the blame doesn't stop with the front linesman/AR. His line/AR partner is supposed to be backing him up and there are also the two referees who can overrule any line call. In total, a colossal epic collective fail by this WCHA crew.

Bingo. Well said.

During the miked conversation with the linesman, the linesman said confidently that the non-participating Union player was not offside. So that's what they were talking about, not whether it hit a Lowell player.

So either he was seeing things, or he was doing the normal CYA. Either way, disappointing.

Yes. I was expecting officiating to be wretched, and that expectation has been met.

This. Sadly.

 

[vstar]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

IMO, reffing(sp?) hockey is a difficult thing to do well. Couple that with the fact that NCAA hockey is not exactly fat,you get what you pay for.
The successful leagues have figured out that you have to have good refs to have a marketable product.NCAA hasnt or
doesnt care.
Look in the stands,all you see is kids from the schools playing.Thats not going to hire good refs.
Look whose watching on TV? College faithfuls from the schools playing.Thats not going to sell a lot of ads.
Watch a pro game then ask yourself afterwards if the officials decided who won. Seldom(unless your favourite team lost).

The players deserve better.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

but the NCAA is fat ...

 

[leswp1]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

but the NCAA is fat ...

You must spread...

 

[UMD21]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

Maybe it's part of their protocol, but I feel like the referees are letting today's games (at least UMD vs BC) play themselves out. Wasn't a fan of the hooking penalty on UMD (DIVE), but I'll admit it must be very tough being a referee.
I agree that concussions and dirty hits from behind should never happen in a game, but some of these calls they make cause you to think "why don't they just eliminate hitting completely from hockey", because that's seriously what they would have to do to prevent it any more than it already has been for the past 10+ years or so. Even without hitting, concussions will still happen. Knew a girl who got one playing womens hockey.

G'oh 'dogs!

 

[uniontrack]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

I agree about the PP. As I said, I don't think the refs made a difference in who would have won. Wasn't making comment re the goalbut that they missed things. The penalty that the guy went down and stayed down would have been a 5 min major if any of our league refs had been reffing a regular season game. Hits like that are dangerous. (disclaimer- trainer's wife- see too much of what happens when this stuff escalates and doesn't get called correctly)

From my experiences, the officials seem to call majors most often on hitting from behind, due to the danger of the play. I agree Welsh hit the Lowell man hard, but they were both skating up ice and Welsh hit him from the side and was leading the hit with his shoulder. This is not charging by rule.

Charging
SECTION 6. a. A player shall not skate more than two strides and jump
into or charge an opponent. Charging is the action of a player, who as a
result of distance traveled, checks an opponent violently in any manner
from the front or side.
Note: A legal body check is one in which a player checks an opponent who is
in possession of the puck, by using the hip or body from the front or diagonally
from the front or straight from the side.


Boarding
SECTION 3. A player shall not body check, cross-check, elbow, charge or
trip an opponent from the front or side in such a manner that causes the
opponent to be thrown violently into the boards (see 6-23).

I could possibly see boarding from the strict wording of the rule, however, then any check which results in a violent hit on the boards could be called this.

Hockey is a game of strong forces, both static and kinetic and the human body will sometimes react negatively to a transfer of energy event that is well within the rule book....That said, I don't like it when players get hurt in any fashion and the media, especially the hockey/football media play up the concept of "did somebody get the number of that truck that just hit me?" as spoken by Buccigrass specifically during the ESPNU broadcast....He said this when they showed the Lowell man on the bench clearly disoriented and trying to shake it off with the help of the trainer.....

Just an academic discourse. I mean no offense or harm in this discussion...

Keith.

 

[Patman]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

slam a prone guy into the boards... we're at the point that the refs almost always find an excuse... major for roughing, whatever. Either case it was a dangerous and unnecessarily hard check... wouldn't take much at all to knock him over.

 

[shiftyjedi]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. The rule book specifically covers this. Delay of game is basically a deliberate or direct act, like pulling the puck under your body as you lay on the ice. The UMD player accidentally knocked off the net. Why would you knock off the net you are trying to score on on purpose? And if the UMD player knocked off the net because he felt like Maine was going to break it right out of their end and go down and score, I think the punishment of letting the scoring opportunity play out was the PERFECT punishment on the play. But again, why would you INTENTIONALLY dislodge the goal you are trying to score on. They have a rule for this. They followed the rule they have.

I can hear the argument that it wasn't intentional and thus not a penalty, but either way play should have stopped and there should have been no goal. This is not debatable. The refs didn't read their rule book on an obvious rule.

 

[CLS]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

I didn't see the MSU goal that was called back, but I have the feeling that if the reffing had been perfect, the same four teams would be headed tom Tampa.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

I can hear the argument that it wasn't intentional and thus not a penalty, but either way play should have stopped and there should have been no goal. This is not debatable. The refs didn't read their rule book on an obvious rule.

Again I don't understand your reasoning. What they allowed to happen IS HOW THE RULE BOOK STATES IT SHOULD BE CALLED. To say differently is simply flat out wrong.

What is it about "Note: If the non-offending team has an offensive opportunity and its defensive
goal cage has been displaced, play shall be allowed to continue until the scoring chance is complete" that is so hard to understand. This is the rule. Had they stopped play, that would have been contrary to the rule as it is written in the rule book. The note is how they deal with the act of dislodging a net unintentionally. If the net is dislodged intentionally, the rule covers the punishment. But there has to be a provision for something that happens that isn't deliberate, and the rule makers came up with something that doesn't punish the team that had their net knocked off by the other team. Rule books are like reading a contract. Sometimes there are things that have to be read and taken in their entirety to determine the proper course of action. This situation is clearly one of them.

If the rule is bad, change the rule. That's a different argument.

 

[claver2010]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

I like how the refs called 2 different games in the BC-UMD game. The 2nd period where attempted murder was acceptable to the 3rd where if you nudged someone you got a roughing call (see the call on Kreider).

Inconsistency is always appreciated.

 

[Ref Hater]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

Is it me or do the same guys always appear in the tournament...year after year? I watched most of the games without a rooting interest either, and I had to wince at both calls and non-calls. I agree that this may be the hardest sport to officiate, but if you take the entitlement out of some of these guys that are selected year after year, then the competition in the regular season would only improve the quality.

 

[KnowItAll]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

So, leaving your skates, and hitting a player in the head is ok?

anyone who says that swallowing the whistle is a good idea is not worth responding to.

once the rules don't matter and players are allowed to hook, trip, grab, toss the net off its moorings, then just remove the officials from the ice.
all they are on the ice for at that point is to call offsides and icing... two infractions that have infinitely less to do with scoring opportunities than hooking, tripping and interference.

my idea... and I have posted it before, just throw the rule book out in the third period in the playoffs... put all 20 guys on the ice, move the nets around... have a couple huge defenders throw your net into the seats so that nobody can score... or if they do, then they have to launch the puck up over the glass... no whistles, just absolute mayhem.

let the players decide the outcome, even if they are holding and tripping and tackling and picking the puckup off the ice and skating with it to put it into a goal manually.
anyone who thinks they can do a better job, DO IT... go to a seminar in August where you live, sign up, start with youth hockey games and move up. you will learn to see an entirely different game

 

[KnowItAll]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

Again I don't understand your reasoning. What they allowed to happen IS HOW THE RULE BOOK STATES IT SHOULD BE CALLED. To say differently is simply flat out wrong.

What is it about "Note: If the non-offending team has an offensive opportunity and its defensive
goal cage has been displaced, play shall be allowed to continue until the scoring chance is complete" that is so hard to understand. This is the rule. Had they stopped play, that would have been contrary to the rule as it is written in the rule book. The note is how they deal with the act of dislodging a net unintentionally. If the net is dislodged intentionally, the rule covers the punishment. But there has to be a provision for something that happens that isn't deliberate, and the rule makers came up with something that doesn't punish the team that had their net knocked off by the other team. Rule books are like reading a contract. Sometimes there are things that have to be read and taken in their entirety to determine the proper course of action. This situation is clearly one of them.

If the rule is bad, change the rule. That's a different argument.

I do not think it is that simple. "an offensive opportunity" is usually not carrying the puck around your own net... the rule does not say "if the non offending team is in posession of the puck" it says "has an offensive opportunity" The ice is divided into offensive zone, devensive and neutral zones... shouldn't an offensive opportunity take place in teh offensive zone?

I am just asking, because I think this is a gray area

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

I do not think it is that simple. "an offensive opportunity" is usually not carrying the puck around your own net... the rule does not say "if the non offending team is in posession of the puck" it says "has an offensive opportunity" The ice is divided into offensive zone, devensive and neutral zones... shouldn't an offensive opportunity take place in teh offensive zone?

I am just asking, because I think this is a gray area

Without reading the entire current NCAA hockey rule book just right now, I don't believe it defines specifically what an "offensive opportunity" is. My guess is they rely on the controlling the puck interpretation, similar to deciding when the whistle is blown on a delayed penalty. If you are in possession of the puck, logically you have an offensive opportunity. I liken it to a football team going on offense on their own 5 yard line. Sure, the odds of them scoring from there are not good, but unless the offense is on the field, the offense cannot score at all (not talking about the defense scoring on a turnover). Ferris State made the Frozen Four without starting a single one of their successful offensive opportunities in the offensive zone in their regional.

I admit reading a rule book is a giant pain in the rear end, full of seemingly contradictory rules and specifications. Sort of like reading a labor contract.

 

[uniondutch21]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

I like how the refs called 2 different games in the BC-UMD game. The 2nd period where attempted murder was acceptable to the 3rd where if you nudged someone you got a roughing call (see the call on Kreider).

Inconsistency is always appreciated.

As announced at the beginning of the game "We have an ECAC crew working the game today" Welcome to what we deal with all the time...ECAC Refs are brutal.

Lets go U

 

[KnowItAll]

Re: Officiating up to your expectations in NCAA tournament?

Without reading the entire current NCAA hockey rule book just right now, I don't believe it defines specifically what an "offensive opportunity" is. My guess is they rely on the controlling the puck interpretation, similar to deciding when the whistle is blown on a delayed penalty. If you are in possession of the puck, logically you have an offensive opportunity. I liken it to a football team going on offense on their own 5 yard line. Sure, the odds of them scoring from there are not good, but unless the offense is on the field, the offense cannot score at all (not talking about the defense scoring on a turnover). Ferris State made the Frozen Four without starting a single one of their successful offensive opportunities in the offensive zone in their regional.

I admit reading a rule book is a giant pain in the rear end, full of seemingly contradictory rules and specifications. Sort of like reading a labor contract.

no, you nailed it.
delayed penalties are whistled down once the offending team gains posession, not once they touch the puck
if the rules writers wanted to say that when the net is dislodged by the team not in posession, then the whistle will be blown once posession is gained, then they would not have written "an offensive opportunity"
I do not think maine had an offensive opportunity below their own face off circle

last, if you have adobe you can do a search on the .pdf version for "offensive opportunity"