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.

Ohio State 2024-25 Domination of the Portal Queen!

The Top 5 Memories Of The 2025 Frozen Four
#4 The Laila Edwards Semi-Final Hat Trick

OK, Ohio State wasn’t directly involved in the 2nd Semi. I wasn’t rooting for either team. You just can’t do that. Not when you’re waiting to play the winner.

And Yes, Laila plays for a rival university. But consider: A young woman from Cleveland Heights, OH bags a hat trick on one of the biggest stages in Women’s Hockey. Her empty netter completed the three goal set and closed out the win. Edwards put her team on her back & carried them to the National Championship Game.

Apologies to anyone who disagrees. But I couldn’t help but admire the Star Player from Cleveland Heights.
 
Timothy A said:
I've seen things on social media that have had more views than 500K and have been completely false and I've seen "lists" that rank the top 5 best smelling monkey poops.

Our little slice of heaven on the women's thread has some very savvy hockey folks on it. No one has posted anything saying they feel Simm's move was illegal.

Again I say this: Make the save on the penalty shot or score in OT and you'd be in a better place right now. If THSNBN scores in OT, no one is talking about the Simm's move.
Click to expand...
Should have been offsetting penalties. Therefore the penalty shot never happens. 18 sec left? Maybe WI scores. WIth that team very much a possibility. Especially with a 6 on 4, but maybe they don't. That's how that game should have ended. Not blow calls by the officials. WI does have an 8th National Championship, but boy, oh boy, is it a "DIRTY " one. No matter how many times they try to clean it ... it's still "DIRTY". GO BUCKS!
 
davearm said:
One, Patrick Kane has been doing this same move on penalty shots/shootouts for like 15 years. I've never seen one be disallowed, because

Two, the spirit of the rule is to prevent a player from deking the goalie, then circling back around and trying again if the goalie doesn't bite on the fake the first time. It's not supposed to be interpreted so literally that a goal should be disallowed if the puck is stickhandled backwards by 2 inches.

Use just a little common sense here: the rule is not intended to disallow deke goals, nor is that how it is applied.

Simms' goal was perfectly legal. Anyone arguing otherwise either doesn't understand hockey, or is grasping at straws, or both.
Click to expand...
It hasnothing to do with the player. The PUCK...it's the puck that can not move backwards. It did. That's the rule. So it's not a good goal.
 
Sierra said:
It hasnothing to do with the player. The PUCK...it's the puck that can not move backwards. It did. That's the rule. So it's not a good goal.
Click to expand...
Try reading it again.

Here's the part you missed: the rule is not supposed to be interpreted so literally that a goal should be disallowed if the puck is stickhandled backwards by 2 inches.

And what's funny is your video doesn't even definitively show the puck moving backwards. It's moving laterally. The curvature of the crease line makes it appear to be moving backwards, but it's completely inconclusive if it actually did.
 
davearm said:
Try reading it again.

Here's the part you missed: the rule is not supposed to be interpreted so literally that a goal should be disallowed if the puck is stickhandled backwards by 2 inches.

And what's funny is your video doesn't even definitively show the puck moving backwards. It's moving laterally. The curvature of the crease line makes it appear to be moving backwards, but it's completely inconclusive if it actually.
Click to expand...
Not correct.
 
Lexi Secreto is in the transfer portal. Sadly I felt it would happen with Quinn suited up ahead of her last season and a freshman ahead of her this season. I thought she deserved better.
 
davearm said:
Try reading it again.

Here's the part you missed: the rule is not supposed to be interpreted so literally that a goal should be disallowed if the puck is stickhandled backwards by 2 inches.
Click to expand...
From rule 25.2
"Once the player taking the shot has touched the puck, it must be kept in motion towards the opponent's goal line"
Apparently you don't know any violation of said statement voids the penalty shot. If the puck moves backwards at all it applies.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20250325_184031.jpg
    IMG_20250325_184031.jpg
    87.6 KB · Views: 14
  • IMG_20250325_184042.jpg
    IMG_20250325_184042.jpg
    35.5 KB · Views: 13
  • IMG_20250325_184047.jpg
    IMG_20250325_184047.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 13
  • IMG_20250325_191041.jpg
    IMG_20250325_191041.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 9
Hockeybuckeye said:
From rule 25.2
"Once the player taking the shot has touched the puck, it must be kept in motion towards the opponent's goal line"
Apparently you don't know any violation of said statement voids the penalty shot. If the puck moves backwards at all it applies.
Click to expand...
Just stop.

It's not clear the puck went backward. Not from the video posted earlier, and certainly not from those images, with the comical lines scribbled on them.

Even if it had, nobody has ever seen this rule enforced in this situation, because that's not how the rule is applied. The rule you quoted was never meant to eliminate deking from the penalty shot. I'm repeating myself now, but Patrick Kane (amongst others) has been doing the same thing for like two decades.

The spirit and intent of the rule was not violated, and it's not even clear that a strict literal interpretation was violated, either.

Sorry your team lost. But blaming the officials for this call is next level whining.
 
Re-posting this here, in case anyone hasn't seen it: a different video of Simms' shot, from a different angle. Note also in it that the ref to Thiele's right is lined up at the top of the crease, and so has an excellent view and angle to see whether the puck moves forward or backward, etc.


(I also wonder if there isn't a bit of an "optical illusion" here, in that the puck maybe looks farther from blue ice as Simms moves it left to right, not because she pulls it back, but rather because the blue ice curves away from the puck as it moves left to right.)
 
Last edited:
robertearle said:
Re-posting this here, in case anyone hasn't seen it: a different video of Simms' shot, from a different angle. Note also in it that the ref to Thiele's right is lined up at the top of the crease, and so has an excellent view and angle to see whether the puck moves forward or backward, etc.


(I also wonder if there isn't a bit of an "optical illusion" here, in that the puck maybe looks farther from blue ice as Simms moves it left to right, not because she pulls it back, but rather because the blue ice curves away from the puck as it moves left to right.)
Click to expand...
I can draw a line across the screenshots perfectly parallel to the goal line and it's irrefutable the plane of the puck showed backwards movement in the various frames.
 
Hockeybuckeye said:
I can draw a line across the screenshots perfectly parallel to the goal line and it's irrefutable the plane of the puck showed backwards movement in the various frames.
Click to expand...

What's irrefutable is that those lines are a joke. Your "perfectly parallel" line is not even straight, let alone parallel. It's all jagged and wonky.

And you've drawn it through the blue paint! The puck never got that deep when Simms made her move. Ridiculous.
 
davearm said:
What's irrefutable is that those lines are a joke. Your "perfectly parallel" line is not even straight, let alone parallel. It's all jagged and wonky.

And you've drawn it through the blue paint! The puck never got that deep when Simms made her move. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
We don't nee trolls on our thread.
 
robertearle said:
Would you please explain the "rules"? How the game works, how one individual "wins" (skater or goalie)? Thanks. I've been curious about for a long time.
Click to expand...
Players go against usually the starting goalie for next day's game. If you make it you stay in orange. If you miss or goalie saves in first round you are in lemon and shoot against backup. Players then continue to take shootout attempts. For orange if you score you advance. For lemon if the goalie saves you keep trying. Eventually you get down to a round where only a few players are left. Goalie can win orange by stopping last shot. If I recall correctly only the worst shooter on the day gets the lemon. Usually ends with players in the circle passing the orange and lemon around to make it nice and juicy for the "winners". I would be surprised if they did the lemon part of it these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top