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 @ Wisconsin 11/2 - 11/3

Re: Ohio State @ Wisconsin 11/2 - 11/3

The ref did signal no goal on that right away, but there certainly was no whistle. It seemed like it could have been an in-the-crease call, but then it should have been reviewed. Otherwise a phantom frozen puck call I guess?

The other call I'd love to get an explaination for was also in the 2nd. OSU was called for icing, both teams started to line up for the faceoff, and then the ref stopped it and moved the face off back down to the Badger zone.
 
Re: Ohio State @ Wisconsin 11/2 - 11/3

Nowheresville said:
It seemed like it could have been an in-the-crease call, but then it should have been reviewed.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that officials are obligated to review a call like "in the crease", or likely, any "no goal" call. If the official has determined that the play is dead, even if he has yet to complete the act of blowing his whistle, then he can say that the play was dead despite what happens next. It depends on how certain he is in his call as to whether or not there needs to be a review. As for "in the crease", a clue would be where was the subsequent faceoff? It comes outside the blue line for a crease violation, but stays in the zone for the case of the referee losing sight of the puck and stopping play. I'm assuming it wasn't something else like the net being dislodged or someone would have noted it.

Nowheresville said:
The other call I'd love to get an explaination for was also in the 2nd. OSU was called for icing, both teams started to line up for the faceoff, and then the ref stopped it and moved the face off back down to the Badger zone.
Click to expand...
I've seen that before when the referee overrules the linesmen and says the icing call was wrong, such as when it was the attacking team that shot the puck down or the puck was deflected en route. The referee then moves the faceoff to the location he believes is most fair.
 
Re: Ohio State @ Wisconsin 11/2 - 11/3

ARM said:
I don't believe that officials are obligated to review a call like "in the crease"....
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that being in the crease automatically results in a whistle or a goal being waived off. It used to be if the offensive player had just one skate in the crease one of the refs would stop play (or in the case of a goal being scored would waive it off), but I believe that is no longer the case. Today the offending player - in the judgment of one of the refs - has to either be interfering with the goaltender (as in physical contact) or impeding his/her vision (screening) while in the crease. If a goal is scored even while an offensive player is totally in the crease (but on the other side of the net, away from the goaltender) that goal should be ruled good, correct?
 
Re: Ohio State @ Wisconsin 11/2 - 11/3

Nowheresville said:
The ref did signal no goal on that right away, but there certainly was no whistle. It seemed like it could have been an in-the-crease call, but then it should have been reviewed. Otherwise a phantom frozen puck call I guess?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the ref called it a frozen puck. I wasn't watching the ref, but if he signalled "no goal" immediately, that may have been a routine "no goal" signal on a shot that didn't go in, as it took a few attempts to put the puck in the net.
 
Re: Ohio State @ Wisconsin 11/2 - 11/3

OSU really plays a different style game from pretty much anyone else in the WCHA. The game was quick, which is definitely more "east coast" but I'm still somewhat baffled by the dynamic with Knapp and the defense.

Knapp was pretty much incapable of controlling a puck - she almost never glove-saved or covered up and she gave up a ton of rebounds. I'd guess this is a fairly regular occurrence because the team strategy is to compensate by loading up in front of her with a stout D. The Buckeyes had 15 blocks in the first period alone. It ends up being a mess of legs, skates and sticks in front of the net and a constant struggle to bury all those loose pucks. The OSU D is quite good at muscling the opposing team out and away. It forces the opposition into a different approach.
But all those bodies also create a lot of deflections and a lot of screens for Knapp.
I'll admit to being slightly confused by the whole thing. I'm shocked it's a working team strategy, but clearly its at least somewhat effective. The weirdest thing is that the basis of that defense are the twin sisters, who are also the team's leading scorers. They apparently do it all.
 
Re: Ohio State @ Wisconsin 11/2 - 11/3

It was a much more competitive game on Sunday. Congrats to the Badgers for burying the game-winner in the third period. We played much better today, but are still heading back to Columbus with a sweep. Hopefully we can get some much-needed points against Bemidji State. The wife and I had a great time up there. I know some folks that I spoke with wished there had been more seats put in LaBahn when it was built, but what an awesome facility! Hope I live long enough to see Ohio State build something like that! Hope some of you make it down to Columbus for the rematch in a few months! :)
 
Re: Ohio State @ Wisconsin 11/2 - 11/3

WiscDC said:
I'm guessing the ref called it a frozen puck. I wasn't watching the ref, but if he signalled "no goal" immediately, that may have been a routine "no goal" signal on a shot that didn't go in, as it took a few attempts to put the puck in the net.
Click to expand...

I don't recall any "no goal/wave off" at all. It was total BS.
 
Re: Ohio State @ Wisconsin 11/2 - 11/3

You might have missed it, but the ref did clearly signal "no goal."

ARM made a good point about the faceoff, since it stayed in the zone it basically had to be a phantom frozen puck call. He certainly did not blow the whistle or signal the play was dead in anyway before the puck crossed the goal line, but considering the refs were at least 3 seconds behind every other whistle that night, I can only conclude the ref decided after the fact that he should have blown the whistle before it went into the net.
 
Re: Ohio State @ Wisconsin 11/2 - 11/3

Nowheresville said:
You might have missed it, but the ref did clearly signal "no goal."

ARM made a good point about the faceoff, since it stayed in the zone it basically had to be a phantom frozen puck call. He certainly did not blow the whistle or signal the play was dead in anyway before the puck crossed the goal line, but considering the refs were at least 3 seconds behind every other whistle that night, I can only conclude the ref decided after the fact that he should have blown the whistle before it went into the net.
Click to expand...

Well, at least there was that, which I did not see. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top