RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

[dutchbrowncoat]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

Quite the opposite. ECAC refs will commonly call the game against us.

And to whomever said the ECAC refs were good, what are you smoking, and can I have some?

haha, that is very similar to what a union fan said. nobody out there ever seems to like their refs, but i think (and i think the other posters would agree) that the ecac refs are better than the aha refs we normally deal with. it sort of makes sense - you are a better, more established league and so you get some of the better refs.

 

[LtPowers]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

Well, the bad news is that Robert Morris couldn't quite make it into the top 20, so we can't extend our streak of consecutive seasons with a victory over a ranked team on Friday.

The good news is that Cornell is still in there at #14. =)


Powers &8^]

 

[blazer777]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

Well, the bad news is that Robert Morris couldn't quite make it into the top 20, so we can't extend our streak of consecutive seasons with a victory over a ranked team on Friday.

The good news is that Cornell is still in there at #14. =)


Powers &8^]

Great, On the night I'll be in Rochester, they'll be playing in Ithaca, grrrrr!

 

[NYhockeyguy]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

yup, I was in a black jersey 2 rows from the top. Good luck to your team as well, except if we meet each other again of course

thankyou might as well rout for a meeting in the ncaas ....and i saw you....me and my dad ( and one of my friends) were at the top of the section next to you ( you probably noticed the bells ringing from behind )

 

[Chris Lerch]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

Quite the opposite. ECAC refs will commonly call the game against us.

And to whomever said the ECAC refs were good, what are you smoking, and can I have some?

The call on Eckenswiller at the beginning of the game was brutal. The Tigers were pushed around by RPI the night before and this would have, and should have, set the tone. Instead it's a penalty, then 5x3 then boom. The charge on Knowles in the offensive zone was a joke, too. Just terrible. Then RIT gets two gift calls at the end of the game when it doesn't matter anymore.

 

[dutchbrowncoat]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

The call on Eckenswiller at the beginning of the game was brutal. The Tigers were pushed around by RPI the night before and this would have, and should have, set the tone. Instead it's a penalty, then 5x3 then boom. The charge on Knowles in the offensive zone was a joke, too. Just terrible. Then RIT gets two gift calls at the end of the game when it doesn't matter anymore.

i am sorry, but i will have to respectfully disagree with you on these two calls. the first penalty was a clear boarding i thought, and i was surprised the union player got up ok from the hit. i was sitting in the first row on the second level on the side of the play, i had a good view of the play. i am all for hard hitting but checking someone down into the boards is not something i am ok with.

similarly, i thought the knowles play was a clear charging too, especially because he left the ice for the hit. he jumped into a check at least once that i saw against rpi as well. i will agree with you in the sentiment that the calls basically cost us the game though.

 

[d4rksabre]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

That kind of looks like you in the video.

It's true. I am Donald Sutherland.

 

[nanotiger]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

i am sorry, but i will have to respectfully disagree with you on these two calls. the first penalty was a clear boarding i thought, and i was surprised the union player got up ok from the hit. i was sitting in the first row on the second level on the side of the play, i had a good view of the play. i am all for hard hitting but checking someone down into the boards is not something i am ok with.

The WITR guys claimed it was a good hard hit, with the other playing sliding into the boards just after hitting the ice - meaning they were a good distance from the boards.

Again, didn't see it myself, just getting more info out there. These things can be pretty subjective.

similarly, i thought the knowles play was a clear charging too, especially because he left the ice for the hit. he jumped into a check at least once that i saw against rpi as well. i will agree with you in the sentiment that the calls basically cost us the game though.

If he's leaving the ice, he certainly needs a talking to. Then again, if he doesn't, his checks are going to involve a lot of elbows in his face I think the issue with leaving the ice is largely that it leads to head shots and neck injuries, not something that will be a problem for Knowles unless he should really be shooting for the NBA.

 

[dutchbrowncoat]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

The WITR guys claimed it was a good hard hit, with the other playing sliding into the boards just after hitting the ice - meaning they were a good distance from the boards.

Again, didn't see it myself, just getting more info out there. These things can be pretty subjective.



If he's leaving the ice, he certainly needs a talking to. Then again, if he doesn't, his checks are going to involve a lot of elbows in his face I think the issue with leaving the ice is largely that it leads to head shots and neck injuries, not something that will be a problem for Knowles unless he should really be shooting for the NBA.

from where i sat, it looked to me like the union guy was hit hard from behind down into the boards. again though, i was right in front of the play and a few rows up blocked by the boards, so from that angle it would have been hard to judge distance -maybe he was further out than it looked. either way though, i thought the play looked dangerous from where i sat and so i wasn't surprised to see the ref whistle it.

as for knowles, i guess the jumping is just a result of him being one of the smallest players out there. it might not be as dangerous because he is a smaller guy, but if it is something he keeps doing it could get him into some trouble with the refs. i've been meaning to rewatch some of the rpi game, so if i do i will try to make note of when i catch him doing it.

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

maybe i didn't word my original posting very well, but i am not sure what you are getting at. it just feels like you are nitpicking to me. we gave up 5 power plays and allowed 3 goals, they gave up 4 and allowed 2 goals (9/8 on total penalties) - that isn't a difference worth commenting on sorry. if we had our two in the first 5 minutes instead of the last 5 minutes it could have influenced the scoreline of the game to better reflect the action.

my main point was that we kept up with them pretty well in 5v5 play, a lot better than a 5 goal differential might otherwise indicate. we did outshoot them, (edit: the scoreboard said we outshot, but the box score says we tied) fwiw, and we had a number of good stretches of passing/possession/good shots in their end. we also had two breakaways that their goalie made really nice saves on. the difference was that we were missing that skill on the final shot and/or their goalie was on. the opposite could be said for them against us, they had the skill and/or our goalies were off.

So after quoting the exact PP results for each team (UC 3-5, RIT 2-4), you proceed to say that RIT kept up with UC 5v5? Hmmm. If my math is correct, RIT was outscored 4-0 5v5. Shot totals aside, that's a good ol' fashioned butt kicking, 5v5.

 

[dutchbrowncoat]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

So after quoting the exact PP results for each team (UC 3-5, RIT 2-4), you proceed to say that RIT kept up with UC 5v5? Hmmm. If my math is correct, RIT was outscored 4-0 5v5. Shot totals aside, that's a good ol' fashioned butt kicking, 5v5.

my main point was that we kept up with them pretty well in 5v5 play, a lot better than a 5 goal differential might otherwise indicate.

look man, i am not here to start trouble or disagree with everything people say. i am just offering my outlook on the game i saw. if you were at the game and you disagree then feel free to explain your thoughts on the action. please don't just sit and pick apart what i have to say. to quote your own sig...can't we all just get along?

sometimes the better team loses and sometimes the better team wins by 5 goals. i think the game was just a case of what should have been a 3-2 / 4-2 type game being affected by some very early power plays and goals.

 

[Tom Naeger]

The call on Eckenswiller at the beginning of the game was brutal. The Tigers were pushed around by RPI the night before and this would have, and should have, set the tone. Instead it's a penalty, then 5x3 then boom. The charge on Knowles in the offensive zone was a joke, too. Just terrible. Then RIT gets two gift calls at the end of the game when it doesn't matter anymore.

I was trying to determine which officials are worst AHA or ECAC. Some do both so the only difference is the uniforms. Your right on the first call on Eck. I had a great angle on that one it was very legal and clean check. I was steaming in the middle of a sea of Union fans.

Not that it made a big difference the Tigers looked terrible. I am encouraged to hear that some guys where under the weather. Big problems on the blue line. It would not have matter if Ryan Miller was in nets Watson had no chance on just about every goal that was scored on him.

All that being said, I like that they have there backs against the wall going into a game against Robert Morris. Going to separate the boys from the men very quickly.

 

[Tom Naeger]

So after quoting the exact PP results for each team (UC 3-5, RIT 2-4), you proceed to say that RIT kept up with UC 5v5? Hmmm. If my math is correct, RIT was outscored 4-0 5v5. Shot totals aside, that's a good ol' fashioned butt kicking, 5v5.

RIT was out skating Union 5x5 in the first period and for a good part of the game. No problems with skating with any team. problem was bad turn overs in the d zone. Have to look at stats but I think many of the 5x5 goals were latein the game in garbage time. RIT had a few 5x5 chances they have to finsh on...

 

[Tom Naeger]

i am sorry, but i will have to respectfully disagree with you on these two calls. the first penalty was a clear boarding i thought, and i was surprised the union player got up ok from the hit. i was sitting in the first row on the second level on the side of the play, i had a good view of the play. i am all for hard hitting but checking someone down into the boards is not something i am ok with.

Except the rule says boarding is a hit from behind into the boards. Eck got him on from the front side and drove him into the board with elbows down and did not leave his feet. The player fall from the board sideways, I am guess that is what the ref saw and thought he saw ahit from behind. But I hope he saw a replay cause he got it wrong...

 

[dutchbrowncoat]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

Except the rule says boarding is a hit from behind into the boards. Eck got him on from the front side and drove him into the board with elbows down and did not leave his feet. The player fall from the board sideways, I am guess that is what the ref saw and thought he saw ahit from behind. But I hope he saw a replay cause he got it wrong...

unfortunately, by that description, i would call it boarding. per the rule book:

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).
PENALTY—Minor or major at the discretion of the referee, based on degree of violence of the impact with the boards. A game misconduct may be assessed at the discretion of the referee.

i think hitting him from behind into the boards would technically fall under hitting from behind, though you would typically see it called boarding. either way, i think the way you described it is how the play was probably (and is typically) called. the refs make calls on the result of a play and not always on exactly how it went down. the refs will get some wrong and some right, you just hope it is consistent.

to be perfectly honest, my larger concern was that as i saw the play unfold i was worried the union player got hurt by the check. i like physical play, but i don't want the injuries. it sort of reminds me of the debate in the nfl right now. some of those guys are pulling off clean legal hits, but they are still causing concussions and other injuries. it is my opinion that i would rather the refs be a little agressive on things like that, even if it means calls against my team, if it can help prevent a few concussions and similar injuries to players.

 

[XCTiger]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

Tiger Recruit BradMcGowan continues to be hot in the BCHL. 9pts, gets him named BCHL player of the week. Check the announcement.

 

[blazer777]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

look man, i am not here to start trouble or disagree with everything people say. i am just offering my outlook on the game i saw. if you were at the game and you disagree then feel free to explain your thoughts on the action. please don't just sit and pick apart what i have to say. to quote your own sig...can't we all just get along?

sometimes the better team loses and sometimes the better team wins by 5 goals. i think the game was just a case of what should have been a 3-2 / 4-2 type game being affected by some very early power plays and goals.

I've asked President Destler to invite you guys to a meeting in front of the 'Weather Machine' and work this out over beers.

Not for nothing but the real season begins this Friday night and the Tigers need to focus on playing good D and making good decisions on the ice. If goal tending is questionable, then it's up to the five guys in front to keep the pressure off.

 

[Tom Naeger]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

unfortunately, by that description, i would call it boarding. per the rule book:

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).
PENALTY�Minor or major at the discretion of the referee, based on degree of violence of the impact with the boards. A game misconduct may be assessed at the discretion of the referee.

i think hitting him from behind into the boards would technically fall under hitting from behind, though you would typically see it called boarding. either way, i think the way you described it is how the play was probably (and is typically) called. the refs make calls on the result of a play and not always on exactly how it went down. the refs will get some wrong and some right, you just hope it is consistent.

to be perfectly honest, my larger concern was that as i saw the play unfold i was worried the union player got hurt by the check. i like physical play, but i don't want the injuries. it sort of reminds me of the debate in the nfl right now. some of those guys are pulling off clean legal hits, but they are still causing concussions and other injuries. it is my opinion that i would rather the refs be a little agressive on things like that, even if it means calls against my team, if it can help prevent a few concussions and similar injuries to players.

As an official in another sport I can tell there is a rule and there is an interpretation and there are times you may make the right call to the letter of the law, but you made a bad call.

This is how it was explained to me.

"There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a vulnerable position and if so, he must avoid the contact. However, there is also a responsibility on the player with the puck to avoid placing himself in a dangerous and vulnerable position. This balance must be considered by the Referees when applying this rule."

We can quote rules till we are blue in the face. Fact is that any check is a collision and a collision is two or more moving bodies (colliding bodies) exert relatively strong forces on each other for a relatively short time. A strong force is pretty violent don't you think??

Strong fact is that they don't always call it that way, how many times do you see a guy run a guy as hard as they can into to end boards after he has cleared the puck. And this player had the puck and was skating away from the boards! Who the heck wrote this rule in the frist place it worded way different than the NHL book, what Eck suppose to do lighly tape him just cause he is skating into the boards? They keep doing this crap in Football not hockey too, man when I am an old man I am going to be able to tell me grand kids back in my day they let us hit each other.

I've seen that hit 100 times, I never seen it called boarding, if they are going to do that they better do it consitantly. But I still say that a bad idea

 

[komey1]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

Im thinking based of the pre-conference interview I had with Coach, that we will see Ropponen and Watson this weekend.

 

[blazer777]

Re: RIT 2010-11: What do Tigers dream of?

Im thinking based of the pre-conference interview I had with Coach, that we will see Ropponen and Watson this weekend.

So, will we be seeing Madolora again in the near future? Seems like he would be next in the rotation, even after that short stint last weekend.