>>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

[RIT Winters]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

I really think the ECAC is the best fit for the Tigers, but to all those using Union as an example of being able to compete without scholarship. Look at how long it to for them to reach that level. Are we that patient?

RIT is not starting from zero, though. We have great administrative support and a (relatively) successful history. We are already fairly competitive with ECAC teams in our current state, so 5 years worth of recruiting within the conference should make us at least decent.

 

[kwm4385]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

And to use the UCONN example again, they started from a much lower position than us and they're already a middle of the road team in Hockey East.

 

[blazer777]

And to use the UCONN example again, they started from a much lower position than us and they're already a middle of the road team in Hockey East.

But, do they offer scholarships? Makes a difference if they do as the ever increasing cost of a college education is a major consideration for most middle-class families.

 

[kwm4385]

But, do they offer scholarships? Makes a difference if they do as the ever increasing cost of a college education is a major consideration for most middle-class families.

True, they have scholarships and we don't. But that's why we want the ECAC and not hockey east. Union and the Ivies don't seem to be handicapped by it.

 

[John J. MacInnes]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Bump to get all the Asian spam off the front page.

 

[Schmitty]

Bump to get all the Asian spam off the front page.

I saw this and was like "oh, did someone put up a spam thread?"

Needless to say, looking was a bad idea. Almost did a spit take with my coffee.

 

[Chris Lerch]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Agreed. Union languished for years until they got serious and hired Nate Leaman. It still took him 6-7 years to build the program.

 

[komey1]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Back to the matter at hand and not the dream of going to ECAC because unless one team leaves, nobody is being added. Hockey East doesn't seem to be in a hurry to add a team.

It clearly would help RIT to sweep Niagara. But even as bad as the Purps have been, I don't think this series will be easy and I would not be surprised if they at least steal a game.

 

[Schmitty]

Back to the matter at hand and not the dream of going to ECAC because unless one team leaves, nobody is being added. Hockey East doesn't seem to be in a hurry to add a team.

It clearly would help RIT to sweep Niagara. But even as bad as the Purps have been, I don't think this series will be easy and I would not be surprised if they at least steal a game.

Probably depends on how the atmosphere is. The Tigers haven't exactly given the fans a lot to make noise about this year, but if you're there tonight, fake it until you make it

 

[TigerFan86-87]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Probably depends on how the atmosphere is. The Tigers haven't exactly given the fans a lot to make noise about this year, but if you're there tonight, fake it until you make it

Not sure how much atmosphere impacts this Tiger team. RIT's home record is an abysmal 5-11-1 (8-9 on the road).

 

[kwm4385]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Not sure how much atmosphere impacts this Tiger team. RIT's home record is an abysmal 5-11-1 (8-9 on the road).

Our home record has been bad ever since moving to the Polisseni Center. I think it has more to do with opposing teams getting hyped up rather than us playing worse however.

 

[LtPowers]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Congratulations to Adam Brubacher for making the AHC All-Rookie Team.


Powers &8^]

 

[Downstate_RIT_Fan]

Our home record has been bad ever since moving to the Polisseni Center. I think it has more to do with opposing teams getting hyped up rather than us playing worse however.

Agree with this. Teams cringed with the idea of playing at the Ritter, GPC not so much. The Tigers need to change that. I think Niagara has nothing to lose and will play fast and loose. RIT has a lot to lose and might be a little tight at the start. I hope they prove me wrong and sweep Niagara but I think this might be a three game series. I hope I hope and I hope I'm wrong. Go Tigers!

 

[jflory81]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

That fifth Tigers penalty (or rather, the penalty that resulted in Niagara's 5th power play) was a textbook example of the officials not knowing the rules of the game they are supposed to be interviewing. It's right in the rulebook:

Note: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be
considered the player in possession.

You can't commit interference on the player that is in possession (the rule literally contains the words "not in possession"). The Niagara player chipped the puck past Brubacher, so Brubacher is allowed to hip check that player, which he did. Its frankly embarrassing that plays like that are regularly called a penalty, because it's quite cut and dry and clear in the NCAA rulebook that bodychecking someone who chips the puck past you and tries to chase it is not illegal.

EDIT: Heard the radio guys talking about it and I just don't agree. Brubacher stood his ground and threw his shoulder into the player who is still considered "in possession of the puck" by the NCAA rule book. If he hooked, held, etc, then yes, it would be a penalty, but he threw a simple body check. I read the points of emphasis and nothing in the points of emphasis suggests that it should have been a penalty. The forechecker was not being "unfairly/illegally" held-up chasing a loose puck because Brubacher has a right to stand his ground and even hip check the player who is still considered in possession. There is no gray area. It's a legal hit. Period.

 

[Ed Trefzger]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Take a look at the rule interpretations (page 108). They are calling this much more tightly this season.

 

[jflory81]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Fair enough in terms of this not being cut and dry, my fault.

But I feel Brubacher simply held his ground. I'm watching it again now and the Niagara player is already bracing for contact as he chips the puck. He doesn't take a single stride to try to get around him or avoid him. Further, there's one instance of contact (which knocks the Niagara player down), and then there is no more contact afterwards. It sounds significantly more like A.R.3 than A.R.4 to me.

To quote A.R.4:

A.R. 4: In the same scenario as A.R. 3, the Team B defender makes immediate
contact, but then continues to bump and impede the Team A player who is
attempting to advance toward the puck. Is this a penalty on Team B? RULING:
Yes. The Team B defender has earned the right to make immediate contact by
keeping a tight gap, but after that contact, the Team A player must be allowed
to pursue the puck. The key element here is that the Team B player is allowed to
make immediate contact, but then must release the attacking player.

Granted, its hard to talk about a defender keeping a gap when the play involves a giveaway, but I think the fact that the player is bracing for contact as he chips the puck past Brubacher is pretty good evidence that Brubacher should be allowed the contact. The only way I could see anyone arguing otherwise is if you somehow lose the right to immediate contact in certain situations...in which case I would change my criticism to that it's an absurd interpretation of the rule :laugh:

 

[jflory81]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

What a disaster. This team has a pretty unique ability to completely melt down. Losing this series would be the lowest point in RIT's D-1 history without a doubt. They might already be there.

 

[RIT Winters]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Pack it in boys. This is just a sad joke now.

 

[LtPowers]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Same story: Tigers outplay their opponent but a few weird bounces and a few bad mistakes all end up in the back of the net.


Powers &8^]

 

[jflory81]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Same story: Tigers outplay their opponent but a few weird bounces and a few bad mistakes all end up in the back of the net.


Powers &8^]

Girduckis dangling with the puck in their own end once Teichrob got pulled was awful. Forget the empty net and get the puck out of the zone! And Rotolo needs to come up with saves. Nothing he can do with the 4th, but he was cleanly beaten on every other goal. The 2nd was downright awful.