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.

RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

Ralph Baer said:
One goal in a minor penalty counts as 1 for 1, while one in a major counts as 1 for 2. Besides for that, I agree.
Edit: I typed too slowly. :)
Click to expand...
So I just re-read this and now realize I had misread it. I guess the better comparison statement would be that not scoring is 0 for 1 whether you are on a minor or a major. It is odd that you can go x for X+1 on a 5 minute power play but never x for x. That's just an odd thing. What if you score at 4:59.9? Still 1 for 2? What if you score at 5:00 even? That's 0 for 1? It shouldn't be considered even strength if the player in the box couldn't make it onto the ice at light speed.

I found a web site where they did normalize the PP percentage per 2 minutes of man advantage time. It's somewhat outdated but it paints a much more effective picture of how well teams play on the 2 minute advantage.

http://crownedroyal.com/2011/07/25/the-adjusted-power-play-percentages/

After further consideration, I think the better way to express this is with 3 numbers: the average length of time it takes a team to score with a +1 advantage plus the average lengths that a team's minor and major PP's last. We could add to this the average amount of time it takes with a +2 advantage. This gives you a better picture of what to expect rather than the straight success rate per an undefined period of time.
 
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

Great win tonight. Zalewski is on a heck of a tear right now - I'm glad to see him on the top line.

A scout for the Canadiens was in attendance tonight, taking notes on a couple of our boys (Haggerty and Zalewski were mentioned. Notes on Curadi were also noticed). Scout also had a Union roster tucked away.
 
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

hawthr said:
Great win tonight. Zalewski is on a heck of a tear right now - I'm glad to see him on the top line.

A scout for the Canadiens was in attendance tonight, taking notes on a couple of our boys (Haggerty and Zalewski were mentioned. Notes on Curadi were also noticed). Scout also had a Union roster tucked away.
Click to expand...

He probably wasn't the only scout there.
 
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

hawthr said:
Great win tonight. Zalewski is on a heck of a tear right now - I'm glad to see him on the top line.

A scout for the Canadiens was in attendance tonight, taking notes on a couple of our boys (Haggerty and Zalewski were mentioned. Notes on Curadi were also noticed). Scout also had a Union roster tucked away.
Click to expand...

Saw someone with a Islanders notepad sitting in section 9 friday night.
 
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

Ralph Baer said:
He probably wasn't the only scout there.
Click to expand...

Sometimes they can be obvious-but often they sit there very much incognito. I am sure we have a few boys that are being followed. Those notepads are the sure give away.
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

DrDemento said:
Sometimes they can be obvious-but often they sit there very much incognito. I am sure we have a few boys that are being followed. Those notepads are the sure give away.
Click to expand...

Not the fake noses and mustaches? ;)
 
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

Was at the game last night, and except for the two man short situation, RPI was in complete control of the game. At no point after those penalties did I have any doubt that we were going to win the game.
I don't know how good Brown is, but we dominated all three zones. Good game. Now if we can play one of those on a Friday night, we might be able to put together a winning streak.
 
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

engineerhockeyfan said:
Was at the game last night, and except for the two man short situation, RPI was in complete control of the game. At no point after those penalties did I have any doubt that we were going to win the game.
I don't know how good Brown is, but we dominated all three zones. Good game. Now if we can play one of those on a Friday night, we might be able to put together a winning streak.
Click to expand...

I was a little unclear about those 2 penalties called simultaneously. I saw the first call-but the too mkany men on the ice call I missed. I thought the extra man they counted was not involved in the play at all and had reached a cery close distance to our bench. But, then again, that is a rule I am never really clear about-often i count too many men out there but the officials seem to ignore it if the extra man is within a short distance of getting off the ice
 
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

Semi-serious question, can someone explain to me what the heck the Leboeuf penalty was really for? "Indirect contact to the head by elbowing"? How do you almost hit someone in the head unintentionally with your elbow and get called for it?

Between that and not stopping play when McGowan was down on the ice in our own zone and couldn't get up, it doesn't surprise me that Hicks was reffing this game. I also don't understand how Brown was almost allowed to get two goals, let alone one at all, with one of their players in the crease. More typical ECAC anti-RPI, and just terrible in general, reffing.
 
Last edited:
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

DrDemento said:
I was a little unclear about those 2 penalties called simultaneously. I saw the first call-but the too mkany men on the ice call I missed. I thought the extra man they counted was not involved in the play at all and had reached a cery close distance to our bench. But, then again, that is a rule I am never really clear about-often i count too many men out there but the officials seem to ignore it if the extra man is within a short distance of getting off the ice
Click to expand...

We're exactly the opposite; I missed the first penalty, but clearly saw the too many men. I'll check the video in a couple days.
 
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

ibanezist00 said:
Semi-serious question, can someone explain to me what the heck the Leboeuf penalty was really for? "Indirect contact to the head by elbowing"? How do you almost hit someone in the head unintentionally with your elbow and get called for it?
Click to expand...

http://www.mihoa.org/members/leaguerules/rulebooks/ncaarules1214.pdf

It's a new rule by the NCAA either this year or last year. If you search for indirect in the link above, you'll find it. The initial conduct is to be through the oppositions body, but then contact to the head is made.
 
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

DrDemento said:
I was a little unclear about those 2 penalties called simultaneously. I saw the first call-but the too mkany men on the ice call I missed. I thought the extra man they counted was not involved in the play at all and had reached a cery close distance to our bench. But, then again, that is a rule I am never really clear about-often i count too many men out there but the officials seem to ignore it if the extra man is within a short distance of getting off the ice
Click to expand...

I did not see the interference at all, but clearly saw the TMM penalty. The RPI forward (looked like it was Higgs) was coming to make the change, and then the puck got tied up along the boards in front of the RPI bench. He stopped to play the puck as RPI was making the line change. Since Higgs also got called for the interference, it may be possible that him stopping to play the puck impeded the progress of the Brown defender to try to do the same, thus getting the interference at the same time? Not positive on that, but a clear Too Many Men penalty.

And DrD, the rule is clear, but the implementation of it is where it gets cloudy. The player (or players) coming on and off the ice cannot play the puck or an imposing player, otherwise a penalty will be called. In the above scenario, Higgs was attempting to exit the ice, when the shift change was occurring. Although he can be on the ice while the change is complete, he cannot intentionally play the puck or an opposing player. This is why line changes almost always occur on a dump in.
 
Re: RPI 2013/14 Part III: Maximum Overdrivel

ibanezist00 said:
Semi-serious question, can someone explain to me what the heck the Leboeuf penalty was really for? "Indirect contact to the head by elbowing"? How do you almost hit someone in the head unintentionally with your elbow and get called for it?

Between that and not stopping play when McGowan was down on the ice in our own zone and couldn't get up, it doesn't surprise me that Hicks was reffing this game. I also don't understand how Brown was almost allowed to get two goals, let alone one at all, with one of their players in the crease. More typical ECAC anti-RPI, and just terrible in general, reffing.
Click to expand...
My take on why the whistle wasn't blown when McGowan was down was because Brown had possession of the puck. It's up to the discretion (scary, I know) of the official to determine the if the player is seriously injured. If he feels he is then he will stop play regardless of possession. With Mark skating off under his own power I would say the right call was made. Now, when Brown got the whistle for their player down, Brown had possession of the puck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top