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 2021-22: Picking Up Where We Left Off

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just thought it would be interesting for me to post what i received from Princeton Athletics if I want to renew my tickets for hockey this year.

Indoor Athletic Events:
- The University’s current visitor policy (found here) states that all visitors attending an indoor University-sponsored event, public performance, varsity and athletics event, and religious service must be vaccinated with no exceptions. Please note that per this current University policy, children under 12 years of age may not enter any campus buildings or attend any indoor events at this time.
- Masking that covers the mouth and nose is required at all times regardless of vaccination status.
- Social distancing is recommended, when possible. Parties that arrive together can sit together.
- Hand sanitizer stations available inside the facilities.
*Fully Vaccinated is defined as two weeks after the second dose of a two-dose vaccine or two weeks after the single-dose vaccine

Outdoor Athletic Events:
- No masking required, but is recommended.
- Social distancing is recommended, when possible. Parties that arrive together can sit together.
- Hand sanitizer stations will be available.
 
DrDemento said:
Just thought it would be interesting for me to post what i received from Princeton Athletics if I want to renew my tickets for hockey this year.

Indoor Athletic Events:
- The University’s current visitor policy (found here) states that all visitors attending an indoor University-sponsored event, public performance, varsity and athletics event, and religious service must be vaccinated with no exceptions. Please note that per this current University policy, children under 12 years of age may not enter any campus buildings or attend any indoor events at this time.
- Masking that covers the mouth and nose is required at all times regardless of vaccination status.
- Social distancing is recommended, when possible. Parties that arrive together can sit together.
- Hand sanitizer stations available inside the facilities.
*Fully Vaccinated is defined as two weeks after the second dose of a two-dose vaccine or two weeks after the single-dose vaccine

Outdoor Athletic Events:
- No masking required, but is recommended.
- Social distancing is recommended, when possible. Parties that arrive together can sit together.
- Hand sanitizer stations will be available.
Click to expand...

This actually makes sense! Guess that's why they're the Ivies. I'm not surprised by RPI's lack of common sense.
 
sk8tronthepond said:
This actually makes sense! Guess that's why they're the Ivies. I'm not surprised by RPI's lack of common sense.
Click to expand...

That is why I posted it. It may not be perfect but it does indeed make far more sense than what is being done in Troy. Baker Rink is small so the attendance will probably me rather meager. We will not be there since they have refused us our annual seating for the past 3 years (so nothing to do with the pandemic).
 
Just got back in the door from Burlington. Overall, a good win for RPI. They did well to hang in after an abject first 10 minutes in which they were overrun by the Vermont forecheck. RPI dominated the middle portion of the game and could have scored 5 goals with the chances they had--which almost came back to bite them after UVM pulled the goalie; some needlessly tentative defending turned the last two minutes into an adventure.
 
perhaps we need to treat the opposition pulling the goalie at the end of the third period as an offensive opportunity instead of falling back into the prevent defense. We go into the 5 on 4 shorthanded box to defend which allows the opposition to set up like a power play and cycle. I do feel the larger ice surface in Vermont does allow for so much extra room that an extra man on offense is a bigger advantage, but we seem to have more problems with the empty net situations than many others.
 
DrDemento said:
perhaps we need to treat the opposition pulling the goalie at the end of the third period as an offensive opportunity instead of falling back into the prevent defense. We go into the 5 on 4 shorthanded box to defend which allows the opposition to set up like a power play and cycle. I do feel the larger ice surface in Vermont does allow for so much extra room that an extra man on offense is a bigger advantage, but we seem to have more problems with the empty net situations than many others.
Click to expand...

Doc, you are right about the prevent defense in the last two minutes. But I thought that they played the prevent defense for the whole third period.
I can't think of any sustained offense all period. And our two best offensive attempts were made killing a penalty.
If Vermont had scored in the first 28 seconds of the period instead of the last, I don't think we would have prevailed.
 
engineerhockeyfan said:
Doc, you are right about the prevent defense in the last two minutes. But I thought that they played the prevent defense for the whole third period.
I can't think of any sustained offense all period. And our two best offensive attempts were made killing a penalty.
If Vermont had scored in the first 28 seconds of the period instead of the last, I don't think we would have prevailed.
Click to expand...

What you have posted I agree with. It just became so much more obvious when they pulled the goalie. IMO 6 on 5 is not a power play in almost any fashion except you cannot ice the puck as you can when short handed. Over many years I have noticed how few empty net goals we seem to get compared to many other teams. Almost seems like it is the philosophy to just defend and forego any offense. There just does not seem any impetus to get that pressure ending and almost certain game ending EN goal but instead to fall back into a box of defense.
 
DrDemento said:
What you have posted I agree with. It just became so much more obvious when they pulled the goalie. IMO 6 on 5 is not a power play in almost any fashion except you cannot ice the puck as you can when short handed. Over many years I have noticed how few empty net goals we seem to get compared to many other teams. Almost seems like it is the philosophy to just defend and forego any offense. There just does not seem any impetus to get that pressure ending and almost certain game ending EN goal but instead to fall back into a box of defense.
Click to expand...

Well said. They just sit back and hope for a mistake. But if you don't pressure the puck, they will not make a mistake.
I would rather see them aggressive than what they are doing now.
 
engineerhockeyfan said:
Well said. They just sit back and hope for a mistake. But if you don't pressure the puck, they will not make a mistake.
I would rather see them aggressive than what they are doing now.
Click to expand...

Maybe my perception was skewed by RPI's really poor opening first 10 minutes--they were that bad, anything better than that might just look acceptable--but I didn't see the overall third period play as a strategy issue; the shots were basically even and we were still skating and defending well. I would agree that the approach to the 6-on-5 phase was off, but not sure if that was a strategy issue or a lack of execution/running out of gas. Plus, it is hard to sustain an aggressive forecheck for 60 minutes--compare Vermont in the first 10 minutes to the rest of the game. The bigger areas of improvement for RPI are to finish more of the good chances they created and to get better at faceoffs. I thought those were bigger factors that helped keep Vermont in the game.
 
DN- All true and very perceptive. Obviously I have watched our teams for many years. With rare exception we always seem to have this sit back and defend approach on those fairly common 6 on 5 situations while many other teams pressure the puck especially at the points. As EHR mentions, often it is like an unsuccessful rope-a-dope prevent defense and we end up giving up some horrific chances against and some times the tie goal. Now that we have to suffer through a 3 x 3 OT or even a shootout, avoiding that situation becomes even more critical. Overall I was satisfied with most of our play last night and perhaps being a bit picky. A good part of why we had some more difficulty with Vermont than perhaps we should have can also be laid at the face off circle. We did poorly for much of the game - but watching the linesmen dropping the puck explains some of that. For any team to be successful they need to control the puck and take possession off the face offs. We simply were not able to do that last night.
 
DrDemento said:
DN- All true and very perceptive. Obviously I have watched our teams for many years. With rare exception we always seem to have this sit back and defend approach on those fairly common 6 on 5 situations while many other teams pressure the puck especially at the points. As EHR mentions, often it is like an unsuccessful rope-a-dope prevent defense and we end up giving up some horrific chances against and some times the tie goal. Now that we have to suffer through a 3 x 3 OT or even a shootout, avoiding that situation becomes even more critical. Overall I was satisfied with most of our play last night and perhaps being a bit picky. A good part of why we had some more difficulty with Vermont than perhaps we should have can also be laid at the face off circle. We did poorly for much of the game - but watching the linesmen dropping the puck explains some of that. For any team to be successful they need to control the puck and take possession off the face offs. We simply were not able to do that last night.
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention the linesman dropping the puck Doc. I was at the game with my son who is a UVM student. My son hangs with a number of the kids on the club hockey team (hopes to join them next year) and he told me that the linesman was one of the kids from the club team (24 year old grad student). Says the guy is a piece of work... has played against him in stick and puck and says the guy doesn't care one iota about making plays all he tries to do is run kids through the boards. At any rate... surprised you would let one of the UVM club team kids be a linesman... might account for the poor face-off performance.

Overall I thought the team was solid after Marshall stood on his head to keep it scoreless in the first 5 mins or so. Marshall was solid throughout... UVM did shoot a lot of pucks high - reminded me of the Engineers when Appert was coach. And yes... the team is being coached to pack it in on the 6 on 5 - we could hear Coach Smith yelling "keep your shape" throughout the 6 on 5 action. I commented to my family after the game... I wonder if it would be better just to pull your goalie also when up by two and then just see who can score first - force the aggression. I was kidding but sometimes when I watch teams sit back and just absorb shots I have to think there is a clever coach out there somewhere thinking about this.

A few other random thoughts... nice snipe by Linden. He looked good. Sertii and Baxter impressed me on the D end. Sellar either is nursing something or just has a very weird looking stride. Nice to be at a game again after so long - you forget how fast things happen out there.
 
jmhusker said:
I was at the game with my son who is a UVM student. My son hangs with a number of the kids on the club hockey team (hopes to join them next year) and he told me that the linesman was one of the kids from the club team (24 year old grad student).
Click to expand...

Wait, what? I know that it is not unusual to have referees work some games involving their alma maters, but currently enrolled students? The ref/linesman pool must be limited.
 
DavidNardolillo said:
Wait, what? I know that it is not unusual to have referees work some games involving their alma maters, but currently enrolled students? The ref/linesman pool must be limited.
Click to expand...

I know... that struck me as questionable and I would have thought he was mistaken except for a couple of things. My son has a very keen eye and we were right in front of the dot so I doubt he would have gotten it wrong. And then the way that the linesman did face-offs - backing in butt first while looking at the outside wing in the attacking dot and then spinning to drop the puck. Never saw that before... very odd to me and fit the personality characterization that my son gave.

I do think it's a small population though when it comes to these positions. I've had another HE official ref my morning league games in the past. There probably aren't more than a handful of extra guys available whenever a regular cannot make it. Especially as we come out of Covid...
 
Last edited:
jmhusker said:
I know... that struck me as questionable and I would have thought he was mistaken except for a couple of things. My son has a very keen eye and we were right in front of the dot so I doubt he would have gotten it wrong. And then the way that the linesman did face-offs - backing in butt first while looking at the outside wing in the attacking dot and then spinning to drop the puck. Never saw that before... very odd to me and fit the personality characterization that my son gave.

I do think it's a small population though when it comes to these positions. I've had another HE official ref my morning league games in the past. There probably aren't more than a handful of extra guys available whenever a regular cannot make it. Especially as we come out of Covid...
Click to expand...

I am just one of those who looks at some of the little things that can once in a while determine the way games are played or even the final result. We are a fairly decent face off team with Linden and Dubinsky taking most of them. It can be all about timing though and both seemed to have trouble with the linesmen in Vermont. I think I saw so many false drops, then backing out by the linesman with an arm raised only to then move forward and quickly drop the puck. The first period was horrid for our guys trying to sweep the puck backwards. They seemed to finally figure him out in the second only to have him switch it up in the third. I could give two hoots about this in center ice but when you have so many face offs for icing (perhaps due to the bigger ice surface) and especially trying to kill off 4 penalties, this kind of thing can make a difference. Glad you saw it similarly.
BTW I felt the delay penalty was BS. I understand the rule and it can be called. But whether you should call it or not is another story especially when the delay is caused by the linesman!!
 
When did they change the face off rules.
Instead of throwing the offending center out, the linesman just raises his arm to indicate which player caused the delay. Do they not throw the offending player out of the face off cir cle anymore?
And I guess a second offense causes a delay of game penalty. Who came up with that gem? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top