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.

Scoreboard

FiveHoleFrenzy said:
Not gonna say it cost SLU the game but man, that would have been tough to not blow a gasket on as a fan of SLU.
Click to expand...
What made it even tougher for SLU is that immediately before that one of the Saints trips over a wayward Q stick. Factors to consider: refs hate putting a team down 2 skaters, and SLU is already on the PP, but only for a few more seconds (shouldn't be a thing, but we all know that it is); the Saint player trips funny (not saying it was embellishment, but maybe that is what the ref should have called in this situation -- the coincidental trip/embellishment we all hate -- if they weren't sure, to at least stop the play and reset); while falling the Saint pushes it back toward the center of the ice, but would have been better served to bring the puck back towards herself; at the time of the trip, it wasn't obvious to the refs that a high-quality scoring chance was going to result.

I agree it was bad and unfortunate, but I've seen worse. Decades ago in my student days, UMD men's team advanced out of a first-round sudden death when one of their players blatantly pulled down an opposing player as he swung in front of his own net. The Bulldog had only to collect the puck and put it past the goalie, so it was both more obvious that it was a penalty and it had the potential to end the game. But hey, we don't want to make a call in OT, let the players decide it.

It would be a better game if the rules were just always the rules, as opposed to sometimes having these unwritten rules.
 
ARM said:
My hope would be that the sport would do two things. One, monitor the rate of injuries of players, in particular the serious injuries like concussions and fractures that result from collisions and look critically at whether lax officiating is playing a role. Second, survey all players on an annual basis and heed their feedback. I have my own ideas about what I'd like to see in women's hockey, but the interests of the players come far before that.
Click to expand...

One issue is that this can't (or at least damned well shouldn't) be something that the NCAA can decide on its own. Allowing checking in the college game after players have never played under those rules before is a really bad idea. If the no-check rules are going to be discarded, it needs to happen at an earlier stage.
 
Still Eeyore said:
Allowing checking in the college game after players have never played under those rules before is a really bad idea. If the no-check rules are going to be discarded, it needs to happen at an earlier stage.
Click to expand...
It is, but the boys don't check until bantams either. At a certain point if you're going to have checking, you will have an age where players who have never played with checking before will be mixed in with older players who have. Do I like that? No. But if there is going to eventually be checking in female hockey, there will be some age where players go from never having played with checking to now being checked. Is it better to have it happen on HS/prep teams? Could be, but that means more checking in the sport overall, so I'm not a fan of it. And you still get the problem of young players who haven't checked before facing checks from larger, stronger players.
 
ARM said:
It is, but the boys don't check until bantams either. At a certain point if you're going to have checking, you will have an age where players who have never played with checking before will be mixed in with older players who have. Do I like that? No. But if there is going to eventually be checking in female hockey, there will be some age where players go from never having played with checking to now being checked. Is it better to have it happen on HS/prep teams? Could be, but that means more checking in the sport overall, so I'm not a fan of it. And you still get the problem of young players who haven't checked before facing checks from larger, stronger players.
Click to expand...

Your points are correct, measured and completely accurate. I think hockey is a physical game by nature, regardless if it's the female game or the boy's. I really do not have a problem with physical play, battling and pinning and controlling the puck carrier. However, many coaches are tactically using physical play,stick work and size to neutralize skill. Which is an age old concept and certainly not new. Watching Ohio State and Muzzy's grind it out tactic's vs. the Gophers is a prime example of this. Cass Turner's Q plays this physical style and likes to strangle opponents with structure and physical play and a lot of stick work . Princeton was teeing off on Colgate's top end in an attempt to control their best players and was able to keep it close,but could not hold on. Just saying need they need let the girls play and decide the game, but talent should be allowed to shine when assaults and game changing infractions happen. This is a NCAA league wide problem, but more prevalent in the WCHA and ECAC.
 
ARM said:
It is, but the boys don't check until bantams either. At a certain point if you're going to have checking, you will have an age where players who have never played with checking before will be mixed in with older players who have. Do I like that? No. But if there is going to eventually be checking in female hockey, there will be some age where players go from never having played with checking to now being checked. Is it better to have it happen on HS/prep teams? Could be, but that means more checking in the sport overall, so I'm not a fan of it. And you still get the problem of young players who haven't checked before facing checks from larger, stronger players.
Click to expand...

Yes, but players at that level are smaller and slower, so checks transfer a lot less energy and momentum, even relative to the smaller size of the player getting hit. If checking is going to be a part of the game, you need to start teaching it before players are fully grown.
 
Last edited:
Still Eeyore said:
Yes, but players at that level are smaller and slower, so checks transfer a lot less energy and momentum, even relative to the smaller size of the player getting hit. If checking is going to be a part of the game, you need to start teaching it before players are fully grown.
Click to expand...
I understand your points. My worry is that given concussion concerns, particularly in females, a lot of girls/parents are going to opt for giving up the game once checking becomes a part of it. If that happens in HS, then some of those players are fully grown. So you start it earlier, and then you start to see numbers problems in many organizations.

So what would be the answer? Checking leagues and no-check leagues? Not sure that there are numbers to support that either. Not an easy issue.
 
ARM said:
I understand your points. My worry is that given concussion concerns, particularly in females, a lot of girls/parents are going to opt for giving up the game once checking becomes a part of it. If that happens in HS, then some of those players are fully grown. So you start it earlier, and then you start to see numbers problems in many organizations.

So what would be the answer? Checking leagues and no-check leagues? Not sure that there are numbers to support that either. Not an easy issue.
Click to expand...

You said earlier that we should listen to what the players want. It would be pretty arbitrary to take that approach only for college age athletes, but not those that are younger. If allowing checking at younger ages would lead to mass departure from the sport, then it seems like they have spoken.
 
Still Eeyore said:
You said earlier that we should listen to what the players want. It would be pretty arbitrary to take that approach only for college age athletes, but not those that are younger. If allowing checking at younger ages would lead to mass departure from the sport, then it seems like they have spoken.
Click to expand...
I doubt that anyone wants me speaking for a generation, the current group of young girls or any other.
 
ARM said:
I doubt that anyone wants me speaking for a generation, the current group of young girls or any other.
Click to expand...

Maybe not a generation but you could give a little motivational speech for bc as they are one period from being eliminated for the season. NU leads bc 2-0 after 2 periods.
 
I realize that a sample size of 1 is meaningless, but ironically my daughter played elite boys hockey past the age when body-checking was allowed for 2 years. She never missed a game to injury during that time despite the fact that the boys were much bigger and stronger.

However, in the NCAA, she lost A YEAR AND A HALF out of both hockey and school as a result of a serious concussion, and then had to have continued accommodations for the remainder of her degree (2 1/2 more years after returning to school). The girl who hit her only received a 2 min penalty, despite also being responsible for other NCAA players being seriously concussed. Prior to that, in PWHL play, that offender's playing career had also been characterized by very high PIM every season.

Further, 3 of her teammates at the time had their NCAA hockey careers ended by serious concussions, with serious implications for their academic careers long after that.

Until officials begin to take such injuries seriously, and assess major penalties for injuries with escalating suspensions for such infractions, players academic and hockey careers will continue to be compromised by goons/reckless players in the game.
 
Last edited:
vicb said:
Saw the highlites of this game. The 2 goals given up by Levy to Anderson were one's she definitely wants back.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're right, but when you have a period where you're outshot 18-3, the odds increase that something is going to happen that you don't like.
 
FiveHoleFrenzy said:
That is true, but watching the steam live... Those were bad.
Click to expand...
True. Thanks for the highlights. The second one is something you see fairly often, when shooters put the puck in the goalie's feet from a bad angle to give her a chance to either fumble it into the slot or kick it into her own net, like here. Not good, but not that uncommon. As for the first, yeah, that was painful.

With regards to the BC non-goal, I agree that there wasn't a lot of contact, but then, the goalie isn't expecting to get contact from behind. In the highlight, I can't see how the Eagles player got into the crease in the first place, but there isn't much in the way of contact between the two skaters, either. Not sure how you can let that goal stand. Did she interfere with a goalie in the crease being able to make the save? Definitely. Was the contact initiated by the defensive player? Maybe, but it doesn't seem like the BC player is interested in leaving the crease until she sees the shot/pass coming. You don't want to start a new offensive tactic of having forwards go stand in the crease behind the opposing goalie and if the D tries to get her out of there, then it becomes the D's fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top