Agreed. The poor Vermont defender didn't know what happened. Good stop by Vazzano, though.
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.
UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
- Thread starter John_Fuller
- Start date
- Status
Agreed. The poor Vermont defender didn't know what happened. Good stop by Vazzano, though.
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
The passing on both the second and third goals was tremendous ... I actually thought they passed one-too many on both those, but it worked out, so it's all good. Great to see Wetmore find the net again as well.
Your stat of the day, UML had played 9 games at home this season. They have given up a whopping 12 goals in those games. Amazing.
Let's do it again tonight boys. A win puts Lowell in 2nd in Hockey East.
I'm right with you guys ... we were joking that the goal would have been on ESPN had it gone in.
The passing on both the second and third goals was tremendous ... I actually thought they passed one-too many on both those, but it worked out, so it's all good. Great to see Wetmore find the net again as well.
Your stat of the day, UML had played 9 games at home this season. They have given up a whopping 12 goals in those games. Amazing.
Let's do it again tonight boys. A win puts Lowell in 2nd in Hockey East.
Last edited:
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think that... but they both worked out so what do I know?
edit: I have to imagine this is done by design... but is anybody else annoyed that on a 3v2 that we always pass back to a behind man?
I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think that... but they both worked out so what do I know?
edit: I have to imagine this is done by design... but is anybody else annoyed that on a 3v2 that we always pass back to a behind man?
UVM Cat in Texas
Now UVM Cat in Georgia
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
Congrats fellas. Just another L for us. I'm bummed our offense couldn't generate anything. As I understand it, our lone goal was a deflection off a UML player, and Carr never saw it. One thing that's almost always been consistent with UVM hockey, in good times and bad, is that our offense generally sucks. We've had some exceptions, the St. Louis & Perrin era, and our most recent FF year when Stalberg was lighting it up w/ regularity. Otherwise, our offense has always sucked--w/ Gilligan, w/ Sneddon, doesn't matter. Very depressing.
Sorry for posting this on your thread, but I've got no one to talk to in the UVM thread.
Congrats fellas. Just another L for us. I'm bummed our offense couldn't generate anything. As I understand it, our lone goal was a deflection off a UML player, and Carr never saw it. One thing that's almost always been consistent with UVM hockey, in good times and bad, is that our offense generally sucks. We've had some exceptions, the St. Louis & Perrin era, and our most recent FF year when Stalberg was lighting it up w/ regularity. Otherwise, our offense has always sucked--w/ Gilligan, w/ Sneddon, doesn't matter. Very depressing.
Sorry for posting this on your thread, but I've got no one to talk to in the UVM thread.
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
We get an awful lot of goals on those rushes with the finesse passing; no way am I going to second-guess it.
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
Lowell is the only team in the nation without a tie.
Since they went DI, Lowell has gone 1 full season without a tie, 1998-99 when they went 17-17-0.
Lowell is the only team in the nation without a tie.
Since they went DI, Lowell has gone 1 full season without a tie, 1998-99 when they went 17-17-0.
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
Let's hope they don't end the season with that record.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
$10K says it won't
Let's hope they don't end the season with that record.
$10K says it won't
John_Fuller
New member
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
If Bazin wasn't coach, I may have taken you up on the offer
(Insert cocking shotgun sound effect here)
Wonder if he'll be an intermission guest today for the Broo-ins game.
$10K says it won't
If Bazin wasn't coach, I may have taken you up on the offer
(Insert cocking shotgun sound effect here)Wonder if he'll be an intermission guest today for the Broo-ins game.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
Bucky, here's a hint, I don't gamble, I invest.
I think ScottK will pick up on what I'm talking about.
If Bazin wasn't coach, I may have taken you up on the offer
Bucky, here's a hint, I don't gamble, I invest.
I think ScottK will pick up on what I'm talking about.
Last edited:
John_Fuller
New member
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
Removing my bias for a minute and something I didn't explicitly say last night is that Vazzano did have a decent game. Have to give some credit as the kid was under siege and gained the third star.
Removing my bias for a minute and something I didn't explicitly say last night is that Vazzano did have a decent game. Have to give some credit as the kid was under siege and gained the third star.
Yeah. Those goals weren't on him. The UVM defense wasm't much help on the second and third goals/passing clinics.
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
So I know according to UMass fans, you can't EVER win a game where you get killed on power play numbers because you have to defend too much and ...
Ahh screw it. A good team deals with it, and while I didn't agree with many of the calls tonight, this team just dealt with the calls and instead of complaining and *****ing (hint hint) ... walked away with yet another win.
18-7. Second place in Hockey East. This doesn't suck.
So I know according to UMass fans, you can't EVER win a game where you get killed on power play numbers because you have to defend too much and ...
Ahh screw it. A good team deals with it, and while I didn't agree with many of the calls tonight, this team just dealt with the calls and instead of complaining and *****ing (hint hint) ... walked away with yet another win.
18-7. Second place in Hockey East. This doesn't suck.
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to UMLFan again.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to UMLFan again.
John_Fuller
New member
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
I stayed home due to illness tonight so I watched the game on TV. I didn't have any problems with the officiating tonight; most of Lowell's penalties were legit (the only one I questioned was Reynolds flopping down, but that's it). Holmstrom was clearly in the crease for a second and half before the puck arrived. Granted, the play should have been whistled dead before going to instant replay. You give any team that many power play chances and it's going to bite you. Just a very undisciplined game by the River Hawks; they have a week's time to clean that up going into games with Merrimack, Maine and BU over the next six games. They did chase Vazzano out of the game early with two Mike Lange highlight-reel goals (Ruhwedel - beat him like a rented mule, Wallin -- smoked him like a bad cigar), took advantage of a key power plays, and held Vermont in-check for most of the game until the end. The ending was directly attributed to those power plays and they gave Vermont a chance to get back into the game.
I believe they mentioned this is the biggest yearly turnaround in school history and the longest winning streak in Tsongas Arena history.
Second place on February 4th....WOW
I stayed home due to illness tonight so I watched the game on TV. I didn't have any problems with the officiating tonight; most of Lowell's penalties were legit (the only one I questioned was Reynolds flopping down, but that's it). Holmstrom was clearly in the crease for a second and half before the puck arrived. Granted, the play should have been whistled dead before going to instant replay. You give any team that many power play chances and it's going to bite you. Just a very undisciplined game by the River Hawks; they have a week's time to clean that up going into games with Merrimack, Maine and BU over the next six games. They did chase Vazzano out of the game early with two Mike Lange highlight-reel goals (Ruhwedel - beat him like a rented mule, Wallin -- smoked him like a bad cigar), took advantage of a key power plays, and held Vermont in-check for most of the game until the end. The ending was directly attributed to those power plays and they gave Vermont a chance to get back into the game.
I believe they mentioned this is the biggest yearly turnaround in school history and the longest winning streak in Tsongas Arena history.
Second place on February 4th....WOW
Last edited:
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
My only complaint with the blow down is that it doesn't seem to me they call it unless it matters. If they want to call his proximity to play as that, fine. But in that case I'm not sure why that review went so long.
(yes, I know this post isn't clear.)
My only complaint with the blow down is that it doesn't seem to me they call it unless it matters. If they want to call his proximity to play as that, fine. But in that case I'm not sure why that review went so long.
(yes, I know this post isn't clear.)
John_Fuller
New member
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
The review took a long time because they wanted to make sure that deliberate contact was not made by the Vermont defender to push Holmstrom into the crease. I saw a lot of incidental contact on the play and thought Holmstrom did freely skate into the crease. Also, I felt that Holmstrom did screen the goalie's ability to make the save while in the crease and by rule, that's no goal. Personally, the NHL/NCAA rule is written poorly and it should go back to the IIHF, if you are in the blue paint, it's blown dead; otherwise, get rid of the crease. It's Rule 6-29-c if you're that interested and it's a judgement call by the referee. I also had thought that in the NCAA, if you are on the attacking power play team, any crease violation is automatically blown dead. However, I can't find this rule in the book.
The review took a long time because they wanted to make sure that deliberate contact was not made by the Vermont defender to push Holmstrom into the crease. I saw a lot of incidental contact on the play and thought Holmstrom did freely skate into the crease. Also, I felt that Holmstrom did screen the goalie's ability to make the save while in the crease and by rule, that's no goal. Personally, the NHL/NCAA rule is written poorly and it should go back to the IIHF, if you are in the blue paint, it's blown dead; otherwise, get rid of the crease. It's Rule 6-29-c if you're that interested and it's a judgement call by the referee. I also had thought that in the NCAA, if you are on the attacking power play team, any crease violation is automatically blown dead. However, I can't find this rule in the book.
bottomdweller
Where my dogsies at?
Re: UML 2011-2012 Thread: Part II
I thought it looked like Holmstrom was in the crease, but had no way to get himself out because he was pushed towards the net and over to Madore. only sucks because it took a goal away from the soon to be ROTY, but Lowell still came through with a PP goal.
I thought it looked like Holmstrom was in the crease, but had no way to get himself out because he was pushed towards the net and over to Madore. only sucks because it took a goal away from the soon to be ROTY, but Lowell still came through with a PP goal.
- Status