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.

UNH 2026-27 Season Let's Go 'Cats!

Yep those HE points we dont get early seem to catch us in the end when we hit the big HE portion of the schedule. Glad we could tie it up but couldn't solve their goalie and were double teamed most of the night. Typical UNH game at UVM...🙄🙄🙄
FlagUp17 said:
Tough loss tonight, especially after coming back from the 2 goal deficit. We keep on running into these goalies having amazing nights…

Getting more and more concerned with the offense. PP looks OK but gotta score even strength as well…

Gotta get something tomorrow. These lost early season hockey east points are gonna come back to bite us later in the year…
Click to expand...
 
wildcatdc said:
Our defenseman slapped the broken stick at Loiselle/the puck to disrupt play.
Click to expand...
Which bonehead made that play?!? Anyone ask the coaching staff where he got that bright idea???

Someone should be sitting in the stands tomorrow, how else to you teach discipline to your guys ...
 
JB/flagup17 asked what was CALLED last night…. And that was what was called. What TRANSPIRED was this…

Our player (Newcombe, I believe - I initially thought Carr) was closing on Loiselle (who was carrying puck up the boards) and the small (maybe 2’) piece of lumber was in between them. As Newcombe tried to play the puck (at this point being like 2 feet away from Loiselle), he slapped the lumber - methinks very much inadvertently - and the call was made. It was as if the ref had been waiting 25 years to make this call to show his rule book prowess. Probably should have swallowed the whistle.

Was not nefarious/intentionally dangerous on our player’s part, in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
I googled the rule, 55. The AI results are torn on if a penalty shot was warranted. AI thinks it needed to be a break away or clear possession that was an scoring threat. Otherwise 2 min minor IF an intentional act.

I haven't gone back to the video but I didn't catch the broken stick part at all and the play was on the boards in the corner....

What additionally frustrates me was the (UVM) announcers noting that the faceoff after the penalty shot goal was delayed as Souza wanted an explanation.... Ummm seems a bit late, you have the fit (throw sticks, water bottles, stand on dashers) BEFORE the penalty shot happens
 
JB said:
I googled the rule, 55. The AI results are torn on if a penalty shot was warranted. AI thinks it needed to be a break away or clear possession that was an scoring threat. Otherwise 2 min minor IF an intentional act.

I haven't gone back to the video but I didn't catch the broken stick part at all and the play was on the boards in the corner....

What additionally frustrates me was the (UVM) announcers noting that the faceoff after the penalty shot goal was delayed as Souza wanted an explanation.... Ummm seems a bit late, you have the fit (throw sticks, water bottles, stand on dashers) BEFORE the penalty shot happens
Click to expand...
Someone sent me the video late last night (a 10-second clip - 5 before, 5 after). In slo-mo, it is even more clear he’s trying to play the puck and the broken stick is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perhaps if the puck didn’t go out of play as a result, there wouldn’t have been a call? Who knows. Terrible all around.
 
JB said:
I googled the rule, 55. The AI results are torn on if a penalty shot was warranted. AI thinks it needed to be a break away or clear possession that was an scoring threat. Otherwise 2 min minor IF an intentional act.

I haven't gone back to the video but I didn't catch the broken stick part at all and the play was on the boards in the corner....

What additionally frustrates me was the (UVM) announcers noting that the faceoff after the penalty shot goal was delayed as Souza wanted an explanation.... Ummm seems a bit late, you have the fit (throw sticks, water bottles, stand on dashers) BEFORE the penalty shot happens
Click to expand...
If the NCAA rule on this is the same as the NHL. It does not need to be on a breakaway / scoring threat. Video below for reference. Obviously this is a blatant example of intent to make that play.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
youtu.be youtu.be
 
deltabravo62 said:
If the NCAA rule on this is the same as the NHL. It does not need to be on a breakaway / scoring threat. Video below for reference. Obviously this is a blatant example of intent to make that play.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
youtu.be youtu.be
Click to expand...
Yeah a bit more reading and I agree it seems D zone is a penalty shot, however it reads like it needs to be intent aka throwing your stick or glove to disrupt the play.

However someone else's broken stick on the ice has some other "rules" I didn't fully dig into around this topic, broadly the broken stick becomes part of the playing surface.

I think the break away / immediate scoring threat is an interpretation on how to simply determine intent. If it isn't one of those things why would you do it?

It seems pretty clear inadvertently hitting a broken piece of stick is not the intent of the rule for a penalty shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top