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!
- Thread starter HockeyRef
- Start date
Oh geez that’s terrible… not even a breakaway of sorts… and to end up the game winner.
The guys seemed a bit deflated after that happened.
HockeyRef
Well-known member
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...
Chuck Murray
WIS & Effingwoods Hockey Almanac
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.
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:
JB
Desk Chair Coach
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
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
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.
deltabravo62
Active member
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
JB
Desk Chair Coach
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.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.
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.
HockeyRef
Well-known member
Ok we picked it up in the 2nd but still not mustering much outshot 24-13. Pretty goals by both teams.
I guess if you can't score even strength...it's obvious MS7 is in a slow em down zone D and we survived yet another 5 on 3. I liked our compete level tho in the later parts of the 2nd can we bring it the 3rd?
Still begs the Q...we looked so good last weekend...
I guess if you can't score even strength...it's obvious MS7 is in a slow em down zone D and we survived yet another 5 on 3. I liked our compete level tho in the later parts of the 2nd can we bring it the 3rd?
Still begs the Q...we looked so good last weekend...
lol, is that how they’re going to snap the streak? I’m not sure that counts as anything but a technicality. Split seconds after a VT penalty expires the Wildcats score when Carr’s stick breaks on a one-timer, sending the puck directly to Lavins who scores on a one-timer of his own…
Officially it’s their first 5x5 goal in 264:22.00, but only four defenders were in the zone so I’m still counting.
Officially it’s their first 5x5 goal in 264:22.00, but only four defenders were in the zone so I’m still counting.
TheGrouchyCat
Litter Box of Bad Ideas
Disaster of a weekend.
1 out of 6 in an abysmal weekend. I thought the officiating was subpar both nights. That last penalty on Zebeski with under 2 minutes was questionable to say the least…
How many times have we seen this with Souza - after an incredible weekend against a great opponent you come out and lay an egg the following weekend?
2 points out of 9 possible thus far in HockeyEast… not looking good to say the least.
I will give credit though to the Special Teams this weekend. Both PK and PP looked good. Need to work on 5x5 offense…
How many times have we seen this with Souza - after an incredible weekend against a great opponent you come out and lay an egg the following weekend?
2 points out of 9 possible thus far in HockeyEast… not looking good to say the least.
I will give credit though to the Special Teams this weekend. Both PK and PP looked good. Need to work on 5x5 offense…
Is anyone else watching online? Johnson came out of the corner and fell to the ice (it sure looked like he was hauled down) and the referees arm shots into the air…
So either the penalty was somehow on Johnson/UNH or the referee put one back in his pocket.
I disagree that the officials favored Vermont. UNH did all they could to harm themselves this weekend/tonight. But, I’m going to need an explanation on that one…
So either the penalty was somehow on Johnson/UNH or the referee put one back in his pocket.
I disagree that the officials favored Vermont. UNH did all they could to harm themselves this weekend/tonight. But, I’m going to need an explanation on that one…