Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

Similar photo in TU today. I guess they are playing nice again after some less than cordial remarks being exchanged at the November game at Messa.

You mean how after you skater doesn't miss a shift after drawing a Game DQ which was barely 2 for charging?

 

[Wholin1]

You mean how after you skater doesn't miss a shift after drawing a Game DQ which was barely 2 for charging?

Or Bodie breaking his wrist?

 

[rdf8585]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

POSTGAME VIDEOS:

JOORIS - GROSENICK - WILKINS


APPERT


BENNETT

 

[rdf8585]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

More on the game: http://unionhockeynews.blogspot.com/

Down by the locker rooms after the game, it was like Union had just won a championship. Despite being a non-league game, the dramatic win clearly meant a lot to them.

 

[uniontrack]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

I didn't see the game. I was listening to the game while watching the Rangers-Leafs game on NHL-TV.

I really was impressed with how far RPI has come since the earlier meetings. They seemed to respond to the Union goals quicker than in the past and Union was lucky that Troy was on his game when it mattered.

I was also impressed with the interviews of Appert and Co. after the game. He was totally classy and also humble about what happened. The RPI player interviewed was also classy.

This rivalry has been nasty for years and it doesn't take much to get the blood boiling on both sides. The angst/anger was on full display over on the score thread tonight.

What I took from listening to the game:

RPI had a big shot advantage and had a big face-off advantage. RPI had 5 full PP chances where Union only had 3 full PP chances and a shortened one.

Obviously, the late penalty was controversial and led to the GWG PP goal.

Hockey is just like any other sport. Similar to scoring in the red zone in football versus winning the yardage gained battle, converting on special teams is huge in hockey regardless of shots on goal.

RPI had 5 PP chances for a +2 advantage even before the late penalty call. That combined with the shots advantage should have been a recipe for a RPI victory. However, Union is #1 in PP and tied for #2 in PK in the NCAA. 5-5 PK and 2-4 (50%) PP was the difference.

Even with this setback, I still think that RPI is a dangerous team and should have a decent run to end the year and have a reasonable shot in the ECAC Tourney.

Even though there were no league points on the line, as a former athlete during my stint at Union, it never gets old taking RPI behind the woodshed.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.

Keith.

 

[Wholin1]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

I am cautiously optimistic that Union may have turned the corner on the season. A month ago I think it is safe to say, we would have lost this game with a similar effort. It's obvious to me that 5 on 5 we didn't have it last night-credit to RPI which was generally all over us after the first few minutes all the way to the third. Their forechecking was relentless and their breakouts were better and they gave little maneuvering room in the D zone. Union won the goaltending and special teams battles and that was enough. Winning games when the A game takes the night off is a big accomplishment. I think Union's poise and maturity mattered a lot last night and gives reason for hope going forward.

 

[Hokydad]

I am cautiously optimistic that Union may have turned the corner on the season. A month ago I think it is safe to say, we would have lost this game with a similar effort. It's obvious to me that 5 on 5 we didn't have it last night-credit to RPI which was generally all over us after the first few minutes all the way to the third. Their forechecking was relentless and their breakouts were better and they gave little maneuvering room in the D zone. Union won the goaltending and special teams battles and that was enough. Winning games when the A game takes the night off is a big accomplishment. I think Union's poise and maturity mattered a lot last night and gives reason for hope going forward.

Safe to say that special teams have always been Unions strength.

Great goaltending, high end+ PP

They will go on a roll now

Let RPI have the lap dog "moral" victory
If 0-3 vs a team and outscored cumulative by a wide margin is good, good for them.
Good teams find a way to win, not lose.

 

[aweise]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

Obviously, the late penalty was controversial and led to the GWG PP goal.

I'd have to agree with the controversial part, but looking at the replay on the board, the Bailen penalty was almost identical to the one called on Gingras earlier in the period. I remarked after the Gingras penalty that the particular play should usually be called for interference, but rarely seems to be called. At least the officials were consistent in calling it both ways. The only difference being Union capitalizing on the PP.

Overall, RPI definitely looks like a much different (and better) team than the one I saw in November. Looks like Appert has rallied them to become dangerous again. I'm sure the RPI faithful are wondering why this didn't happen in November.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

I'd have to agree with the controversial part, but looking at the replay on the board, the Bailen penalty was almost identical to the one called on Gingras earlier in the period. I remarked after the Gingras penalty that the particular play should usually be called for interference, but rarely seems to be called. At least the officials were consistent in calling it both ways. The only difference being Union capitalizing on the PP.

Overall, RPI definitely looks like a much different (and better) team than the one I saw in November. Looks like Appert has rallied them to become dangerous again. I'm sure the RPI faithful are wondering why this didn't happen in November.

You mean the puck was at Gingras's feet?

 

[ADK11]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

You mean the puck was at Gingras's feet?

No, the puck had been dumped into the offensive zone already when both hits occurred.. again usually not called, but at least consistent. Bottom line is RPI had their PP chances and U's PK did the job. Grosenick, Hatch and Ikkala were outstanding and the main reason U got the W. I have no sympathy for RPI, especially after their numorous runs at Grosenick in the 3rd period.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

No, the puck had been dumped into the offensive zone already when both hits occurred.. again usually not called, but at least consistent. Bottom line is RPI had their PP chances and U's PK did the job. Grosenick, Hatch and Ikkala were outstanding and the main reason U got the W. I have no sympathy for RPI, especially after their numorous runs at Grosenick in the 3rd period.

Payback for winning in overtime after running York.

 

[GhostofAchilles]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

It's almost like RPI fans didn't even see they had 8 guys on the ice for 5 seconds when they got the puck on the drive that led to their second goal, and it was so blatant you'd have to be blind to miss it. But you know, that drive only led to a goal so no big deal. Glad to see Grosenick's head is still attached too.

 

[Senna]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

No, the puck had been dumped into the offensive zone already when both hits occurred.. again usually not called, but at least consistent. Bottom line is RPI had their PP chances and U's PK did the job. Grosenick, Hatch and Ikkala were outstanding and the main reason U got the W. I have no sympathy for RPI, especially after their numorous runs at Grosenick in the 3rd period.

ADK11 - I'll agree that RPI was crashing the net pretty hard, but no harder than Union ever does, nor would I ever expect them to. I will say that Groesnick's flop with 10 seconds left was just that - there wasnt an RPI guy within 15 feet of him. Whatever - that stuff happens in hockey. You are also 100% correct that RPI had its chances on special teams and Union won that battle. As I posted on the RPI thread, we can ***** an howl, but 2 goals is never really putting you in position to win any game, and particularly one against a team like Union. We on the RPI side are all understandably ****ed off on the officiating...I never would have made that call and the puck was close enough to both players that I wouldnt call it a dump in and they both could have played. Regardless, was a really good game and I thought that RPI carried most of the play, but that doesnt win games. Union did what it needed and stayed in the hunt and RPI left themselves vulnerable to the officiating, and then Union capitalized. Its a shame that calls change games, but Union took advantage, just as I would have hoped and expected RPI to, and sincere congratulations for the win.

 

[ADK11]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

ADK11 - I'll agree that RPI was crashing the net pretty hard, but no harder than Union ever does, nor would I ever expect them to. I will say that Groesnick's flop with 10 seconds left was just that - there wasnt an RPI guy within 15 feet of him. Whatever - that stuff happens in hockey. You are also 100% correct that RPI had its chances on special teams and Union won that battle. As I posted on the RPI thread, we can ***** an howl, but 2 goals is never really putting you in position to win any game, and particularly one against a team like Union. We on the RPI side are all understandably ****ed off on the officiating...I never would have made that call and the puck was close enough to both players that I wouldnt call it a dump in and they both could have played. Regardless, was a really good game and I thought that RPI carried most of the play, but that doesnt win games. Union did what it needed and stayed in the hunt and RPI left themselves vulnerable to the officiating, and then Union capitalized. Its a shame that calls change games, but Union took advantage, just as I would have hoped and expected RPI to, and sincere congratulations for the win.

Lee's hit to Grosenick's head should have been called, but I suspect the refs didn't see it because of the melee' action in front of the net. I'll agree that the goalie contact wasn't Henry Z/Brown-like intentional looking and leave it at that. RPI is definitely much improved and nobody would deny that the Engineers had the edge in play in last night. Good luck until we meet again..

 

[rdf8585]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

I'm hoping this recent stretch gets Wilkins going for good and we start to see the player we expected to see all along. All three of his goals have come this month, two of them in the past couple games. He also has an assist this month and was given credit for screening the goalie on Novak's goal against Harvard. Now if only Roy (0 points) can get off the schneid and start looking like the guy who had 67 points in 59 games in the CCHL last year.

 

[Wholin1]

I'm hoping this recent stretch gets Wilkins going for good and we start to see the player we expected to see all along. All three of his goals have come this month, two of them in the past couple games. He also has an assist this month and was given credit for screening the goalie on Novak's goal against Harvard. Now if only Roy (0 points) can get off the schneid and start looking like the guy who had 67 points in 59 games in the CCHL last year.

I'll predict that Wilkins will continue to improve and wind up with 6 to 8 goals on the season. Roy is a puzzle but the coaching staff is being patient with him and hopefully he will justify their faith.

 

[uniontrack]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

I was not at the game nor did I have any sort of a video feed.

Who on this site was actually at the TUC or felt that they could honestly see exactly what happened on the video feed with both the interference calls on Gingras and Bailen?

It' s not surprising that RPI fans and Union fans will probably disagree on what they saw, but I still would like to hear a few different thoughts as to where the puck was when the contact occurred.

I saw FD mention that it was in Bailen's skates. I know by watching the various Twitter feeds and the score thread here at USCHO that Tom from WaP had tweeted that he felt the puck was in the D-man's skates. I know that the RPI faithful trust WaP and what they blog about, so it's not surprising to hear this thought echoed from other RPI fans.

I'm not a fan of Tom, but he was tweeting earlier that there were missed calls for both sides and weak calls made for both sides, so I have to assume that even though ECAC ref's suck, they sucked with consistency last night. Ken also made mention of the poor officiating.

I am also aware that certain refs have had bad histories with certain teams and that a certain ref/team combo occurred last night. This ref/team combo also has made an appearance in the past at another controversial Union-RPI game ending involving a late goal. (Will there ever be a Union-RPI game that doesn't have controversy? )

So, I have heard from RPI fans that the puck was in the skates and I have heard from Union fans that the puck was behind the two players on its way to the end boards. Obviously, if the puck was truly in the man's skates, interference would be a poor call. However, once the puck has passed the D-man, interference becomes a definitely possibility, especially when D-men like to "stand up" the attacking player.

My thoughts are that the relative strength or weakness of this call would depend on two concepts: Where you thought the puck was when the contact occurred along with your team loyalties since bias is always present in game discussions.

Regardless, it was a good game and it was a learning experience for both teams. I have lots of friends that are RPI fans, so I try to be somewhat diplomatic and reasonable when I post on FB or Twitter about Union-RPI interactions since I know what its like to be on the losing side of a fight you can't ever seem to win...

Good luck to RPI the rest of the way.

Keith.

PS For RB's benefit, the 2012-2013 series is now SCCC 3, HVCC 0

 

[rdf8585]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

If anyone hasn't seen highlights, here they are:

 

[Wicked Slappaahs]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

....

My thoughts are that the relative strength or weakness of this call would depend on two concepts: Where you thought the puck was when the contact occurred along with your team loyalties since bias is always present in game discussions...

I would hope that in judging the strength/weakness of any call, the rule book might come into your consideration at some point...call me crazy. I'm not an expert and will stand corrected, but I believe that the last player to touch a puck is considered to have possession, making that person the eligible to be the recipient of physical contact. Further, whether or not the attacking player attempts to elude the defender also plays a role in judging the play.

I haven't watched a replay and probably won't. I do know that with the naked eye, it looked like a perfectly executed defensive play...the kind I'd want any d-man of mine to make. The call impacted the outcome of the game, which is exactly what any self-respecting official strives to avoid.

With that having been said, credit to Groesnick for standing on his head and gaining the "W". At the end of the day it was a non-league loss. RPI will live to fight another day. With any luck we'll meet again down the road and the Engineers can inflict some payback.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Union Hockey 2012-2013 - Unfinished Business

I saw FD mention that it was in Bailen's skates. I know by watching the various Twitter feeds and the score thread here at USCHO that Tom from WaP had tweeted that he felt the puck was in the D-man's skates. I know that the RPI faithful trust WaP and what they blog about, so it's not surprising to hear this thought echoed from other RPI fans.

Please provide the post where I said that it was in Bailen's skates. Nowhere did I say that. If my saying of "the player" resulted in an ambiguity on your part, then this is your clarification. I am merely echoing what was said by another poster on this forum.