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.
University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
- Thread starter Goon
- Start date
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
For most officials, just being allowed to ref a game in that building in front of those fans is enough. And for those who will someday have grandchildren living in the Twin Cities, they will be able to tell them what it is like to be on the ice in front of 12,000 actual live fans.
For most officials, just being allowed to ref a game in that building in front of those fans is enough. And for those who will someday have grandchildren living in the Twin Cities, they will be able to tell them what it is like to be on the ice in front of 12,000 actual live fans.
Happy
Registered User
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
Ouch, that means if the grandchildren are hockey fans, they will have to explain why they gave that game to UND, instead of making the right call.
Ouch, that means if the grandchildren are hockey fans, they will have to explain why they gave that game to UND, instead of making the right call.
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
I know of two former refs who flat-out stated, to my friends and I, in person, that the Ralph was the worst place to ref....because of the fans.
I know of two former refs who flat-out stated, to my friends and I, in person, that the Ralph was the worst place to ref....because of the fans.
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
Problem is, most of us Nodaks would take that as a compliment.
Problem is, most of us Nodaks would take that as a compliment.
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
Strengthening my point. Or rather, the refs' point. If an opponent said that...that's one thing.
Strengthening my point. Or rather, the refs' point. If an opponent said that...that's one thing.
SiouxFanatic
Registered User
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
I've heard similar about the Mooch. Never mind, I'm lying as Gopher fans don't attend home games.
I've heard similar about the Mooch. Never mind, I'm lying as Gopher fans don't attend home games.
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
The only complaints I've heard about reffing at the Mecca is due to the coach. And from what I know...the refs are right.
I've heard similar about the Mooch. Never mind, I'm lying as Gopher fans don't attend home games.
The only complaints I've heard about reffing at the Mecca is due to the coach. And from what I know...the refs are right.
I've heard similar about the Mooch. Never mind, I'm lying as Gopher fans don't attend home games.
Drum roll.
willythekid
New member
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
If you think that Todd Anderson would ever try to do NoDak any favors, you most certainly smoke more crack than Hagemo... Happy, people care about you, stop smoking more crack than Nate Hagemo.
If you think that Todd Anderson would ever try to do NoDak any favors, you most certainly smoke more crack than Hagemo... Happy, people care about you, stop smoking more crack than Nate Hagemo.
omahasioux1
Well-known member
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
I think a ref in the old WCHA got fired who was bat **** horrible. And he would have said the same thing. Wilke.
omahasioux1
Well-known member
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
I can say it wasn't him.
Point being...yes, I agree, I want my team's opponents to HATE playing at our house. But when refs say that stuff? That's just not good.
I can say it wasn't him.
Point being...yes, I agree, I want my team's opponents to HATE playing at our house. But when refs say that stuff? That's just not good.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
Yes, they should. It's rare that an official has actually read the rule book and enforces it; namely:
There are four (4) specific conditions that must be met in order for the Referee to award a penalty shot for a player being fouled from behind. They are:
• The infraction must have taken place in the neutral zone or attacking zone, (i.e. over the puck carrier’s own blue line);
• The infraction must have been committed from behind;
• The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded);
• The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper.
The call, based on the rule book, was correct.
So yes, that official should be rewarded.
Yes, they should. It's rare that an official has actually read the rule book and enforces it; namely:
There are four (4) specific conditions that must be met in order for the Referee to award a penalty shot for a player being fouled from behind. They are:
• The infraction must have taken place in the neutral zone or attacking zone, (i.e. over the puck carrier’s own blue line);
• The infraction must have been committed from behind;
• The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded);
• The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper.
The call, based on the rule book, was correct.
So yes, that official should be rewarded.
willythekid
New member
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
This is all correct of course, but we are missing the main point here... The best thing to come of this penalty shot, with exception of the win itself, is the incessant whining of daloot and st clown fans on social media. It sounds like Bruce Ciskie had a melt-down for the ages... I wish I could have heard it.
This is all correct of course, but we are missing the main point here... The best thing to come of this penalty shot, with exception of the win itself, is the incessant whining of daloot and st clown fans on social media. It sounds like Bruce Ciskie had a melt-down for the ages... I wish I could have heard it.
Tipsy McStagger
Falling on fans at NHC since 2001
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
If that wasn't a penalty shot, what is?
If that wasn't a penalty shot, what is?
Tipsy McStagger
Falling on fans at NHC since 2001
Re: University of North Dakota-2015-2016-Seaason
He wasn't pulled down from behind. Soucy got his torso in front of Poganski when he dove. Soucy was between Poganski and the goalkeeper. So by the rules, it shouldn't have been a penalty shot. Plenty of people have said this: Schlossman, Goon, someone named Avash Kalra who wrote the NCHC column for CHN.