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.

WCHA 2023-2024 Calamity Or Calmness?

robertearle said:
The Gophers weren't "short-handed by a minor penalty". Coincidental minors had it 4-on-4, and then the Gophers became shorthanded because of a major penalty.
Click to expand...

This isn't relevant. The bit you are citing has to do with situations involving one or more minor penalties. The rule on a team serving both a major and a minor has entirely different language.
 
Still Eeyore said:
This isn't relevant. The bit you are citing has to do with multiple minor penalties. The rule on a team serving both a major and a minor has entirely different language.
Click to expand...

I read the text of the rule you cited. To my mind the plain language of it means it does not apply.
 
robertearle said:
I read the text of the rule you cited. To my mind the plain language of it means it does not apply.
Click to expand...

Then you have a very strange way of reading. You are going back two paragraphs, to language that was superseded in the relevant paragraph, and pertained only to which penalty would be wiped out rather than whether the penalty would be wiped out.
 
Still Eeyore said:
Then you have a very strange way of reading. You are going back two paragraphs, to language that was superseded in the relevant paragraph, and pertained only to which penalty would be wiped out rather than whether the penalty would be wiped out.
Click to expand...

In getting my double-major in math and computer science, I have something like 15 credits specifically in logic. I know how to read an if-then statement.

"If the opposing team scores a goal while a team is shorthanded by one or more minor penalties..."

The Gophers were not "shorthanded by one of more MINOR penalties"; they were shorthanded by a MAJOR penalty. I think you are probably in the wrong rule of the rule book, because the premise to the rule does not apply here.

maybe it's just poorly written, but the sentence that does not apply is the only part of the rule that describes a player coming out of the box back into the game.
 
Last edited:
Let's try another way. Let's look at the probably lazy wording of the bolded statement.

If a short-handed team is scored upon while serving a major and a noncoincidental minor penalty (two different players), the minor penalty shall terminate.

What does "noncoincidental" refer to?

Does that say "If a short-handed team is scored upon while serving a major penalty and another penalty taken by a different player at a not coincident point in play to the major..."?

Or does it say "If a short-handed team is scored upon while serving a major penalty and another penalty that was NOT taken as part of a coincidental pair of minor penalties with a player from the scoring team..."?

I think the latter is what they're trying (and mostly failing) to say: You don't get to wipe out your 'half' of a pair of coincidental minors by being scored upon while also serving a major.

Rewrite it like this, moving the "not":
If a short-handed team is scored upon while serving a major and a noncoincidental minor penalty (two different players), the minor penalty shall terminate; but if a short-handed team is scored upon while serving a major and a coincidental minor penalty (two different players), the minor penalty shall not terminate.
 
Last edited:
There was great camera work and definition on the Wisconsin-Minnesota broadcast! I was popping in from following a nonconference game (also nicely done), and watched the last several minutes, and enjoyed those minutes of play as well.

As a side note, I think robertearle's correct about how to understand "noncoincidental" there, meaning not half of coincidental minors.
 
robertearle said:
Let's try another way. Let's look at the probably lazy wording of the bolded statement.

If a short-handed team is scored upon while serving a major and a noncoincidental minor penalty (two different players), the minor penalty shall terminate.

What does "noncoincidental" refer to?
Click to expand...

As I said in my first post, it very clearly is referring to whether or not the major and the minor were committed by the same player at the same time.

Does that say "If a short-handed team is scored upon while serving a major penalty and another penalty taken by a different player at a not coincident point in play to the major..."?

Or does it say "If a short-handed team is scored upon while serving a major penalty and another penalty that was NOT taken as part of a coincidental pair of minor penalties with a player from the scoring team..."?
Click to expand...

As I said, it is very clearly referring to the former. There is no other way to interpret the phrase "two different players."

I think the latter is what they're trying (and mostly failing) to say: You don't get to wipe out your 'half' of a pair of coincidental minors by being scored upon while also serving a major.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you can think what you like, but you are having to imagine words that are not in the rule to arrive at your conclusion.

Rewrite it like this, moving the "not":
If a short-handed team is scored upon while serving a major and a noncoincidental minor penalty (two different players), the minor penalty shall terminate; but if a short-handed team is scored upon while serving a major and a coincidental minor penalty (two different players), the minor penalty shall not terminate.
Click to expand...

Yes. If you rewrite the rule, you can make it say something that the rule does not. However, if you restrict yourself to interpreting the words that are actually there, rather than starting from the assumption that they wrote it wrong and then trying to figure out how it should be written to arrive at the conclusion that you prefer, then the refs got the rule wrong.
 
Hockeybuckeye said:
I couldn't start my streaming until the game was underway and saw two Gophers in the box and a Badger. What did I miss?
Click to expand...

With that, specifically, you missed Casey O'Brien going on a swan dive and getting called for embellishment, while Madeline Wethington picked up a tripping call for having her stick close to O'Brien when she did so. That was followed by Abbey Murphy picking up a major for slashing on a play where they initially called a minor, followed by a video review, followed by the refs announcing that there was no video of the play, and then changing the call to a major. (Note: I don't have any trouble believing that Murphy would commit a slashing major, but I cannot follow the process at all.)

Prior to that, the Gophers dominated the first few minutes of the game, but couldn't score. Then the teams traded even strength goals.
 
BowWowWow said:
"Two different players" may refer to the major and the minor penalty - the same player didn't commit the two penalties. Sometimes two penalties are called on one player at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly my point. If the major and the minor were committed by different players, the minor gets wiped out if the other team scores on the power play. Robert's argument seems to be that the phrase "two different players" should be ignored, and a different definition used of "noncoincidental" that doesn't relate to them at all should be used.

The problem, I think, is that the person who wrote, or edited, the rule used the word "noncoincidental" in a way that is simultaneously perfectly accurate and also not the way that it is used in other parts of the rulebook. There's just no reason to think that we should be using the definition that is used elsewhere but nonsensical in the specific sentence in question.
 
Still Eeyore said:
I didn't see it, so I couldn't say whether or not it was deserved. And Big Ten Plus never showed it at all, live or on replay. I'm just wondering how you can go to video review, and then change your call based upon no video.
Click to expand...

I was sitting across the rink, behind the announcer, and can describe the relevant actions. Murphy was heading up the ice along the benches and got either hooked or tripped. No call was made but the crowd was buzzing about the omission. Then she got up, there was a push from the same player as she was heading onto the bench, and Murphy chopped the player with her stick. It was a vicious chop that clearly inflicted some pain. The discussion around me was whether she would be ejected.
Teams are clearly seeing that Murphy gets all the extracurricular attention they can get away with. She had had enough and snapped. Wisconsin scored shortly after that, but the rest of the Gophers did a great job killing off the rest of the major. Murphy got that goal back just over a minute after she got back on the ice. The Gophers really dominated the Badgers after that, even though the shots on goal were in Wisconsin's favor.
I have to think the Saturday game will be the most interesting game of the season. Will the Gophers run out of gas after the short turnaround from Tuesday? Will there be an emotional letdown after such an intense game today? Will the Badgers be boiling and strike back for a split? Or will the Gophers make a statement and sweep the series?
 
It seemed like the ice wasn't very good. And it seemed to especially bother the highly skilled sinners. If it not that then I guess you would just have to say it was embarrassing for the sinners to lose and give up 5 goals to the tunnelers. Tunnelers seemed like they used up half a season of puck luck in this one. I don't think they will be able to count on that happening tomorrow.
 
Still Eeyore said:
Yes, that's exactly my point. If the major and the minor were committed by different players, the minor gets wiped out if the other team scores on the power play. Robert's argument seems to be that the phrase "two different players" should be ignored, and a different definition used of "noncoincidental" that doesn't relate to them at all should be used.

The problem, I think, is that the person who wrote, or edited, the rule used the word "noncoincidental" in a way that is simultaneously perfectly accurate and also not the way that it is used in other parts of the rulebook. There's just no reason to think that we should be using the definition that is used elsewhere but nonsensical in the specific sentence in question.
Click to expand...

The thing you are missing is that both players assessed coincidental penalties ALWAYS serve them in their entirety. There is never a situation where either player’s penalty time is wiped out. The sentence you’re analyzing is explicitly excluding the situation that occurred because the penalties on MW and CO were coincidental. Of course, if Murphy’s penalty had been a minor, it would have been wiped out when the goal was scored. If the situation had been that MW got a minor and then say, five seconds later CO got a separate penalty, then MW would have come out of the box when the goal was scored after the major. This is the situation being described in the sentence in question. The “two different players” interjection is there to distinguish from the situation where a single player is assessed a 2 and a 5, which puts it outside the scope of this sentence.
 
Can someone explain Abby murphys goal celebration to me? Is she playing the cymbals or dusting her hands off? I can’t keep up with what these young people are up to. Love the highlights that are posted, some great goals.
 
MinnOTB said:
The thing you are missing is that both players assessed coincidental penalties ALWAYS serve them in their entirety. There is never a situation where either player’s penalty time is wiped out. The sentence you’re analyzing is explicitly excluding the situation that occurred because the penalties on MW and CO were coincidental. Of course, if Murphy’s penalty had been a minor, it would have been wiped out when the goal was scored. If the situation had been that MW got a minor and then say, five seconds later CO got a separate penalty, then MW would have come out of the box when the goal was scored after the major. This is the situation being described in the sentence in question. The “two different players” interjection is there to distinguish from the situation where a single player is assessed a 2 and a 5, which puts it outside the scope of this sentence.
Click to expand...

This.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top