Wcha 24 25

[Lindsay]

Dare I say all the shaking and baking in rough ice in a shoot out at Wrigley paid dividends for Wisconsin just now. Whew…..apparently OSU travels with a Navy Seal? Hopefully he has some answers for overtime.

 

[ARM]

First off, try not to give up a goal in the first 10 seconds while down a skater. After that, count your skaters.

 

[robertearle]

Sometimes the pulling back doesn't matter, because the skater is still moving forward, so the puck is, too. Here, she savored it a bit, so the whole play slowed down. As with most things, no way that these officials are going to be able to make that call unless they knew to take a look at it. The coach can't challenge, because that would be another penalty and would mean a likely goal against if unsuccessful. In the history books, it's a goal, and that's all I need to know.

So if it isn't pulling back with your hands, and is only backwards with the skates. I watched it that last time: she stops dead with her feet, but doesn't back up.

 

[ARM]

It's the puck. The puck has to keep moving forward. So if you pull back with your hands, but your momentum as a skater is still forward, it typically doesn't matter. It's when you are stopped and pull back that it would be a problem.

 

[Timothy A]

Is that a legal goal? I looked at it several times, and I'm not sure. The puck must be kept in motion towards the goal line. If they used such a tight definition of covering a puck (called on replay, not live, so they figure it is clear and obvious), then I don't think that puck was moving toward the goal line before she shot it.

Doesn't matter now; 3-3.

I knew that what Muzzy was pleading about but I didn't know once they called it a goal there was anything they could do about it. I also didn't know if there was anything Simms really did wrong. Whatever she did was certainly not egregious in real time.

 

[robertearle]

A different angle on the penalty shot, though I'm not sure if it helps or hurts the case for it being a good shot; it looks to be moved very much laterally, neither forward nor drawn back. Anyway, interesting different camera angle.

https://x.com/B1GHockey/status/1903955829042102645

 

[Timothy A]

A different angle on the penalty shot, though I'm not sure if it helps or hurts the case for it being a good shot; it looks to be moved very much laterally, neither forward nor drawn back. Anyway, interesting different camera angle.

https://x.com/B1GHockey/status/1903955829042102645

A great angle to take a look, it looks rather innocuous to me at full speed. It looks like any other breakaway attempt. At that point Muzzy was going to do just about anything to get it reversed.

 

[robertearle]

A great angle to take a look, it looks rather innocuous to me at full speed. It looks like any other breakaway attempt. At that point Muzzy was going to do just about anything to get it reversed.

She had already used her time out (I think), so if she challenges it and loses, she plays the first two minutes of OT a player down.

 

[ARM]

The only thing that I'm sure of is that the officials messed it up. The review happened with 18.9. They look at a play that happens with around 53 seconds left. Then they assess that penalty, award the penalty shot, and drop the puck again -- still with 18.9 seconds left. That isn't right; the clock should likely have about 53 seconds at that point, as none of the play after the "covering" ever happened (with the exception of any other penalties that they would have assessed).

 

[robertearle]

The only thing that I'm sure of is that the officials messed it up. The review happened with 18.9. They look at a play that happens with around 53 seconds left. Then they assess that penalty, award the penalty shot, and drop the puck again -- still with 18.9 seconds left. That isn't right; the clock should likely have about 53 seconds at that point, as none of the play after the "covering" ever happened (with the exception of any other penalties that they would have assessed).

Which would have been 30 seconds more of UW power play...

 

[robertearle]

The only thing that I'm sure of is that the officials messed it up. The review happened with 18.9. They look at a play that happens with around 53 seconds left. Then they assess that penalty, award the penalty shot, and drop the puck again -- still with 18.9 seconds left. That isn't right; the clock should likely have about 53 seconds at that point, as none of the play after the "covering" ever happened (with the exception of any other penalties that they would have assessed).

Which would have been 30 seconds more of UW power play...

 

[ARM]

More like 34, but yes. It was a strangely called game overall. There were so many obvious calls both ways let go, while the first call on each team was something we normally wouldn't see. WCHA refs would have taken a player from each team on the first call and would have made no call on the second. Most of it canceled out, until the final 2 minutes, when they had to call the tOSU infractions but let those on UW go.

Luckily, this game will give us something other than transfers and coaching changes to discuss well into the summer.

 

[ndodge]

Someone needs to talk some sense into Murphy. It reflects poorly on frost at a certain point .

I finally watched the hit today. I missed it live in arena, because, of course I was watching the PUCK so my eyes were nowhere near the hit.