Wisconsin Women's Hockey 2023-2024

[whoop87]

I can confirm both Rapin and Antipin are Hockey East refs. At one point there was a scrum in front of the SLU net and Antipin was in the blue paint, hanging on the crossbar, potentially blocking a Badger shot. Dude, get the heck out of the crease.

 

[robertearle]

I don't know which was more embarrassing, that newbie male ref or that Olympic female ref who called nothing. You think she'd know what a penalty would look like. Just about any moron can call a tripping call for heaven sakes. The one on Curl was egregious. Apparently the matching penalties were complete joke. There was no trip.

Pretty pathetic the band ran out before playing varsity but the crowd singing it without them was pretty cool.

I'm pretty sure I remember them playing Varsity after other quarterfinal games, but I don't remember them giving out a "regional championship" trophy before. Maybe the NCAA people wanted to get to awarding that trophy, so the band wasn't going to be allowed to play it. I think I saw Jackie Crum trying to wave the team back to the bench as they were lining up to sing.

Yes, I'm glad everyone ignored all that and sang anyway. I mean, it's Britta's last game at LaBahn, and Chayla's and maybe the others. Of course, we have to do Varsity.

 

[Gurth 2.0]

Regarding Varsity... the team was in the process of singing it while Celebrate was still on the PA and then the arena realized it and shut off the music which is when the crowd joined in.

That's how it appeared from our seats.

Thought it was a cool thing that they took it upon themselves to just have their W moment coz at first they seemed to be waiting for the band to start playing as were the rest of us.

And "Celebrate" ?

Could there be anything more cliche?

Anyway... fun to be there and glad they overcame the physical play. By about halfway thru the second, it seemed that both teams realized that SLU couldn't keep it up and UW started to impose their will.

Next!

 

[Timothy A]

I don't ever remember a trophy being handed out, I think it's kind of lame personally. What a great story on the singing of varsity,. That makes sense why all of a sudden it kicked into being loud when it was not being heard before.

Does anybody have any opinion on the goal that was waived off for Wisconsin? I'd love to find some video on it, but it's not a goal so I don't think I'll be able to. Yeah there was more than one time where Mark Johnson was hot because the rest were talking to the other teams coach and they wouldn't talk to him. Unless they're explaining a review, there's no reason for a ref to ever talk to a coach. That way the coach can't lobby and is fair for all sides.

 

[robertearle]

I don't ever remember a trophy being handed out, I think it's kind of lame personally. What a great story on the singing of varsity,. That makes sense why all of a sudden it kicked into being loud when it was not being heard before.

Does anybody have any opinion on the goal that was waived off for Wisconsin? I'd love to find some video on it, but it's not a goal so I don't think I'll be able to. Yeah there was more than one time where Mark Johnson was hot because the rest were talking to the other teams coach and they wouldn't talk to him. Unless they're explaining a review, there's no reason for a ref to ever talk to a coach. That way the coach can't lobby and is fair for all sides.

The live stream of the game on BTN-Plus was free yesterday, so maybe the replay is also free. If so, you can see all the video you want.

Gorbatenko was coming across the crease and came in contact with the handle end of the StL goalie's stick, knocking it out of her hand. Gorby had had a skate in the blue ice but was back out by the time the contact was made, and it appears to me that the goalie's stick was hanging out over "normal" ice. Contact happens just prior to or as the original shot was taken; goal came off the rebound. Goalie's skates were probably still in the blue, but at the very edge such that her stick was not. If you can interfere with a goalie by skating by and making incidental (as opposed to intentional) contact outside the blue ice, then the call was probably OK. But at some point out away from the goal, doesn't Gorbatenko has a right to simply skate across the ice outside the crease?

Adding: the original shot never got to the goalie, hitting bodies well before it got to her. And the male ref was along the endline is perfect position to see everything live, and he immediately signaled good goal.

 

[Gurth 2.0]

We watched the replay last night and I think the goaltender interference call was correct.

Goalie's stick ended up at the top of the circles.

Also saw some possible/clear penalties on us that were missed.

Not giving the refs a pass... they stunk. It wasn't quite as one-sided as it appeared in-person with my Bucky goggles on though.

 

[robertearle]

We watched the replay last night and I think the goaltender interference call was correct.

Goalie's stick ended up at the top of the circles.

Also saw some possible/clear penalties on us that were missed.

Not giving the refs a pass... they stunk. It wasn't quite as one-sided as it appeared in-person with my Bucky goggles on though.

I think I'm going to disagree. The contact happens when Gorbatenko is outside the blue ice, and didn't specifically affected the goalie's ability to play the puck. If you can still interfere while outside the blue ice, then what is the point of even having the blue ice?

 

[BadgerPete]

I don't ever remember a trophy being handed out, I think it's kind of lame personally. What a great story on the singing of varsity,. That makes sense why all of a sudden it kicked into being loud when it was not being heard before.

Does anybody have any opinion on the goal that was waived off for Wisconsin? I'd love to find some video on it, but it's not a goal so I don't think I'll be able to. Yeah there was more than one time where Mark Johnson was hot because the rest were talking to the other teams coach and they wouldn't talk to him. Unless they're explaining a review, there's no reason for a ref to ever talk to a coach. That way the coach can't lobby and is fair for all sides.

More than a few top-notch college hockey writers have pointed out that no one knows what goaltender interference is anymore.That goal was right in front of us, and the one thing my wife pointed out was that the St. Lawrence goalie absolutely sprinted for the bench to get her coach to challenge it immediately after the puck went in. We couldn't remember that reaction out of a goalie before, so she adamantly thought whatever contact happened kept her from stopping Woz's shot.

 

[robertearle]

More than a few top-notch college hockey writers have pointed out that no one knows what goaltender interference is anymore.That goal was right in front of us, and the one thing my wife pointed out was that the St. Lawrence goalie absolutely sprinted for the bench to get her coach to challenge it immediately after the puck went in. We couldn't remember that reaction out of a goalie before, so she adamantly thought whatever contact happened kept her from stopping Woz's shot.

I guess my question boils down to "what does it mean for a goalie to be 'in the crease'?". Are they 'in the crease' if their skates are there, even if their stick is outside the 'cylinder' of the blue ice? Are they still in if just one skate in touching blue ice? If just one heel of one skate is touching?

 

[Gurth 2.0]

For me and without knowing the exact particulars of the actual rule, the eye test says it's interference. If being in the crease is part of it, then yes... a heel would be enough.

Also... if it happened to our goalie I think we'd all be very sure that it was goalie interference.

If that were a legal play, then you'd have players dragging skates and clipping the goalie on the margins all the time to try and dislodge the stick.

I don't have a problem with the call and fortunately for us, it didn't impact the game.

Doesn't even make my top ten of stuff I thought those clown-car refs got wrong.

 

[NMH]

Even though Wisconsin was the host, the game was an NCAA production, meaning there is no allowance for team specific things. No commercials, no ads, not on the video board, not on the ice or in the stands. That's why there were big blue banners covering up things like the big On Wisconsin on the end by the concession stand. Anyway, that's why no official Varsity. I think the band could have gone rogue and done it anyway, but there could be no announcement about "our time honored Varsity." Anyway, that's the reason. There's a lot of protocol stuff and the university can get fined or disciplined for breaking it. There are official timers for how quickly teams have to get to the post game press conference. It's all really regimented and it's not worth the negative impact.

 

[BadgerPete]

Even though Wisconsin was the host, the game was an NCAA production, meaning there is no allowance for team specific things. No commercials, no ads, not on the video board, not on the ice or in the stands. That's why there were big blue banners covering up things like the big On Wisconsin on the end by the concession stand. Anyway, that's why no official Varsity. I think the band could have gone rogue and done it anyway, but there could be no announcement about "our time honored Varsity." Anyway, that's the reason. There's a lot of protocol stuff and the university can get fined or disciplined for breaking it. There are official timers for how quickly teams have to get to the post game press conference. It's all really regimented and it's not worth the negative impact.

In 2019 (the last quarterfinal) the band definitely went rogue and did Varsity, and the seniors (Pankowski, Clark, Rolfes, Shaver, Cogan, and Gardner) did a lap around LaBahn before leaving. I think Gardner did a big slide on her chest across the W on the way out.

That said, in 2018 in the QF against Minnesota I was sitting next to the band and an NCAA official UNLOADED on the student conductor during the second period for the drummers playing when they weren't supposed to. That was quite a moment in Section 1, and the drummer spent the rest of the game yelling the cadences he would have been playing.

 

[BadgerBadgerBadger]

For me and without knowing the exact particulars of the actual rule, the eye test says it's interference. If being in the crease is part of it, then yes... a heel would be enough.

Also... if it happened to our goalie I think we'd all be very sure that it was goalie interference.

If that were a legal play, then you'd have players dragging skates and clipping the goalie on the margins all the time to try and dislodge the stick.

I don't have a problem with the call and fortunately for us, it didn't impact the game.

Doesn't even make my top ten of stuff I thought those clown-car refs got wrong.

Fully agree with this take. As soon as it went to review and B1G+ showed the first replay, I assumed it would be overturned.

 

[TJ77]

Fully agree with this take. As soon as it went to review and B1G+ showed the first replay, I assumed it would be overturned.

I felt the same way. Gorbatenko's skate also made contact with the goalie's skate before the stick was hit.

 

[robertearle]

I felt the same way. Gorbatenko's skate also made contact with the goalie's skate before the stick was hit.

I just looked at the video again, and I see no skate-to-skate contact at all, either on the ice level replay or on the overhead.

Are you guys looking at video, or relying on your memories?

 

[robertearle]

So I decided to finally read the rule book. From "2023-24 NCAA Ice Hockey Rules & Interpretations", page 60:

"Rights of the Attacking Player – Attacking players who are outside of the crease have some rights to the space they occupy. In cases when an attacking player makes contact with goaltender’s equipment that extends outside the plane of the crease (e.g., glove, blocker, stick, etc.), provided that the attacking player does not initiate distinct and deliberate actions aimed at impeding the goaltender’s use of their equipment (e.g., slashing the goaltender’s glove), this contact should be considered incidental and goals scored on such plays shall be allowed."

To me this describes our situation. St Lawrence goalie's stick looks to me to be "outside the plane of the crease" (I think cylinder might be a better word) when Gorbatenko contacts it. There is nothing "distinct [or] deliberate" about Gorbatenko's actions.

And once more, this is NOT "the play" during which the goal is scored. Nothing here at the time it happened prevented the goalie from playing the puck, because the initial shot never made it to the crease or the goalie. It is only after Gorbatenko has passed and the goalie's stick is gone that Woz picks up the 'rebound' off somebody outside and knocks it into the net.

I think it should have been a good goal.

 

[BadgerBadgerBadger]

There is nothing "distinct [or] deliberate" about Gorbatenko's actions.

Intent-based rules will always invite controversy. How can anyone be 'sure' if she chose to skate into the goalies stick on purpose or not. Do I think Gorbatenko knew exactly what she was doing when she made contact, yes I do. Can I prove that? Nope.

Given the definition of the rule, the refs must have thought it was deliberate. Otherwise the goal should have stood. I think they got it right.

 

[robertearle]

Intent-based rules will always invite controversy. How can anyone be 'sure' if she chose to skate into the goalies stick on purpose or not. Do I think Gorbatenko knew exactly what she was doing when she made contact, yes I do. Can I prove that? Nope.

Given the definition of the rule, the refs must have thought it was deliberate. Otherwise the goal should have stood. I think they got it right.

The call on the ice was 'good goal'. I'll assume (and I guess I could go back to the rule book to verify) that like every other review standard, to reverse the call on the ice, video evidence must be irrefutable. Reading a player's mind is irrefutably done?

"Call on the ice stands."

 

[TJ77]

I just looked at the video again, and I see no skate-to-skate contact at all, either on the ice level replay or on the overhead.

Are you guys looking at video, or relying on your memories?

My bad. Looked at it again. It was Gorbatenko's stick that made contact with her skate/pad.

 

[ARM]

It was Gorbatenko's stick that made contact with her skate/pad.

That's what I saw, too. The puck wasn't there, the goalie lost her balance from the contact, and the shot was in the net before she ever got back to her initial position. Bottom line is that whether the call was right/wrong and Wisconsin won by four or five, Friday's game will start at 0-0 either way.