>>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

[kwm4385]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Not sure how much atmosphere impacts this Tiger team. RIT's home record is an abysmal 5-11-1 (8-9 on the road).

Our home record has been bad ever since moving to the Polisseni Center. I think it has more to do with opposing teams getting hyped up rather than us playing worse however.

[LtPowers]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Congratulations to Adam Brubacher for making the AHC All-Rookie Team.


Powers &8^]

[Downstate_RIT_Fan]

Our home record has been bad ever since moving to the Polisseni Center. I think it has more to do with opposing teams getting hyped up rather than us playing worse however.

Agree with this. Teams cringed with the idea of playing at the Ritter, GPC not so much. The Tigers need to change that. I think Niagara has nothing to lose and will play fast and loose. RIT has a lot to lose and might be a little tight at the start. I hope they prove me wrong and sweep Niagara but I think this might be a three game series. I hope I hope and I hope I'm wrong. Go Tigers!

[jflory81]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

That fifth Tigers penalty (or rather, the penalty that resulted in Niagara's 5th power play) was a textbook example of the officials not knowing the rules of the game they are supposed to be interviewing. It's right in the rulebook:

Note: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be
considered the player in possession.

You can't commit interference on the player that is in possession (the rule literally contains the words "not in possession"). The Niagara player chipped the puck past Brubacher, so Brubacher is allowed to hip check that player, which he did. Its frankly embarrassing that plays like that are regularly called a penalty, because it's quite cut and dry and clear in the NCAA rulebook that bodychecking someone who chips the puck past you and tries to chase it is not illegal.

EDIT: Heard the radio guys talking about it and I just don't agree. Brubacher stood his ground and threw his shoulder into the player who is still considered "in possession of the puck" by the NCAA rule book. If he hooked, held, etc, then yes, it would be a penalty, but he threw a simple body check. I read the points of emphasis and nothing in the points of emphasis suggests that it should have been a penalty. The forechecker was not being "unfairly/illegally" held-up chasing a loose puck because Brubacher has a right to stand his ground and even hip check the player who is still considered in possession. There is no gray area. It's a legal hit. Period.

[Ed Trefzger]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Take a look at the rule interpretations (page 108). They are calling this much more tightly this season.

[jflory81]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Fair enough in terms of this not being cut and dry, my fault.

But I feel Brubacher simply held his ground. I'm watching it again now and the Niagara player is already bracing for contact as he chips the puck. He doesn't take a single stride to try to get around him or avoid him. Further, there's one instance of contact (which knocks the Niagara player down), and then there is no more contact afterwards. It sounds significantly more like A.R.3 than A.R.4 to me.

To quote A.R.4:

A.R. 4: In the same scenario as A.R. 3, the Team B defender makes immediate
contact, but then continues to bump and impede the Team A player who is
attempting to advance toward the puck. Is this a penalty on Team B? RULING:
Yes. The Team B defender has earned the right to make immediate contact by
keeping a tight gap, but after that contact, the Team A player must be allowed
to pursue the puck. The key element here is that the Team B player is allowed to
make immediate contact, but then must release the attacking player.

Granted, its hard to talk about a defender keeping a gap when the play involves a giveaway, but I think the fact that the player is bracing for contact as he chips the puck past Brubacher is pretty good evidence that Brubacher should be allowed the contact. The only way I could see anyone arguing otherwise is if you somehow lose the right to immediate contact in certain situations...in which case I would change my criticism to that it's an absurd interpretation of the rule :laugh:

[jflory81]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

What a disaster. This team has a pretty unique ability to completely melt down. Losing this series would be the lowest point in RIT's D-1 history without a doubt. They might already be there.

[RIT Winters]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Pack it in boys. This is just a sad joke now.

[LtPowers]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Same story: Tigers outplay their opponent but a few weird bounces and a few bad mistakes all end up in the back of the net.


Powers &8^]

[jflory81]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Same story: Tigers outplay their opponent but a few weird bounces and a few bad mistakes all end up in the back of the net.


Powers &8^]

Girduckis dangling with the puck in their own end once Teichrob got pulled was awful. Forget the empty net and get the puck out of the zone! And Rotolo needs to come up with saves. Nothing he can do with the 4th, but he was cleanly beaten on every other goal. The 2nd was downright awful.

[Rochester]

Please as fans, wait until after the postseason to gripe. These Tigers need our support until the very end! RIT will beat Niagara in game three, you heard it here first.

[jflory81]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Please as fans, wait until after the postseason to gripe. These Tigers need our support until the very end! RIT will beat Niagara in game three, you heard it here first.

That's certainly still the expectation. Losing two out of three to a team that won all of three games coming in would be a complete embarassment. But I can't see them beating Army with the quality chances they're giving up and the goaltending they're getting right now.

[kwm4385]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

I'll keep my complaints in here, which the team doesn't read (I certainly hope).

That was the most embarrassing loss I have ever seen. It's not just about bad luck anymore, we threw that on our own.
This team seems to have two settings: downtrodden and mentally defeated so much they can't handle any adversity, or so high on their own success they think they can walk into the building and collect the win. The latter squad seemed to have shown up tonight after the drubbing of Mercyhurst into a "weak" opponent.

[Downstate_RIT_Fan]

Please as fans, wait until after the postseason to gripe. These Tigers need our support until the very end! RIT will beat Niagara in game three, you heard it here first.

+1 for your optimism. Not sure though if this is the same type of team that took 2 of 3 from Bentley at the Ritter what seems like so many years ago. This is Niagara's season right now, whatever talent they have will be on display tomorrow night running at 125%. They sweep RIT and it doesn't matter that they only won three games in the regular season and are ranked 60th out of 60 D1 teams. Those Niagara seniors now can smell a major upset. The question will be what RIT team shows up tomorrow, a team that wants to continue their season or one that wants to get ready for mid-terms. I hope the former, hoping for a close win tomorrow and a blowout on Sunday to advance to West Point, but I must say, I'm not feeling too optimistic right now. We just lost in a bad way to the 60th place team.

[cplinford]

Re: >>> RIT Tigers 2016-17: That was fun; let's go for three!

Saw that movie before, many years ago against Elmira...