PDA

View Full Version : Boston University @ North Dakota - November 2nd/3rd



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9

The Rube
11-03-2012, 10:45 AM
Freeze-framed it at the 2-second mark of the vid. That is really close. Now I REALLY want to see a better replay.

Fighting Sioux 23
11-03-2012, 10:58 AM
Either way, if anyone says that the BU guy dove, they are very wrong. It was a hard hit with a good "angle" and would knock any player down.

I really don't think the BU player dove (he did embellish the injury...he was on the ice for the first shift of the powerplay). However, I don't believe the contact was to the head. Now, I won't really complain about the penalty (didn't during the game either) because MacWilliam didn't need to put the ref in the position to make such a call. That being said, there was a CFB earlier that was called a 2 (which again, I was fine with, as I thought it was borderline), and the refs talked it over for a few seconds before deciding on the minor. In MacWilliam's case, it was an almost immediate call for 5. I'd just like to see more consistency from the refs.

The same goes for the refs refusing to review a potential North Dakota goal early in the third, but then late in the game the refs decide to review a potential BU goal. Reviewing the BU goal was the right call, but why on earth did they not review the earlier North Dakota goal? Would the North Dakota goal have counted? Probably not (due to the whole "intent to blow the whistle" theory...although I would argue that the puck was in the net a whole lot earlier than the referee ever though), but I would have at least liked to see the official review and see just exactly when the puck crossed the goal line, and how that lined up with when they intended to blow the whistle. The consistency of the crew last night was awful.

The Rube
11-03-2012, 11:03 AM
I really don't think the BU player dove (he did embellish the injury...he was on the ice for the first shift of the powerplay). However, I don't believe the contact was to the head. Now, I won't really complain about the penalty (didn't during the game either) because MacWilliam didn't need to put the ref in the position to make such a call. That being said, there was a CFB earlier that was called a 2 (which again, I was fine with, as I thought it was borderline), and the refs talked it over for a few seconds before deciding on the minor. In MacWilliam's case, it was an almost immediate call for 5. I'd just like to see more consistency from the refs.

The same goes for the refs refusing to review a potential North Dakota goal early in the third, but then late in the game the refs decide to review a potential BU goal. Reviewing the BU goal was the right call, but why on earth did they not review the earlier North Dakota goal? Would the North Dakota goal have counted? Probably not (due to the whole "intent to blow the whistle" theory...although I would argue that the puck was in the net a whole lot earlier than the referee ever though), but I would have at least liked to see the official review and see just exactly when the puck crossed the goal line, and how that lined up with when they intended to blow the whistle. The consistency of the crew last night was awful.

RE: the 2-5 decisions. Same thing happened in the MN game last night. There was a textbook 5 CFB that was called a 2 (MSU penalty), and there was a 2 that was discussed and almost called a 5 (MN penalty). Consistency is the thing that fans/players want the most. I did see the BU goal review, and even the announcers said that the refs probably wouldn't have reviewed it, but then the TO was called, so THEN the refs reviewed it. Questionable on the refs' part, to be sure.

Fighting Sioux 23
11-03-2012, 11:10 AM
RE: the 2-5 decisions. Same thing happened in the MN game last night. There was a textbook 5 CFB that was called a 2 (MSU penalty), and there was a 2 that was discussed and almost called a 5 (MN penalty). Consistency is the thing that fans/players want the most. I did see the BU goal review, and even the announcers said that the refs probably wouldn't have reviewed it, but then the TO was called, so THEN the refs reviewed it. Questionable on the refs' part, to be sure.

Thing is, North Dakota called their TO after their questionable goal...still no review.

Again, our CFB was borderline. I could see it being called a 5 (and initially wanted a 5), but after seeing the replay, I thought 2 was an acceptable call. I didn't see the CFB in the Minnesota game, but yes, all I really ever ask for is consistency. If you are going to call something one way early in the game, the players adjust and expect that same thing to be called later in the game (or not called depending on the situation). When the refs are all over the place, it is extremely frustrating for not only the players, but the coaches and the fans.

burd
11-03-2012, 11:11 AM
Watching that game last night reminded me of why I love college hockey so much. Two good, evenly matched teams, juiced up atmosphere, speed and physical play both . . . Nice for the good guys to win, but it would have been good stuff either way.

Fighting Sioux 23
11-03-2012, 11:13 AM
Watching that game last night reminded me of why I love college hockey so much. Two good, evenly matched teams, juiced up atmosphere, speed and physical play both . . . Nice for the good guys to win, but it would have been good stuff either way.

Agreed. Both teams played well, and it certainly could have gone either way. I'm trying to remember the last time I saw an early season non-conference game that had the intensity, speed, physicality, and atmosphere that last night's game had. I can only hope that we're treated to another game of that quality tonight.

willythekid
11-03-2012, 11:13 AM
Apparently BU players are not the only ones that get a little confused about when "points" are awarded...

"I thought we battled to the end really hard there and got a big two points,” Grimaldi said. “Obviously, we’re looking forward to tomorrow now.”

Grimaldi re-tweeted Rosen's little prediction for his teammates to see as motivation... rest assured that he was just poking a bit of fun at your slow-witted friend Ben.

icehawk
11-03-2012, 11:16 AM
Check out Macs hit on these highlights. Shoulder to shoulder and the BUs players head had a whiplash reaction.

http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205724569&DB_OEM_ID=13500

Tater
11-03-2012, 11:27 AM
Check out Macs hit on these highlights. Shoulder to shoulder and the BUs players head had a whiplash reaction.

http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=205724569&DB_OEM_ID=13500

I suggest you look again. Contact to the head and skates off of the ice. Pretty textbook.

If you are going to complain, complain about that no-goal NoDak got screwed on.

Scarlet
11-03-2012, 11:32 AM
Watching that game last night reminded me of why I love college hockey so much. Two good, evenly matched teams, juiced up atmosphere, speed and physical play both . . . Nice for the good guys to win, but it would have been good stuff either way.

Wait.....I thought North Dakota won? ;)

In all seriousness, I thought that was a really good game. Saunders is excellent. BU probably played their best period of hockey in the first, in my opinion. I wish they could have gotten a couple by him.

Your arena is beautiful and everyone we've met has been wonderful. So many fans have approached us to welcome us to the game and to North Dakota. It's been fun to talk college hockey with all of them.

I found it interesting how your student section is at center ice instead of behind the goals. I love that you guys have the most highly regarded real estate in the building for the students. Your band was great but I felt they had too much canned music, I wanted to hear more of the band.

Not sure what tonight holds but looking forward to it nonetheless.

Fighting Sioux 23
11-03-2012, 11:33 AM
I suggest you look again. Contact to the head and skates off of the ice. Pretty textbook.

I suggest you look again. It was nowhere near textbook. I'll give you "borderline," but to say it was textbook is just a falsehood.

Fighting Sioux 23
11-03-2012, 11:35 AM
Wait.....I thought North Dakota won? ;)

In all seriousness, I thought that was a really good game. Saunders is excellent. BU probably played their best period of hockey in the first, in my opinion. I wish they could have gotten a couple by him.

Your arena is beautiful and everyone we've met has been wonderful. So many fans have approached us to welcome us to the game and to North Dakota. It's been fun to talk college hockey with all of them.

I found it interesting how your student section is at center ice instead of behind the goals. I love that you guys have the most highly regarded real estate in the building for the students. Your band was great but I felt they had too much canned music, I wanted to hear more of the band.

Not sure what tonight holds but looking forward to it nonetheless.

More importantly, did you get your martini? :p:D:D

I'm glad you enjoyed your time at the arena...you were at least treated to a very fun, intense game. Hopefully, we see another great game tonight.

willythekid
11-03-2012, 11:36 AM
I suggest you look again. Contact to the head and skates off of the ice. Pretty textbook.

If you are going to complain, complain about that no-goal NoDak got screwed on.

Or the CFB minor call or the other goal NoDak got screwed on... lots to complain about the reffing last night. The thought that the sheppard boys might one day ref in the NCHC makes me want to throw up in my mouth.

J.D.
11-03-2012, 11:44 AM
At most, looked like a minor for hitting after whistle. There was no contact to the head, but great job embellishing by oksanen to sell it.

DLG
11-03-2012, 11:56 AM
a couple of thoughts from being at the game

the arena is everything that is said and more
Absolutely the most outstanding in North America
Two small issues- Jack said at luncheon name 2 things you dont like
Everyone has something

The loud speaking system could be clearer
Vistior player introductions should have more than the name of player
Everyone wants to know who is being introduced, year and home town
Should be the same for both teams

As for the game I thought BU never recovered their game after being down 5-3
and ND going ahead.
Really don't have too much objection to any of the calls

Looking forward to tonight

the shop that displays items for sale is one area BU failed in their new arena

Scarlet
11-03-2012, 12:18 PM
More importantly, did you get your martini? :p:D:D

I'm glad you enjoyed your time at the arena...you were at least treated to a very fun, intense game. Hopefully, we see another great game tonight.

I did! And it was quite tasty. Going to see about a mid afternoon meal at the Toasted Frog as so many of you have recommended it. I plan on going to the football game today, at least for the first half, given I just have to walk down the hall to get there.

defkit
11-03-2012, 12:59 PM
A couple thoughts:

- I found it interesting that there was the reference to "Intent to Blow the Whistle". My impression was that it wasn't a situation where intent came into play - he DID blow the whistle, before he saw it in. Now, whether it was actually in at that point is another story. But as I said earlier, were it not for all the complaining that ensued, I don't think UND would have gotten the 5 on 3 afterwards.
- BU lucked out not losing O'Regan for the HFB, but I will say this. The HFB is the easiest call of all to fake the refs out on. IMHO, it is actually pretty rare that a player goes into the boards without at least some embellishment. It's why you hardly ever see this called at the NHL level. So I think the UND player embellished the hit, but O'Regan needs to learn not to put himself into that situation.
- On the other hand, the kind of hit that MacWilliam put on Oksanen is rarely one that can be embellished, since it involves lateral movement by the hitter essentially hitting an unsuspecting forward. The spinning motion that results is not something someone can do on their own (as opposed to standing on tippy toes and launching oneself into the boards on a HFB). But, Oksanen oversold the result of the play by grasping his head while spinning on the ice. I think it's very hard for a ref to not call this given the way it plays out.

Bottom line - I think UND got the shorter end of the stick, but not by a wide margin. And they won, so doesn't really matter. And they deserved to win.

Pump It Up
11-03-2012, 01:16 PM
I did! And it was quite tasty. Going to see about a mid afternoon meal at the Toasted Frog as so many of you have recommended it. I plan on going to the football game today, at least for the first half, given I just have to walk down the hall to get there.

The Frog opens at 4. Order the cheesy pickles.

petey23
11-03-2012, 01:19 PM
Ciskie brings up some good points regarding "head injuries" in his blog today.

http://ciskie.blogspot.com/2012/11/saturday-hockey-notes-and-thoughts.html

Maybe the NCAA should use NFL protocol in dealing with head shots where a player is laying in pain after "obvious" contact to the head. Send them to the locker room to go through the concussion test protocol. It would probably go a long way in reducing these "soccer" injuries.

Dirty
11-03-2012, 01:23 PM
I'm not sure how Gaarder could've embellished the hit from behind. He was cross checked and went into the boards. That was about it.