PDA

View Full Version : UAA @ Minnesota : 1/11/13 and 1/12/13



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10

skiumah2
01-12-2013, 01:55 AM
Not what I see in slow-mo on the Helgy hit. It looked to me that Helgy dips his shoulder a bit on impact and nailed the UAA player with more of his arm than elbow. The contact to the head did not appear significant with the ref standing about 10 feet away looking on. I'd say "no" on a 5 here.
Arm or elbow I think you're splitting hairs a little bit. I saw contact to the head on the replay. Again though, it didn't look bad at regular speed. At least on tv it didn't.

HarleyMC
01-12-2013, 02:10 AM
Arm or elbow I think you're splitting hairs a little bit. I saw contact to the head on the replay. Again though, it didn't look bad at regular speed. At least on tv it didn't.

When you're talking about a 5, one better split hairs on the intent and extent of contact to the head and the height differential. Look at it again, Helgy lowers his shoulder enough to make initial contact with the pads not the head of the UAA player, his head lunges forward a bit, Helgy catches his head in the process as well as the player is flattened to the ice. It appeared to me that he caught the pads first and then helmet. Close, but IMO not a 5.

skiumah2
01-12-2013, 02:24 AM
When you're talking about a 5, one better split hairs on the intent and extent of contact to the head and the height differential. Look at it again, Helgy lowers his shoulder enough to make initial contact with the pads not the head of the UAA player, his head lunges forward a bit, Helgy catches his head in the process as well as the player is flattened to the ice. It appeared to me that he caught the pads first and then helmet. Close, but IMO not a 5.
What I meant by splitting hairs is it doesn't matter whether it was his elbow or his arm that contacted the head. By rule, contact to the head is a 5 minute major. No offense Harley but your opinion is irrelevant once you agree the head was contacted. It doesn't matter that the pads were contacted first. I'm not sure I agree with you on that one but it doesn't matter anyway. Contact to the head was made. We both agree on that. The rule trumps your opinion on the severity.

Stauber1
01-12-2013, 02:59 AM
I agree, water under the bridge but I have to respectfully disagree with you because Currier nailed him. I can accept an arguement that it shouldn't have been a major but it was definitely a penalty. He didn't brush him or hit him on the side. He drilled him good.

I do want to point out how often I see people complain about their team getting called for CFB majors. The number of years this has been a point of emphasis, it still surprises me how people aren't used to this yet. If there is contact that even appears to be from behind and near the boards, the probability of a major penalty being called is, and has been since the point of emphasis began, very high.

What can't be argued is knowing what we do about how this is called, you can't go flying at a player near the boards out of control like Currier did. When Budish turned his back, Currier was already committed. If he had come in under control, maybe he could have pulled up and avoided the hard contact. We can argue all day whether it was called correctly or not but Currier should shoulder most of the blame for being out of control. He did this to his team far more than the referees did.

That's the crux of it. It was a really stupid hit to make. Was it worthy of a 5? We could argue that for the next 6 months and not get anywhere.But we all know that hits from the blindside that send players hard into the boards are going to be a potential major. We know that, the players know that, the coaches know that and the refs know that.
I've seen far less be called a major.

Did Helgeson deserve a 5 for his hit? Again, we could argue that all night long. What Helgeson had going for him is that it wasn't along the boards. That takes an element of danger out of the hit. And, it wasn't with 4 minutes to play in a 1-goal game...

Just for the record, when I said MN couldn't have stolen this game because it had been given to them, I meant Currier (not the refs) gave it to them. And there was a degree of facetiousness in that. MN still had to execute on the ensuing PP to earn 2 pts tonight (and UAA still had to fail on the ensuing PK).

Again, I thought UAA came in and executed their game-plan extremely well until the final 4 minutes. I like Shyiak, and think he does a legit job with what he has to work with. But this isn't the first time (even this season) where UAA has taken a costly penalty at a bad time in a close game. Some of that has to come down on the coaching staff and how they prepare the team to close-out games.

MinnesotaNorthStar
01-12-2013, 03:02 AM
When you're talking about a 5, one better split hairs on the intent and extent of contact to the head and the height differential. Look at it again, Helgy lowers his shoulder enough to make initial contact with the pads not the head of the UAA player, his head lunges forward a bit, Helgy catches his head in the process as well as the player is flattened to the ice. It appeared to me that he caught the pads first and then helmet. Close, but IMO not a 5.Height differential should never come into the discussion on what penalty to call ever. Contact to the head is contact to the head. I didn't see the Helgeson hit, so whether or not it should have been a 5, I won't say.

HarleyMC
01-12-2013, 03:26 AM
What I meant by splitting hairs is it doesn't matter whether it was his elbow or his arm that contacted the head. By rule, contact to the head is a 5 minute major. No offense Harley but your opinion is irrelevant once you agree the head was contacted. It doesn't matter that the pads were contacted first. I'm not sure I agree with you on that one but it doesn't matter anyway. Contact to the head was made. We both agree on that. The rule trumps your opinion on the severity.

Yes, it does matter. Indirect contact to the head is significant and not considered a major penalty according to the recently ratified NCAA ruling on contact to the head (NCAA, 2012). A minor penalty may be assessed in such cases of indirect contact to the head (see below), but it is entirely under the referees discretion to consider all the factors of such call.

The hit by Helgy appears to hit the pads of the UAA player first, and then indirect contact to the head occurs as the player lunges slightly forward due to the force of the initial impact. Noteworthy, is that the ruling uses words "unsuspecting" and "vulnerable" to describe the conditions of the opposing player under which a penalty for contact to head is typically called on the player delivering the hit. This was not the case here. The video shows the UAA player clearly moved forward into direct contact with Helgy and raises his arm attempting to shield himself from the impact of the hit.

Since it also appears that Helgy intentionally lowered his shoulder and did not lead with his elbow (also keep in mind there is a significant height differential as well, which the refs also consider at their discretion), IMO this was not even a two minute penalty. All things considered, a blistering hit by big Helgy, but IMO legal and not a 5 or a 2.

Contact to the Head (The National Collegiate Hockey Association. (2012). NCAA Rules and Interpretations: Contact to the Head (http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/IH14.pdf). Retrieved Jan. 12, 2012 from www.nccapublications.com, p. 11).

This is an important safety issue and the committee is concerned about some
violent contact that has occurred in the game and caused injury. To make this
rule clearer, any time a player targets the head or neck area of an opponent, it
must be a major penalty and a game misconduct penalty at a minimum. This
rule is not intended to cover incidental contact or contact with the head that
occurs that should be a minor penalty (e.g., unintentional high stick, body check
where the contact is initiated at the shoulder or torso, but the follow through
makes some contact with the head). Clear direction is being provided here to
assist officials, coaches and players with this rule.

The committee expects a heightened awareness to direct contact to head, but
it should be noted that many contact to the head fouls in previous seasons that
were minor penalties should remain minor penalties (e.g., an incidental high
sticking foul would remain a minor for high sticking).

The committee reminds coaches and players that the responsibility remains
with the player making the hit to avoid contact with the head and neck area of
an opposing player. Any contact which directly targets the player’s head and
neck area must be penalized with a major penalty and a game misconduct or
disqualification. A player delivering a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable
player puts themselves in jeopardy of being penalized under this rule.
Officials are to pay particular attention to these examples when applying
this rule.

These are intended as guidance and include, but are not limited to,
the following:

• Direct contact with the head or neck in any manner from any direction;
• A player that is reckless;
• A player that has just released a shot or pass;
• A player that is about to receive a pass;
• A player that delivers a late hit;
• A player that extends and directs the arm, elbow, forearm or shoulder to
contact the head and neck area of the opponent;
• A player that extends the body and targets the opponent’s head or neck
area;
• A player that leaves their skates or launches in order to deliver a blow
to the head or neck area of the opposing player; and
Points of Emphasis 9
• A player that uses the stick in any way to target the head or neck area
(e.g., cross checking, butt-ending, etc.).
As additional guidance, when the initial force of the contact is a shoulder
to the body of the opponent and slides up to the head or neck area, this is not
classified as contact to the head. This type of action may still be penalized,
at the referee’s discretion, as another penalty (e.g., charging, roughing,
elbowing, etc.).

Indirect Contact to the Head

When the initial force of the contact is thru the body of the opponent and then
slides up to the head or neck area, the committee believes this type of indirect
contact to the head action may still be penalized, at the referee’s discretion, as
another minor penalty (e.g., elbowing, roughing, high sticking, charging etc.)
When officials penalize this type of infraction, the committee is requiring that
officials assess this penalty placing the wording “indirect contact to the head –
elbowing, etc.” This will allow for a consistent seasonal tracking of these types
of indirect contact to the head minor penalties. This is in no way intended to
replace or encourage a lessening of contact to the head penalties.

tomthumb
01-12-2013, 03:52 AM
Long time lurker, first time poster… Don’t be surprised if I never post again, either…I really have no interest in joining the inevitable decent to insulting each other that happens in each thread. I just have a few things that I need to say.

Full disclosure: I’m an avid college hockey fan and an avid Seawolf hockey fan. I am a UAA alumnus. I have only missed a handful of their home games in the last 25 years. It’s kinda like being a Cubs fan, but at least we have had some glory days in my lifetime.

I’m tired of hearing how we got screwed by the officials. Every team gets screwed by the officials every week. The officials are human – they make mistakes – get over it. All those knowledgeable about the hockey gods know that you earn your bounces. Yes, I hate bad calls, but they happen and will continue to happen. I just don’t believe there is a conspiracy to screw UAA or any other team. We aren’t earning our bounces at the moment.

The hit along the boards by Currier late in the Minny game tonight was a clear penalty, under the current enforcement of the rules. Bad decision on Currier’s part. He’s a good player, but he made a mistake. Two minutes or five minutes may be debatable, but it was an UNNECESSARY penalty either way. It happened in neutral ice with a teammate covering the opposing player and the game on the line. No need for the hit at all… It cost us the game, period. A MUCH NEEDED, morale boosting game. When the hit happened, I hit the FF button on the DVR, ‘cuz I knew it was game over. Once again, the Woofies snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

This Seawolf team continues to play below their potential – they exhibit moments of greatness, preceded and followed by horrible streaks of play. 12 SOG in a whole game against Wisconsin followed by 12 SOG in the first period against Minny, as an example. Horribly inconsistent. The home games have been pretty dismal this year. The one league game we did win was a hang-on-and-hope affair after taking a 3 goal lead the night after giving up a 3 goal lead…

Yea, I know , we got no fans… The Aces stole them, blah, blah, blah. There are over 300,000 people in the local area and we can’t compete with the Aces and fill a 6000 seat arena when we don’t even play on the same nights??? Play hard and WIN SOME GAMES!!! There are enough people in the area to support both teams, even if there were two separate arenas, should THAT ever happen.

We need a new coach, a new athletic director and wholesale changes to the athletic department. McDiffet, too. – he’s been here too friggin’ long with no constructive input. Our southern boy AD Cobb won’t even let people bring SIGNS into the Sullivan Arena to inspire the team, let alone encourage actual STUDENT attendance. To be in a situation where we are constructing a brand new, on-campus arena WITHOUT AN ICE SHEET for the sole Div I team at the University is asinine. I have been a regular financial contributor to UAA and am now withholding my future alumnus contributions to the University for these reasons – they will know why.

One more thing - Get a life, people! Quit insulting each other! We all love college hockey or we wouldn’t be here… lurking OR posting. Constantly insulting those that offer a differing opinion only dilutes your message (Donald, you listening? Mellow out, dude). You catch more flies with honey than horses**t, as my mom still says…

That is all…

Back2BackU-MnPride2002
01-12-2013, 04:43 AM
AMEN! TomThumb

Definitely, there is no need to insult people.

I'm a huge Gopher fan, want them to win, etc., but won't be angry if the refs nail the Gophers in the 1st period Saturday with some ticky-tac bs call, to make up for what "might" have been a marginal call tonight. But like some have said, the UAA player could have played that smarter and there wouldn't have been any controversy.

You should be real proud of your team UAA fans, holy wow, 8-1 vs #3 BC, 4-1 vs #2 ND, and now only 4-3 vs UAA?! And we had to make a crazy comeback? I doubt it will be that close tomorrow, but you never know, and it sucks to lose, or to have your team accused of getting help from the refs to steal a W. So both sides are going to be on edge. But still, like similar to what TomThumb's mother says, Patrick Swayze said as The Cooler, "Just be nice". Doesn't always work and then you have to take em outside and kick their butts, but you get what I am saying, I hope?

AKSWF
01-12-2013, 06:23 AM
Currier should have not made that hit, we could have killed the PK off to force the game into OT then who knows what would have happened then. He also is a senior, our play-by-play guy Kurt Haider called out Currier and our Chris Crowell at the end of the 2nd or start of the third I believe. He said, "Currier and Crowell should know better, there are taking the bait from Minnesota and should stop biting" or something along those lines. You could see the heart-breaking ending coming though.

TomThumb you should post more.

Great game by us, if we play major mistake free hockey tonight we can still split.

ScoobyDoo
01-12-2013, 10:14 AM
Are we really having the CFB penatly discussion again?

What part of you could get a 5 if you're an idiot on the ice don't people understand at this point? The refs have been abusing coaches, fans, and players for years with this inconsistent crap.

Yout hit a guys head, 5. You hit a guys back, 5. The gift is when you get the 2 or the non-call, not the other way around. Anyone who thinks they should call a 2 in either situation doesn't get it. The game WILL NEVER be cleaned up unless there is a no tolerance policy for these hits.

goldy_331
01-12-2013, 11:00 AM
Some key issues to recall on the CFB call are;
1. Budish was already engaged with another Seawolf when the hit occured.
2. The refs make these calls live, not in slow-mo replay
3. A player is responsible for his body at all times. If there is a risk the player you are checking may turn his back, you have to slow down and be ready to peel off.


So you site 4 examples to support your little quantitative research endeavor?:D

Pssst, it's "cite" in this case, site is where you build your house. ;)

Greyeagle
01-12-2013, 11:03 AM
Pssst, it's "cite" in this case, site is where you build your house. ;)
Such as a glass one? :D

HarleyMC
01-12-2013, 11:50 AM
Some key issues to recall on the CFB call are;
1. Budish was already engaged with another Seawolf when the hit occured.
2. The refs make these calls live, not in slow-mo replay
3. A player is responsible for his body at all times. If there is a risk the player you are checking may turn his back, you have to slow down and be ready to peel off.



Pssst, it's "cite" in this case, site is where you build your house. ;)

Let me guess Goldy...spelling bee king Edina elementary, 1968?;) You're right, except when publishing content on social media, "site" is also permissible. Nice try though...but you fanned on that shot.;)


Cite or site? Citation, or the seeking of capital via academic publishing, is obviously unavoidable for anyone involved in academic research while ‘site’ – as in to publish content via social media, would perhaps seem a marginal alternative, perhaps an indulgence, when considered in terms of the intense structural pressures all researchers are under to ‘publish or perish’.

zeke009
01-12-2013, 12:44 PM
Long time lurker, first time poster… Don’t be surprised if I never post again, either…I really have no interest in joining the inevitable decent to insulting each other that happens in each thread.
...
One more thing - Get a life, people! Quit insulting each other! We all love college hockey or we wouldn’t be here… lurking OR posting. Constantly insulting those that offer a differing opinion only dilutes your message (Donald, you listening? Mellow out, dude). You catch more flies with honey than horses**t, as my mom still says…

That is all…
Nicely said tomthumb.

I figured the Gophers would be lucky to win last night after seeing the jump that UAA had on them. They played much better than their record dictates and I believe that is where the Gophers made their mistake; they underestimated UAA big time. If you want to be one of the top ranked teams, you need to treat every opponent as the #1 team.

Tonight should be an amazing game. The Gophers should have woken up and UAA will be hungry after how the game ended last night.

Koho
01-12-2013, 01:10 PM
Nearly 25,000 posts on USCHO and at this late stage in your posting career all you can add to this thread is ridiculous sarcasm? Perhaps a great while ago you should have moderated yourself so you don't end up looking like another Old Pio.

He's right, Greyeagle. How dare you respond to a post, on an internet board that is somewhat obscure, filled with ridiculous accusations and inaccurate descriptions of what happened with a little sarcasm!

Koho
01-12-2013, 01:22 PM
Given the rules it should have been 5.

I could go either way on the Helgy elbow and the UAA check from behind. Helgy's elbow caught the UAA player in the shoulder with the brunt of the force, then in the follow-through, the elbow slid up and caught his head. I'd say these calls have typically gone either way, depending on the angle the ref has. Contact with head is supposed to be automatic, but I think there are several examples where only primary contact with head gets the full 5.

The UAA player was clearly coming in with the intent to lay a heavy check (not brushing against him as one UAA fan described). Budish turned at the last second, but the UAA player had already turned his head to brace for the check so didn't see Budish turn. Don't think the intent was to hit him from behind. However, Budish did go in head first, and that is the way guys get hurt, so am not surprised they called it 5. (That and the WCHA refs had just gotten their x-mas bonus checks from MN to keep the calls coming their way.) But it clearly was just the case of the UAA player trying to finish the game hard and budish just turning at just the wrong time. The Helgy elbow, given that it wasn't full force, and therefore less likely to injure (or maybe the ref didn't even see the head contact) might be the difference in 5 v 2min.

Greyeagle
01-12-2013, 01:32 PM
He's right, Greyeagle. How dare you respond to a post, on an internet board that is somewhat obscure, filled with ridiculous accusations and inaccurate descriptions of what happened with a little sarcasm!

I'm afraid I may have started a trend.

Biddco
01-12-2013, 01:35 PM
MN Gophers 4, UAA Seawolves 3.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/tjBTdqdcYy4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>I wish videos like this had goals from both teams.

Koho
01-12-2013, 01:36 PM
Now that I read Harley's citing from the rules, I would say Helgy's elbow was a 2, not a 5.

Koho
01-12-2013, 01:44 PM
By the way, is there a new MN Season thread yet? I was sort of hoping to be petty and point out to Red Cloud that in one night MN, pulled within 2 pts of UNO with 2 games in hand, so he would maybe understand that a lot can happen in half a season and 4 pts in almost nothing. (Not that MN necessarily deserves it with their play last night.)