PDA

View Full Version : Maine - BU = Pretty Sad



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]

BU2K
02-17-2013, 03:07 AM
It says we're in 2nd place and Maine is in 9th, not to mention @ 50th in PWR. Congrats on the tie vs BU, quite an accomplishment indeed!

BU: the new Merrimack

So, BU is #1 in Hockey East?

You confuse me... :)

walrus
02-17-2013, 09:28 AM
So after watching BU play twice, I think its pretty obvious this isn't your fathers BU teams. They aren't going to win any more than Maine does, which is nothing.

Jacques Joubert
02-17-2013, 10:11 AM
So after watching BU play twice, I think its pretty obvious this isn't your fathers BU teams. They aren't going to win any more than Maine does, which is nothing.

I don't think there's a BU fan here that would disagree with you. It's amazing the fall off from the first half and how inept they look with the puck in their own zone sometimes.

I'm not sure what's going on but I'm starting to think their defensemen are just not that talented. Noonan, Grezlyk and Escobedo are fine. MacGregor, Oksanen and Ruikka have some glaring weaknesses. Joey Diamond made Ruikka look like a cone last night on more than one occasion.

That said, here's a team that is two points out of first in HE, 13 in the PWR and their schedule isn't that tough from here in.

This BU fan would love to see them finish in the top 4 in HE, make it to the Garden, and make the NCAAs.

Based on the way they're playing though this seems like a stretch goal.

Boston22
02-17-2013, 10:34 AM
I was able to watch both games on TV, and it was the first time I had seen Maine play this year. My question is has Maine had this much trouble getting the puck out of their own zone all season? It seemed like an adventure crossing their own blueline.

walrus
02-17-2013, 10:36 AM
I was able to watch both games on TV, and it was the first time I had seen Maine play this year. My question is has Maine had this much trouble getting the puck out of their own zone all season? It seemed like an adventure crossing their own blueline.
Look at their record, Maine isn't good, they have trouble with everything except the goalie and he has been a pleasant surprse

all bear
02-17-2013, 11:21 AM
Just a coupla pointless things this morning. Entertaining games they were. Both teams gave it all on the ice and then some. Lot of physical play, some great goal tending...just a fun series to watch. Enough's been said about the reffing. Someone else said it too, they got the no goal/goal calls exactly wrong. Fridays was a goal, saturdays was not. Oh well, maybe Maine gets one more point out of the deal. Hopefully, for the Maine players, that one point wont be a difference maker one way or the other. Both teams certainly worked hard enough all weekend to deserve points out of this series. From a Maine perspective, Rutt and Shore certainly impressed me. Love seeing a Maine product (Rutt) out there banging people fearlessly.

chickod
02-17-2013, 11:26 AM
The ref reviewing the play on the monitor took his head set off twice while conferring with the other ref. I'm 99% sure this is what he said: "He is so obviously in the crease, bumped up right behind the goalie, but there is no way we are taking ANOTHER goal away, we'll get mugged trying to get out of here tonight."

That's funny...we were having dinner in Portsmouth with my sister and her boyfriend (UNH grad) and I said the EXACT same thing. They hadn't seen Friday's game, and I said they won't take this one away because they took one away last night. My sister responded, "Huh? Totally independent of one another, right?" I said, "You don't understand how it works in Hockey East. Trust me, there's NO WAY they're waving this one off!" And two seconds later the ref comes on and points to center ice.

And not to dredge all this up again...but I guess I just don't understand the rule. Apparently you're allowed to just STAND in the crease for five minutes??!!?? :confused: I don't even see what "interference" even has to do with it. I thought that if you got OUT of the crease before the puck got there (which was purportedly what the controversy was about Friday) then you're OK, but he was in there, STAYED there BEFORE and AFTER the puck went in. I don't get it.

Seriously, can anybody explain the rule because now I'm more confused than ever...

ericredaxe
02-17-2013, 11:29 AM
I was able to watch both games on TV, and it was the first time I had seen Maine play this year. My question is has Maine had this much trouble getting the puck out of their own zone all season? It seemed like an adventure crossing their own blueline.

I was thinking the same thing about BU!

all bear
02-17-2013, 11:35 AM
That's funny...we were having dinner in Portsmouth with my sister and her boyfriend (UNH grad) and I said the EXACT same thing. They hadn't seen Friday's game, and I said they won't take this one away because they took one away last night. My sister responded, "Huh? Totally independent of one another, right?" I said, "You don't understand how it works in Hockey East. Trust me, there's NO WAY they're waving this one off!" And two seconds later the ref comes on and points to center ice.

And not to dredge all this up again...but I guess I just don't understand the rule. Apparently you're allowed to just STAND in the crease for five minutes??!!?? :confused: I don't even see what "interference" even has to do with it. I thought that if you got OUT of the crease before the puck got there (which was purportedly what the controversy was about Friday) then you're OK, but he was in there, STAYED there BEFORE and AFTER the puck went in. I don't get it.

Seriously, can anybody explain the rule because now I'm more confused than ever...

Rule 73 - Interference on the Goalkeeper
73.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - A player of the attacking team may stand
on the goal crease line or in the goal crease, or skate through the goal crease,
unless, in the opinion of the official, the player is physically or visually
preventing the goalkeeper from defending the goal.
PENALTY—If a goal is scored, it shall be disallowed. Faceoff at the
nearest neutral zone faceoff spot.62 SECTION 9 / OTHEr FOULS
A player of the attacking team may stand or stay in the crease when the
puck is in the crease or when the player has possession of the puck.
If a player of the attacking team has been physically interfered with by
the action of any defending player so as to cause the player to be in the goal
crease, and the puck enters the net while the player so interfered with is still
within the goal crease, the goal shall be allowed.
The privileged area (defined in Rule 1.6) includes the goal crease. The
goalkeeper may not be body checked in this area (Rule 43). Incidental
contact, at the discretion of the referee, may be permitted while the
goalkeeper is in the act of playing the puck outside the goal crease. The
goalkeeper is allowed to freeze the puck in this area to prevent a goal.

Further down, a goal is disallowed if:
If an attacking player interferes with the goalkeeper in the crease
physically or visually, preventing the goalkeeper from defending the
goal.

So basically you can stand in the crease on the side or behind the goalie all day as long as you dont visually or physically interfer with his ability to see or play the puck.

chickod
02-17-2013, 11:41 AM
Personally, I think the officials got both calls wrong.

And this has been my point for some time now. And I'm going to keep harping on it. As a former basketball referee for 17 years (Division 1 high school and Divsion 3 college), obviously I typically side with the refs. And I know it's "sport" and part of the American culture to berate them. But I just don't see the point of "reviewing" bang/bang plays. It's as if we're saying, "they're so bad that unless we slow the play down to frame by frame they'll never get any calls right." And I think over time it has sort of been proven (vindicating the refs) that MOST of the time they get it right. Furthermore, I don't see any evidence that reviewing the play after the fact increases the percentage of "correct" calls, because I think they get it WRONG so many times after reviewing it that it just shows that on close, "judgment" calls, it's going to be 50/50. If the players made as few mistakes as the refs do, then the games would be better. In fact, I can make the case that reviewing the plays just creates more controversy (witness these discussions for the last two days). Just like a player makes a decision and lives with it, let the refs make the call and live with it. And get OVER it. Like I said a couple of days ago, after 59 minutes of playing the game, if you have put yourself in a position where one "questionable" call causes you to lose, then, I'm sorry, but that's YOUR fault.

Ma#1ne Hky
02-17-2013, 11:52 AM
I was able to watch both games on TV, and it was the first time I had seen Maine play this year. My question is has Maine had this much trouble getting the puck out of their own zone all season? It seemed like an adventure crossing their own blueline.Maine has had trouble for the past few years getting out of their own end...no one has taken charge in being a puck moving d-man(maybe Hutton..?)...Shore & Merchant have at times been able to do so...but alot of far and few betweens in that department.

all bear
02-17-2013, 11:56 AM
So, after reviewing the rule and rewatching the video I now believe the refs got the friday night call correct, because as the goalie is turning to look at the shooter Shore is obstructing the goalies views and Shore still has a skate in the crease at that moment . As the shot is taken, the goalies eyes are taken away and Shores skate is in the crease. No goal, I stand corrected.

I almost want to apologize to mook, but I wont on general principle :D

chickod
02-17-2013, 11:56 AM
Rule 73 - Interference on the Goalkeeper
73.1.

So according to this, they had everything correct. O'Connor was clearly VISUALLY impaired (and the guy didn't "leave" the crease until well after that). As I said, just like face-guarding in football. No way he could get a clean look at the puck until it was on top of him. Last night, according to this rule, was fine. Apparently he can stand in the crease all night (although I could argue that how can the goalie MOVE if a player is camped out in the crease).

Is this the same rule in the NHL? Because I am almost positive that you CANNOT be in the crease when the puck is there (recall the Bruins a couple of years ago when they missed the playoffs because one inch of someone's skate had not exited the crease before the puck went in). I though you could only go INTO the crease to PLAY the puck (or if you already have the puck). You can't stand in there. But obviously it's different in college...

chickod
02-17-2013, 12:00 PM
As the shot is taken, the goalies eyes are taken away and Shores skate is in the crease.

But the point is, even if he was out of the crease, the interference had already occurred with the visual obstruction so at that point it didn't matter. I think when we all thought (and they incorrectly described on TV) that they were looking to see if he was out of the crease, that was not what they were reviewing at all. They wanted to see if Shore has obscured O'Connor's vision (which, as I have said many times, it was obvious that he clearly did). Whether he got out of the crease subsequently didn't matter (especially since the rule cited above says he CAN be in the crease anyway, UNLESS he is interfering with the goalie).

all bear
02-17-2013, 12:12 PM
So according to this, they had everything correct. O'Connor was clearly VISUALLY impaired (and the guy didn't "leave" the crease until well after that). As I said, just like face-guarding in football. No way he could get a clean look at the puck until it was on top of him. Last night, according to this rule, was fine. Apparently he can stand in the crease all night (although I could argue that how can the goalie MOVE if a player is camped out in the crease).

Is this the same rule in the NHL? Because I am almost positive that you CANNOT be in the crease when the puck is there (recall the Bruins a couple of years ago when they missed the playoffs because one inch of someone's skate had not exited the crease before the puck went in). I though you could only go INTO the crease to PLAY the puck (or if you already have the puck). You can't stand in there. But obviously it's different in college...

yeah, dont watch much pro hockey but iirc you cant enter the crease ahead of the puck.

all bear
02-17-2013, 12:15 PM
But the point is, even if he was out of the crease, the interference had already occurred with the visual obstruction so at that point it didn't matter. I think when we all thought (and they incorrectly described on TV) that they were looking to see if he was out of the crease, that was not what they were reviewing at all. They wanted to see if Shore has obscured O'Connor's vision (which, as I have said many times, it was obvious that he clearly did). Whether he got out of the crease subsequently didn't matter (especially since the rule cited above says he CAN be in the crease anyway, UNLESS he is interfering with the goalie).

No, I agree with ya. Puck is on the stick of shooter, Shore moves in front of goalie while both in crease without contact, goalie cannot see shooter for an instant, shooter shoots and scores even though Shore moved out of crease and was not at that time in front of goalie. No goal.

Any time someone passes in front of goalies eyes while he is tracking the puck, you cannot be in the crease area. Okay to be outside of the crease area screening the goalie but not inside the crease.

Runsub5
02-17-2013, 12:25 PM
The fourth goal by BU last night was a "back breaker". Joey got sub-marined by a BU player along the boards, appeals to the official for a call with none coming. He then goes and commits a boarding penalty resulting in a power play goal by BU. I'm not necessarily being critical of Diamond. He has been playing with much more self-control the past few games and this has resulted in some wins for the team. He needs to be on the ice to help the team win. Maine wins the game in regulation with their dramatic come back effort. This team has improved so much from the beginning of the season. They have more confidence in one another and are reacting instinctively as opposed to pondering their next move.

mookie1995
02-17-2013, 01:59 PM
I almost want to apologize to mook, but I wont on general principle :D

Give it a try, you'll feel better. (Just look at Greg... He refuses to and see how he is :D)

defkit
02-17-2013, 02:47 PM
The NHL had that one season where they approached the crease rule as black and white. If an inch of a players skate is in the crease when a goal is scored (unless they went in after the puck was already there), no goal. Even if it is on the complete other end of the crease. Games slowed to a crawl and goals were called back at an alarming clip. The intent was to get players out of the crease area all together. Buffalo fans know that this rule was only NOT applied once all season, and that was when the Dallad Stars scored in OT to win the Stanley Cup, with Brett Hull either being the guy who was clearly in the crease, or he was the guy that scored, I don't recall. Anyway, the next season, the NHL backed off and said "only if the play interferes with the goalie".

UNH09
02-19-2013, 03:08 AM
That's funny...we were having dinner in Portsmouth with my sister and her boyfriend (UNH grad) and I said the EXACT same thing. They hadn't seen Friday's game, and I said they won't take this one away because they took one away last night. My sister responded, "Huh? Totally independent of one another, right?" I said, "You don't understand how it works in Hockey East. Trust me, there's NO WAY they're waving this one off!" And two seconds later the ref comes on and points to center ice.

And not to dredge all this up again...but I guess I just don't understand the rule. Apparently you're allowed to just STAND in the crease for five minutes??!!?? :confused: I don't even see what "interference" even has to do with it. I thought that if you got OUT of the crease before the puck got there (which was purportedly what the controversy was about Friday) then you're OK, but he was in there, STAYED there BEFORE and AFTER the puck went in. I don't get it.

Seriously, can anybody explain the rule because now I'm more confused than ever...

Jack Parker ran out of $100 bills to buy calls. That's the rule.