PDA

View Full Version : WCHA Final Five: Minnesota State Mavericks vs Wisconsin Badgers 2 PM @ The X



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

Bale
03-21-2013, 11:05 PM
O

It's his only move as he hitched his wagon to Williams along time ago. He was a train wreck today. Hopefully the locker room hasn't lost confidence. Williams has to shake this one off. He has the skills. If not, we are one and done in the NCAA's

I can't believe they would lose confidence in him. One game can't possibly turn a team against a guy that quickly....especially when half the goals given up were odd man rushes and his teammates hung him out to dry.

Rtn2GoldCountry
03-21-2013, 11:27 PM
Can I assume Mankato's goalie will be ok since he was at the night game before the puck drop?

Bale
03-21-2013, 11:29 PM
Can I assume Mankato's goalie will be ok since he was at the night game before the puck drop?

Sounds like it. Just a little bit of a shakeup....and a bruised ego from getting ripped to pieces today.

SanTropez
03-21-2013, 11:36 PM
Sounds like it. Just a little bit of a shakeup....and a bruised ego from getting ripped to pieces today.

He looked like a deer in the headlights, a wounded deer laying on the side of the road knowing what was about to happen kind of look.

MavsFan
03-22-2013, 12:19 AM
That waved off goal was a bunch of crap. Dahl in no way impeded the goalie. Embellishment on a crosscheck call? That's a new one. I didn't see a clean replay, but I have to think it's hard to embellish getting shoved to the ice by a stick in the back.

Nice to see Rumps beat Williamson head to head after Rumps got left off the all WCHA team.Seriously? You're going to ***** about officiating when you won 7-2?

MavHockey14
03-22-2013, 12:31 AM
That waved off goal was a bunch of crap. Dahl in no way impeded the goalie. Embellishment on a crosscheck call? That's a new one. I didn't see a clean replay, but I have to think it's hard to embellish getting shoved to the ice by a stick in the back.

Nice to see Rumps beat Williamson head to head after Rumps got left off the all WCHA team.

Williams had better stats than Rumpel in most categories. (Especially in conference play, and had 8 more starts.)

You're nuts if you think that was a goal. Clear evidence he was in the crease, and it was overturned even.

hockeykrazy
03-22-2013, 05:54 AM
You can be in the crease as long as you don't impede or make contact with the goalie. It was a judgement call but to me it looked like he made contact simultaneously as the puck arrived. The ref thought he interfered with the goaltender so that is the call.

Here's the rule...
The Crease

The crease is the blue painted area in front of the goal, and it is supposed to be the domain of the goaltender. Players may not enter the crease and interfere with the goaltender. They may enter the crease if they are following the puck in. If a player scores a goal while a teammate is in the crease, the goal can be disallowed if it is ruled that the player in the crease was interfering with the goaltender. If a player is in control of the puck, shoots or carries it into the crease and then scores, the goal is allowed. If a player skates into the goaltender with or without the puck, an interference penalty will usually be assessed.


The play that took him out was a skate to the side of the head which obviously shook him up, he probably had a concussion. He wobbled when he tried to stand up which is an immediate symptom. He tried to poke check the puck away from the defender, he made the initial poke check and then the momentum it bounced off the attackers leg and went in anyway and then the skate to the side of the head. He was obviously hurt. Anyone who has been in boxing knows a strike to the temple or side of the head or chin which causes a twisting motion in the neck will not only jiggle the brain (cause head to twist violently) but will/could also impede blood flow (carotid artery in neck or pressure to the vagal nerve) where the body will shut down to try to protect itself(fainting/punch drunk).

The head gets hit, which raises ICP(pressure in the head). The body try's to save vital parts of the brain and shuts down less vital parts because there is a sudden decrease in blood pressure right after the impact.

Just because he was at the game after doesn't mean he shouldn't be evaluated for any lingering symptoms.

Timothy A
03-22-2013, 06:56 AM
Seriously? You're going to ***** about officiating when you won 7-2?

Why not? The quality of the officating can be seperately evaluated no matter the outcome. The Rammage 5 was a great hit on a guy in open ice, but he did push push and follow through with his forearm. If he does not follow through with the forearm, that's a clean hit.


Williams had better stats than Rumpel in most categories. (Especially in conference play, and had 8 more starts.)
You're nuts if you think that was a goal. Clear evidence he was in the crease, and it was overturned even.

Like others have said, you can be in the crease, but you can't impede the goalie. The overhead clearly shows Dahl does not impede him. The guys on tv thought it was a good goal too. I've seen WAY worse situations where the goal stood.

I feel really fortunate your sieve was a sieve yesterday. What little 5 on 5 there was, the Mavs were better.

hockeykrazy
03-22-2013, 07:04 AM
I watched the game and 2 shorties and other breakaways I would blame the D not the goalie. The weakside D's or center's responsibility is to backup his partner when he is pinching or trying to hold the zone. He was nowhere to be seen or late in most of them. He should have had the second one in the corner but other than that he was left out to dry.

Another reason I hate the umbrella because there is no D support- you have to have an extremely fast top man who can recover.

Even the one that took him out of the game was a good pokecheck but the bounce off the attackers body was just plain lucky.
Cook's first goal was soft.

First Time, Long Time
03-22-2013, 08:16 AM
Like others have said, you can be in the crease, but you can't impede the goalie. The overhead clearly shows Dahl does not impede him. The guys on tv thought it was a good goal too. I've seen WAY worse situations where the goal stood.

I feel really fortunate your sieve was a sieve yesterday. What little 5 on 5 there was, the Mavs were better.

The rule also says you can be in the crease if you are following the puck in.
The goal was not waved off because of interference, it was waved off because Dahl was in the crease before the puck was.

Chris Clark Fan Club
03-22-2013, 08:27 AM
The rule also says you can be in the crease if you are following the puck in.
The goal was not waved off because of interference, it was waved off because Dahl was in the crease before the puck was.

You sir, just got ruled! Way to go First!

Scott W
03-22-2013, 09:55 AM
The rule also says you can be in the crease if you are following the puck in.
The goal was not waved off because of interference, it was waved off because Dahl was in the crease before the puck was.

No, look at the rule again.


Here's the rule...
The Crease

The crease is the blue painted area in front of the goal, and it is supposed to be the domain of the goaltender. Players may not enter the crease and interfere with the goaltender. They may enter the crease if they are following the puck in. If a player scores a goal while a teammate is in the crease, the goal can be disallowed if it is ruled that the player in the crease was interfering with the goaltender. If a player is in control of the puck, shoots or carries it into the crease and then scores, the goal is allowed. If a player skates into the goaltender with or without the puck, an interference penalty will usually be assessed.

The refs really could have disallowed the goal for a couple of reasons. One could be he was in the crease in the area the goalie was trying to go. Even if you don't actually make contact with the goalie if you are in the crease and stop him from getting to the area he needs to get to it is considered interference. The other possibility and the one I think it was, if you watch very closely Dahl's skate makes contact with the goalie stick just before the shot comes in. It knocks the stick out of the way just enough for the puck to sneak through.

Biddco
03-22-2013, 09:57 AM
its too bad Wisconsin got hosed on that call. I Mean they could have won by 6 goals and not a pathetic 5.

MavHockey14
03-22-2013, 10:01 AM
Why not? The quality of the officating can be seperately evaluated no matter the outcome. The Rammage 5 was a great hit on a guy in open ice, but he did push push and follow through with his forearm. If he does not follow through with the forearm, that's a clean hit.



Like others have said, you can be in the crease, but you can't impede the goalie. The overhead clearly shows Dahl does not impede him. The guys on tv thought it was a good goal too. I've seen WAY worse situations where the goal stood.

I feel really fortunate your sieve was a sieve yesterday. What little 5 on 5 there was, the Mavs were better.

As others have stated, it's not a goal.

Also, you're not serious on the Rammage hit are you? You know he was called for charging, correct?



its too bad Wisconsin got hosed on that call. I Mean they could have won by 6 goals and not a pathetic 5.
No kidding. Could've boosted them in the Pairwise!!;)

You at the tailgate?

First Time, Long Time
03-22-2013, 12:02 PM
No, look at the rule again.



The refs really could have disallowed the goal for a couple of reasons. One could be he was in the crease in the area the goalie was trying to go. Even if you don't actually make contact with the goalie if you are in the crease and stop him from getting to the area he needs to get to it is considered interference. The other possibility and the one I think it was, if you watch very closely Dahl's skate makes contact with the goalie stick just before the shot comes in. It knocks the stick out of the way just enough for the puck to sneak through.

I read the rule just fine "they may enter the crease if they are following the puck in"
Dahl was in the crease before the puck was, and again, the goal was not waved off for interference, it was waved off for a man in the crease.
They said so in the arena.

MavsFan
03-22-2013, 01:45 PM
I read the rule just fine "they may enter the crease if they are following the puck in"
Dahl was in the crease before the puck was, and again, the goal was not waved off for interference, it was waved off for a man in the crease.
They said so in the arena.No, you can be in the crease before the puck as long as you don't interfere with or obstruct the goaltender. In this case, the Badger player was right on top of the goalie and as was stated may have made contact with his stick. I thought (of course I'm biased) that it was a good call in that the goalie was left with no room to maneuver at all. In the end, of course, it had no impact on the outcome of the game.

First Time, Long Time
03-22-2013, 01:48 PM
No, you can be in the crease before the puck as long as you don't interfere with or obstruct the goaltender. In this case, the Badger player was right on top of the goalie and as was stated may have made contact with his stick. I thought (of course I'm biased) that it was a good call in that the goalie was left with no room to maneuver at all. In the end, of course, it had no impact on the outcome of the game.

The part I put in quotes is in the rule. If you could be in the crease before the puck, then why is that part in the rule?
If it was waved off for interfering with the goalie, then why was it called man in the crease and not goalie interference?

MavsFan
03-22-2013, 02:28 PM
The part I put in quotes is in the rule. If you could be in the crease before the puck, then why is that part in the rule?
If it was waved off for interfering with the goalie, then why was it called man in the crease and not goalie interference?You're missing the important "and" in the statement "the player may not enter the crease and interfere..." He has to do both; enter the crease AND interfere. Otherwise that "and" would be an "or." The rule used to be that if you were in the crease at all, it was no goal. They changed it to in the crease AND interfering.

goldy_331
03-22-2013, 02:54 PM
We're parsing the rule book now? It depends on what "is" is. :D

We all know the WCHA refs "make this **** up as they go along.":p

First Time, Long Time
03-22-2013, 02:56 PM
You're missing the important "and" in the statement "the player may not enter the crease and interfere..." He has to do both; enter the crease AND interfere. Otherwise that "and" would be an "or." The rule used to be that if you were in the crease at all, it was no goal. They changed it to in the crease AND interfering.


And I'm talking about the next sentence, but whatever.
It doesn't matter, you won by five.