PDA

View Full Version : Minnesota Golden Gophers 2009-2010 the last year of the old WCHA



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

MinnesotaNorthStar
11-02-2009, 02:25 AM
But that wasn't the part that I quoted, therefore that part of the post doesn't really count. Or something. :o
I apologize for forgetting the D1 posting rules. I think I spend too much time in the Cafe...:p

HarleyMC
11-02-2009, 06:49 AM
Agree here. In real time the hit didn't look that bad to me (granted, it was almost off the screen). It was a little late from what I remember, but I'd be okay with a penalty being called or the ref letting it go. Harley's grasping at straws using a still photo to show that it was late and malicious. All you can tell from that picture is the shot had been released. For all we know (just using the picture, no other source of input) the puck is only 6 inches out of the shot, which would mean not a late hit. Also, Leddy may have flinched after seeing Portwood out of the corner of his eye after shooting, thereby ducking slightly and having Portwood contact his head instead of his body.

You'd be ok with a penalty being called or letting it go? Nice waffle.:D I disagree that this is "grasping at straws". There's enough photo evidence to indicate the hit was late and deserving of a penalty. If you read my initial post I indicated it needed another look, which means normative VIDEO evidence. To me there is some indication from the photo it could have been malicious and subject to a more severe penalty. Placement of a hit is something all experienced players are coached in and conscious of when executing a check. As I said and it bears repeating, a shot to the head like that can disable a player for a season or terminate a hockey career (i.e. Tom Pohl). It's that serious and based upon the outcome, IMO it deserved another look (video).

If Portwood charged and deliberately placed his shoulder in the direction of Leddy's head (which the photo seems to suggest) then it is classified as "intent to injure". However, official video review evidence would be needed to conclusively prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having seen the video, Don Lucia has requested an official assessment on the video review of the play:


He said the tape showed Seawolves forward Jade Portwood hitting Leddy in the head with his shoulder. That makes the hit illegal, he said..."As much as you want to say it was a good hit, there are rules put in. And that's why there is zero tolerance for shots to the head. Just as in football, you don't allow crackback blocks. You don't allow blows to the head. You have rules in there to protect the players for a reason. I don't think the kid tried to, but still it was a shot to the head." Lucia said he has already talked to Greg Shepherd, the supervisor of officials, about the play. "I talked to our referee in chief and I forwarded it and I think those things have to be looked at because that is a dangerous play," Lucia said. "Even though you are in a vulnerable position, that doesn't mean you can make that hit like that. That is my opinion. That is why the rule is in there."

One reporter after the Gophers' 4-1 victory over Alaska Anchorage, asked Lucia how a player can avoid a hit like that? "You just can't hit him in the head, plain and simple," Lucia said. "That's why it is in the rulebook. Zero tolerance. "Look at the concussions in the game today. [Leddy] gets out because of a fractured jaw. Those are the kind of hits you want to eliminate from the game." After the league reviews Portwood's hit on Leddy near the end of the first period, I expect he will suspended for at least one or two games. And it should happen quickly, by Monday or Tuesday.

Leddy will miss at least 11 games. The Gophers play the next five weekends, then have a weekend off. So Leddy might be able to return Dec. 11-12 at Michigan Tech.

After that series, the Gophers have a holiday break. So Lucia might hold Leddy out of the Tech series until the Dodge Holiday Classic on Jan. 2-3. That might make more sense. Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/blogs/68444522.html?elr=KArks47cQiU47cQiU47cQULPQL7PQLan chO7DiU)

slyhippo
11-02-2009, 08:26 AM
You'd be ok with a penalty being called or letting it go? Nice waffle.:D I disagree that this is "grasping at straws". There's enough photo evidence to indicate the hit was late and deserving of a penalty. If you read my initial post I indicated it needed another look, which means normative VIDEO evidence. To me there is some indication from the photo it could have been malicious and subject to a more severe penalty. Placement of a hit is something all experienced players are coached in and conscious of when executing a check. As I said and it bears repeating, a shot to the head like that can disable a player for a season or terminate a hockey career (i.e. Tom Pohl). It's that serious and based upon the outcome, IMO it deserved another look (video).

If Portwood charged and deliberately placed his shoulder in the direction of Leddy's head (which the photo seems to suggest) then it is classified as "intent to injure". However, official video review evidence would be needed to conclusively prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having seen the video, Don Lucia has requested an official assessment on the video review of the play:

Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/blogs/68444522.html?elr=KArks47cQiU47cQiU47cQULPQL7PQLan chO7DiU)
Let it go. There is nothing your lobbying on USCHO will change.

HarleyMC
11-02-2009, 08:55 AM
Let it go. There is nothing your lobbying on USCHO will change.

This is a discussion board in case you forgot.:D

Koho
11-02-2009, 11:19 AM
This weekend was a good step for Kangas to quiet the critics (mostly non-Mn fans) who thought his play his Freshman year was a fluke. (I still don't see where the SCS fan thinks his positioning is poor. And I assume Lee has yet to give up a goal this year?)

For players stepping up (as was discussed in offseason), I think there are some that look like they may have made a step up (although it is too soon to know for sure).

Mattson looks like he will contribute a lot this year. And while he isn't as far along as I would have hoped he'd be by his third year before he started at the U, White seems to be more consistant than last year. Hoeffel has had some good shifts, but I think will still improve as the year progresses. Wehrs is a pleasant surprise, especially since they'll be without Leddy for awhile. Lucia, if this weekend is an indication, will lead by example and may contribute more scoring than most expected. Ness is also having some shifts where he stands out. It is also good to see Schroeder standing out a little more after a slow start. Barriball also sems to have a high level of confidence. And having Patterson playing well gives a lot of breathing room if Kangas were to get sick or have a slow stretch.

Overall, despite the fact they were playing a lesser skilled team, this weekend returned some of my arrogance and hope for the season. Even the PP is starting to look better. Hopefully they can keep building on the improvements they made this weekend as the season progresses.

ScoobyDoo
11-02-2009, 12:04 PM
This weekend was a good step for Kangas to quiet the critics (mostly non-Mn fans) who thought his play his Freshman year was a fluke. (I still don't see where the SCS fan thinks his positioning is poor. And I assume Lee has yet to give up a goal this year?)


Who was that guy hyping Lee again? He's nowhere to be found now. Lee pretty much got benched for Saturday's Tech game because he let in two softies that players like Lee (channeling the SCSU fan now) never give up because of their phenomenal positioning.

Kangas has silenced his critics while Lee's are just getting started. Welcome to the WCHA kid.

brianvf
11-02-2009, 02:08 PM
Who was that guy hyping Lee again? He's nowhere to be found now. Lee pretty much got benched for Saturday's Tech game because he let in two softies that players like Lee (channeling the SCSU fan now) never give up because of their phenomenal positioning.

Heck, I even dropped Lee from my fantasy team (replaced him with Reichard from Miami...what a steal!), and everyone here knows that I'm one of the best judges of goalie talent there is. ;) :D

ScoobyDoo
11-02-2009, 02:16 PM
Heck, I even dropped Lee from my fantasy team (replaced him with Reichard from Miami...what a steal!), and everyone here knows that I'm one of the best judges of goalie talent there is. ;) :D

I had forgotten about that SCSU guy when FTLT gave me a red chicklet for ripping on Lee tying Union. I mean seriously does a guy with that kind of positioning give up three goals to Union? Please.

61ache
11-02-2009, 02:39 PM
If Portwood charged and deliberately placed his shoulder in the direction of Leddy's head (which the photo seems to suggest) then it is classified as "intent to injure". However, official video review evidence would be needed to conclusively prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/blogs/68444522.html?elr=KArks47cQiU47cQiU47cQULPQL7PQLan chO7DiU)

The problem with this is:

A) He didn't charge..
B) He didn't leave his feet to make contact
C) He didn't lead with his elbow or forarm

So how can you classify "intent to injur" when there are no precursers to point to a malicous hit.

Also, everyone is talking about the hit being late as he'd already shot the puck...and? Because the player shot the puck, a late hit it does not make.

ScoobyDoo
11-02-2009, 02:41 PM
Also, everyone is talking about the hit being late as he'd already shot the puck...and? Because the player shot the puck, a late hit it does not make.

I don't understand this reasoning. I know leeway is usually given, but technically it is correct to say a player without the puck shouldn't be hit.

state of hockey
11-02-2009, 02:49 PM
I don't understand this reasoning. I know leeway is usually given, but technically it is correct to say a player without the puck shouldn't be hit.

Especially when the player released it from just inside the blueline and the goalie had already made the save. Number 13 was closer to Leddy the whole way, Portwood came from the boards after the shot was taken. It was late enough I thought there would be a call, but obviously was not surprised when there wasn't one. :)

61ache
11-02-2009, 03:07 PM
I don't understand this reasoning. I know leeway is usually given, but technically it is correct to say a player without the puck shouldn't be hit.

Ummm, no that is not correct. Any player is allowed to finish their check even if the opponent has gotten rid of the puck.

ScoobyDoo
11-02-2009, 03:09 PM
Ummm, no that is not correct. Any player is allowed to finish their check even if the opponent has gotten rid of the puck.

Ok, fine. It was still a hit to the head which last time I checked is not warranted. Leddy is pretty lucky the guy didn't clean his clock into the boards cause it would have been a lot more than a broken jaw.

wasmania
11-02-2009, 03:13 PM
a rookie fopaux


speaking of rookie faux pas.:p

state of hockey
11-02-2009, 03:16 PM
Ummm, no that is not correct. Any player is allowed to finish their check even if the opponent has gotten rid of the puck.

So, there is no such thing as a late hit?

Huh, learn something new everyday.

kdilks
11-02-2009, 03:26 PM
No time to look up the exact rule, but don't you get "two steps" after the player releases the puck to finish your check (and in practice, the refs usually give you 3-4), after which point it's called a charge?

state of hockey
11-02-2009, 03:32 PM
No time to look up the exact rule, but don't you get "two steps" after the player releases the puck to finish your check (and in practice, the refs usually give you 3-4), after which point it's called a charge?

I know prior to last year they talked about two steps/two seconds or else it would be interference/holding. But that was only pertaining to play along the boards and how long you can tie them up.

You get two strides or it is a charge, but that is rarely called unless someone takes literally 6-7 and is going full speed.

It wasn't super-late IMHO, but it was a bit. Once again, I'm not very angry about there being no call. It's just unfortunate. It looked like he was getting some confidence and he was really starting to show his puckmoving skills.

61ache
11-02-2009, 03:36 PM
So, there is no such thing as a late hit?

Huh, learn something new everyday.

I didn't say that, either. When checking, your feet have to be stationary and on the ice. Once you line up your opponent, who has the puck, your feet stop moving (over two full strides and its a charge), you can finish your check. Got it?

state of hockey
11-02-2009, 03:42 PM
I didn't say that, either. When checking, your feet have to be stationary and on the ice. Once you line up your opponent, who has the puck, your feet stop moving (over two full strides and its a charge), you can finish your check. Got it?

I am pretty sure that you can be called for a late hit even though your feet aren't moving. It doesn't depend solely on that.

Stauber1
11-02-2009, 06:39 PM
Ummm, no that is not correct. Any player is allowed to finish their check even if the opponent has gotten rid of the puck.

There is a difference between finishing a check and refusing to change direction after it is clear the opponent has completed his play. There was plenty of time for the UAA player to alter his direction. The play was made, Portwood continued striding, and turned his shoulder directly into Leddy's head. Again, I don't think he was trying to bust anyone's jaw, but his actions outside of the laws of the game did in fact do just that.
For what it's worth, Carman was called for a penalty in the second period Friday that was almost identical to the play in question, with the difference being that Carman hit the guy in the body and not the head. Which isn't to say Carman is somehow a nicer guy, just that where he landed the hit was in a much less dangerous spot. Bottom line, you are responsible for the movements of your own body. If you turn around and inadvertently crack a guy in the helmet with your stick, you are called for a penalty. If you lay a check into a guy's numbers, you are called for a penalty. If you turn your shoulder directly into a guys head as you hit him, it is a penalty. There is even stipulation in the rulebook for such a thing, "roughing, contact to the head."
So there were two items of rule infringement at play.