Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 121 to 124 of 124

Thread: Quinnipiac @ RPI 02/16/19

  1. #121
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    115

    Re: Quinnipiac @ RPI 02/16/19

    Engineer I agree eventhough I am a tad biased. He was trying to pin the player on the wall and contain the puck. Had stick on puck, leg between players leg and hit him on left shoulder as the player turned. Brutal call, not stupid play.

  2. #122
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Trumbull, CT
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by capswon View Post
    Engineer I agree eventhough I am a tad biased. He was trying to pin the player on the wall and contain the puck. Had stick on puck, leg between players leg and hit him on left shoulder as the player turned. Brutal call, not stupid play.
    Having watched the replay Id agree if the QU player turned, but it seemed to me that he established position facing the boards. It was not boarding, which is what was called as it was not a violent hit and the player was close enough to the boards that he was not endangered (his head and upper body were still above the dasher). I also agree that he was trying to pin the player to the boards, but the question was whether it was a little too hard and constituted hitting from behind. It looked marginal but callable to me. The QU forward definitely sold it and had Pecknold not whined earlier at the refs (particularly after the 4th call which he insisted was a dive even though it looked like a clear trip via a slash to the ankles) I wonder if it would have been called. Given the bench minor I suspect that was the feeling on our bench.
    Last edited by rpi82; 02-17-2019 at 11:21 AM.

  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    48,064

    Re: Quinnipiac @ RPI 02/16/19

    Quote Originally Posted by rpi82 View Post
    Having watched the replay I’d agree if the QU player turned, but it seemed to me that he established position facing the boards. It was not boarding, which is what was called as it was not a violent hit and the player was close enough to the boards that he was not endangered (his head and upper body were still above the dasher). I also agree that he was trying to pin the player to the boards, but the question was whether it was a little too hard and constituted hitting from behind. It looked marginal but callable to me. The QU forward definitely sold it and had Pecknold not whined earlier at the refs (particularly after the 4th call which he insisted was a dive even though it looked like a clear trip via a slash to the ankles) I wonder if it would have been called. Given the bench minor I suspect that was the feeling on our bench.
    It's also possible that the ref used "boarding" to protect our player from additional discipline by nature of the book, sort of a "plea bargain" if you will. If it was called checking from behind, because it was into the boards, it would automatically be 5 and game because of how the rule notes it. And given the time remaining, there may have been reason to make it a DQ instead of misconduct.

  4. #124
    Let's Go 'Tute! Ralph Baer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    200,289

    Re: Quinnipiac @ RPI 02/16/19

    Quote Originally Posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    It's also possible that the ref used "boarding" to protect our player from additional discipline by nature of the book, sort of a "plea bargain" if you will. If it was called checking from behind, because it was into the boards, it would automatically be 5 and game because of how the rule notes it. And given the time remaining, there may have been reason to make it a DQ instead of misconduct.
    Refs don't think that deeply.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •