Sioux hockey starts now!!!

[sl1000794]

I was at tonight's game vs UM Duluth (and will be there tomorrow too) so here are a couple of pics and my vid of Poganski's game winning goal with 1:41 left in overtime on a penalty shop. Also a link to UND's video of the incident leading up to the penalty shot and the winning goal.

Sioux skating onto the ice at the beginning of the game:


First period face off:


Poganski's penalty shot goal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBctinc9Smk&feature=youtu.be

UND's highlights from their Men's Hockey website:

http://www.undsports.com/mediaPortal/player.dbml?id=5057420

Steve.

 

[tikkalover]

That was neat, watched the last part of the game on TV. They SOUIX needed a win like that after last weekends shit show in Denver. My son was at those games and he said they haven't played that bad in a long time.

 

[NDwalleyes]

Fun game last night. Bulldogs got hosed on that call though, no way that warranted a penalty shot...but we'll take it. Surprised they didn't review it before the penalty shot was given.

I'm convinced that Boeser and Caggulia are not 100%. Boeser seems to be avoiding contact and Caggulia's skating is not what it was in the first half of the season.

 

[sl1000794]

Fun game last night. Bulldogs got hosed on that call though, no way that warranted a penalty shot...but we'll take it. Surprised they didn't review it before the penalty shot was given.

From the NCAA Hockey rule book:
25.6 Penalty Shot – A penalty shot is designed to restore a scoring opportunity which was lost as a result of a foul being committed by the offending team, based on the parameters set out in these rules. There are four (4) specific conditions that must be met in order for the Referee to award a penalty shot for a player being fouled from behind. They are:
• The infraction must have taken place in the neutral zone or attacking zone, (i.e. over the puck carrier’s own blue line);
• The infraction must have been committed from behind;
• The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have been denied a reasonable chance to score (the fact that he got a shot off does not automatically eliminate this play from the penalty shot consideration criteria. If the foul was from behind and he was denied a “more” reasonable scoring opportunity due to the foul, then the penalty shot should be awarded);
• The player in possession and control (or, in the judgment of the Referee, clearly would have obtained possession and control of the puck) must have had no opposing player between himself and the goalkeeper.


From where I sat and from the replays I've watched it seems pretty clear to me that the penalty was warranted (tripping) and that the call/play met all four conditions so a penalty shot was warranted.

Steve.

 

[NDwalleyes]

Tell me how this is from behind. Not sure if this video will work....

[video]https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CboYQZlWEAA_ubC.mp4[/video]

 

[sl1000794]

Tell me how this is from behind. Not sure if this video will work....

[video]https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CboYQZlWEAA_ubC.mp4[/video]

From CBS Cameras it shows that the UMD player was not ahead of or beside Poganski:



His hips and shoulders are behind Poganski and he is diving.

Here's a better shot showing what the ref saw:



Not beside or ahead of Poganski.

 

[NDwalleyes]

You are too bias to have a debate with.

 

[sl1000794]

You are too bias to have a debate with.

I am bias toward the SIOUX, but if you are debating you must show evidence to support your side. "Show me the beef!"

Steve.

 

[NDwalleyes]

Obviously you are bias, and so am I, but only to a certain point. We have to take our green colored glasses off once in a while and respect the game along the efforts these kids make in a game of this caliber.

How can the defender, who is clearlying taking a swing at the puck (around the front of the Pogo) be considered behind him? The words "beside" and "in front of" are not even in the rule....those are your words. The defenders shoulders/head are clearly even with Pogo's chest and Pogo is cutting towards the net....obviously beside him and not behind.

Every hockey analyst who has watched this, and there are several, including Dave Starman, agree that the ref blew the call. This is not a reviewable call. However, some think because of this very call, the topic will come up at the rules committee this year to allow it to be reviewed. We can't have officials impacting the outcome of games, especially during OT for Christ's sake.

 

[sl1000794]

Obviously you are bias, and so am I, but only to a certain point. We have to take our green colored glasses off once in a while and respect the game along the efforts these kids make in a game of this caliber.

How can the defender, who is clearlying taking a swing at the puck (around the front of the Pogo) be considered behind him? He's behind him because both of his feet are behind Pogo and he is diving to try to knock the puck away. He trips Pogo and never does touch the puck. The words "beside" and "in front of" are not even in the rule....those are your words.​ I realize that beside and in front of are not in the rule book, but if you are not behind someone, you must be beside or ahead of them. I think that the pic shows that the UMD defender dived to try to get up to Pogo and separate Pogo from the puck. He was unable to do that and only tripped him. The defenders shoulders/head are clearly even with Pogo's chest and Pogo is cutting towards the net....obviously beside him and not behind. His feet are way behind Pogo. His feet are where he is.

Every hockey analyst who has watched this, and there are several, including Dave Starman, agree that the ref blew the call. This is not a reviewable call. However, some think because of this very call, the topic will come up at the rules committee this year to allow it to be reviewed. We can't have officials impacting the outcome of games, especially during OT for Christ's sake.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Steve.

 

[NDwalleyes]

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Steve.

..... think that the pic shows that the UMD defender dived to try to get up to Pogo and separate Pogo from the puck. He was unable to do that and only tripped him.....

And this my friend is why it should have been a tripping penalty.

Think about the history of the penalty shot rule, the offensive player used to have a full stride lead on the defender, so it was always very clear when the offensive player was taken down from behind. Things have changed a bit but the intent is still the same. When a defender has the ability to reach around the front of the offensive play in attempt to play the puck it's a simple tripping call.

 

[FightingSioux]

That was a very borderline call. Yes it was from behind but I don't think he was beat that bad. He should have caught up to him instead of just taking him out.

The real issue we should be talking about is getting this young team back on track. They can't play like this in the playoffs or it will be another one and done. Yes they don't have to win until the playoffs but we need to get used to winning two games every weekend.

 

[sl1000794]

..... think that the pic shows that the UMD defender dived to try to get up to Pogo and separate Pogo from the puck. He was unable to do that and only tripped him.....

And this my friend is why it should have been a tripping penalty.

Think about the history of the penalty shot rule, the offensive player used to have a full stride lead on the defender, so it was always very clear when the offensive player was taken down from behind. Things have changed a bit but the intent is still the same. When a defender has the ability to reach around the front of the offensive play in attempt to play the puck it's a simple tripping call.

"When a defender has the ability to reach around the front of the offensive play in attempt to play the puck it's a simple tripping call."

I disagree. No question that if he had knocked the puck away from Poganski before he tripped him it would have just been a tripping penalty. Since he was unable to even touch the puck and did trip Poganski he deprived Poganski of a "reasonable chance to score" (right from the rule book.) Penalty shot was the correct call. Now lets have a good game tonight and come away with a sweep.

Steve.

 

[NDwalleyes]

The officials "titty sprinkled the dog" on this also by blowing the whistle before Duluth touched-up the puck, after the penalty...we had two guys trailing on the play. If the NCHC is going to be the best conference we need to have better refs. Honestly we shouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[Ristorapper]

judging by how the refs are calling the penalties against the green and white tonight, they screwed up last night and want to make it right for UMD. Thankfully the SIOUX have the best penalty kill (since Dec.1) in college hockey to keep them in the game.

 

[Ristorapper]

whew!! another 2-1 win at the Ralph. 4 left; 2 at Omaha and 2 home with WMU. Then a couple of tournaments we hope.

 

[raider]

whew!! another 2-1 win at the Ralph. 4 left; 2 at Omaha and 2 home with WMU. Then a couple of tournaments we hope.

nice intensity, at least at times... good weekend...

still hoping for april games...

 

[tikkalover]

Woohoo, the SIOUX just hoisted the Penrose Cup for the second year in a row!!!!! :;:rockit:;:cheers ;:;boozer

 

[Ristorapper]

Go SIOUX!!!!!

 

[FightingSioux]

Penrosa baby! Now let's get the next one!