Log in

Podcast: “Mavpuckcast” - S2, E13

  • Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:22 PM
    Message # 8573281
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    The latest...


  • Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:32 PM
    Reply # 8573378 on 8573281
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    If you prefer to watch/listen on YouTube...


  • Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:33 PM
    Reply # 8573392 on 8573281
    Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Last modified: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 2:34 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • Tuesday, January 14, 2020 5:57 PM
    Reply # 8574857 on 8573281

    Over/under 20 awkward pauses.  I'm so use to y'all talking over each other. 

  • Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7:15 PM
    Reply # 8575431 on 8573378
    Anonymous wrote:

    If you prefer to watch/listen on YouTube...


    Where do you prefer I listen, and comment?

  • Wednesday, January 15, 2020 11:09 PM
    Reply # 8587467 on 8573281

    Jon and Jason are experimenting. Shouldn't his have been left behind in college?

    Sidner -- pronounced SIDE-ner

    No, Jon. No appreciation. Only expectation.

    The result was exciting. The game... was actually kind of a bore. Ward and Primeau getting us in the lead EARLY. Been saying that for how long?

    All the Mavericks did all game Friday was silence the fans... quickly. Put down the riot.

    2nd periods haven't been our thing for two years, guys.

    Omaha's effort was boring, but brilliant. They stuck to the system. It was a masterpiece by Gabinet and the team. Disciplined. Limited the chances. Kept the F'n Hawks to the outside.

    Someday we will get over this defeatist attitude. We won Friday. Let's go for the kill Saturday. You knew there would be adjustments, but Omaha should have stayed the course. Maybe Prokop's change couldn't changed that. But I felt as fans, NOBODY thought we could sweep. It was like a feeling of relief from Friday, and who gives a crap about Saturday.

    First goal, Saturday: my only concern was that the call on the ice was goal. There is no way the referee sees significant contact, where a goaltender is knocked down and moved out of the net... and the instinct is to allow the goal. I don't mind that they allowed it after review. But the call on ice should have been no goal.

    I do wonder if the secondary contact was accidental, on purpose -- if you know what I'm saying. It did feel like a flop. But I'm not totally sold.

    Where was the offsides? Video? Citation? Chapter? Verse?

    Roy took multiple crosschecks?

    I wouldn't be too sure about the quality of equipment at REA. At least not for review.

    Friday... they didn't pass on opportunity. Saturday, I'm not sure they did either.

    The PP seems more apt to shoot now than under Blais. Gabinet as a defenseman understands that sometime shooting through traffic creates a better chance than the open shot.

    The PP needs work. #1. more than one look. #2. more than one breakout.

    Good refs aren't concerned about who is on the ice with them. Jim Marra probably is. But you can only officiate the game in front of you, not the one in your head.

    DEAD AIR!!!

    Oh boy, a dead horse... Let's beat it! Media coverage in Omaha. The entire media group in Omaha is a joke.

    We still have a daily newspaper in Omaha?

    If they want to make money, get better content. Don't hide the content behind a paywall.

    Media coverage. Discount tickets. What year is it on MavPuck?

    OWH don't give a crap about anything but Husker football. If DU gets better coverage -- where they compete with Broncos, Avs, Nuggets, Rockies, and who knows what else.

    Maculpine? Mic Alpine.

    Guys... move on. Dead air is better than this conversation about the media. Dead air would be poignant... on the nose.

    Yes, we're ready to talk about Denver. I think we were 25 minutes ago.

    This is why we love the conference.

    I'm not doing your research for you, this week. 15 game losing streak until a tie late last year. Last win against Denver was January 10, 2015 -- Omaha swept Denver at Centurylink Center. Kirk Thompson posted the shutout 1-0 in that game.

    Jim Montgomery threw the best keggers!

    Chrona seems to have fallen off a bit. He started out great, but has been more human recently.

    Worthington is nowhere near St. Cloud. Worthington is on I-90. It's halfway between Sioux City and Mankato. (and I think you're in Worthington NEXT weekend.)

    Didn't we put a couple of scares into Denver -- at Denver -- last year? We gave the Pios everything they wanted in 3 of 4 games, last year. I think this team believes. I think it can finally happen.

    Have any of those three guys lost to Omaha?

    You and Bridget won't tweet opponents names, but you're going to attempt to drop the name of the sponsor of Denver's head coach? Also, you mispronounced Sidner... why apologize for this other name.

    It's Conley's second year... this should have been discussed last year.

    POTW... Saville? Primeau... ok, good choice. Maybe Keck. OK, Jason agrees.

    Nothing going wrong. He just doesn't have a move on the breakaway.

    Pre-moo.

    Goodnight, everybody!

  • Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:43 AM
    Reply # 8592146 on 8573281

    "First goal, Saturday: my only concern was that the call on the ice was goal. There is no way the referee sees significant contact, where a goaltender is knocked down and moved out of the net... and the instinct is to allow the goal. I don't mind that they allowed it after review. But the call on ice should have been no goal."

    The Referee had an unobstructed view of the goal and was actually looking directly at the contact before he signalled "goal". There is no way the referee can't see significant contact, unless to Chris's point he is seeing something in his head... On top of that, the stripes had every replay they needed to correct the call. They didn't. Who is asking why? No one.

    xxx

    On Roy, the Referee is no more than 20 feet from the hit. Two hands, stick, head. Contact with the head. Maybe not here, there, and everywhere, but on January 11th, in Grand Forks, during the second period, it should have been.

    xxx

    Rule 45 - Contact to the Head 45.1 Contact to the Head - A player shall not make direct contact from any direction with an opposing player’s head or neck area in any manner (including, but not limited to, with the shoulder, stick, elbow, etc.). PENALTY—Major and game misconduct or disqualification at the discretion of the referee.

    48 SECTION 6 / Physical Fouls

    The committee reminds coaches and players that the responsibility remains with the player making the hit to avoid contact with the head and neck area of an opposing player. Any contact directly with the player’s head and neck area must be penalized with a major penalty and a game misconduct or disqualification. A player delivering a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable player puts themselves in jeopardy of being penalized under this rule. Officials are to pay particular attention to these examples when applying this rule. These are intended as guidance and include, but are not limited to, the following:

    ....deleted trivial context in this case.

    A player that uses the stick in any way to target the head or neck area (e.g., cross checking, butt-ending, etc.).

    Under review, there is no way that this should have been "no penalty on the play". 

    Putting this out to random circumstance. Kiersted gets 5 and a game. Berry pukes all over the players and Pinto doesn't react in that manner. Hmmmmmm...

    The referee's own the safety of the players for 3 20 minute periods. Not supplemental, not practice, three 20 minute periods. The internet erupted on Saturday night, but was it a difference in play, or was it the fact that hopes for a sweep were fading away?

    I saw one thing all weekend. Except for a couple of trash goals on Saturday night (those things happen), Omaha played with UND. No, they didn't play even, they didn't dominate, but they found a way.



    Last modified: Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:54 AM | Anonymous member
  • Saturday, January 18, 2020 10:53 AM
    Reply # 8611877 on 8592146
    Jim wrote:

    There is no way the referee can't see significant contact, unless to Chris's point he is seeing something in his head... On top of that, the stripes had every replay they needed to correct the call. They didn't. Who is asking why? No one.

    From the overhead view, I can see the contact between Saville's stick and Bowen's left skate. That contact is what caused Bowen to fall. If Bowen had simply fallen back into the contact with Saville -- it's a good goal.

    Simply put: both players are entitled to that ice. It is incidental contact. They simply bumped in to each other. Saville's stick placement is the reason Bowen falls. It's not a trip on Saville. It's not interference on Bowen.

    But, my weakness as an official is/was my tendency to overthink a play or situation (let's face it: I can overthink 2+2.) Is Bowen's contact with Saville's head a direct result of the initial contact as Bowen was off balance? (That's evidently what they ruled on review -- ok, goal.) Or was the contact by Bowen a second incident of contact -- can it be seen as separate contact from Saville's stick to Bowen's skate? Or... how much intent was there from Bowen to avoid contact after being bumped? Did Bowen 'accidentally on purpose' fall back on top of Saville -- making a meal of the incidental contact?

    But as stated in the original post, my experience has been that when you see that significant contact with the goaltender, resulting in a goal, with no defenseman in the area. Wave off the goal as the initial call -- then talk to your partners to see if they saw it differently (or in this case, look at the tape.)

    xxx

    Jim wrote:

    On Roy, the Referee is no more than 20 feet from the hit. Two hands, stick, head. Contact with the head. Maybe not here, there, and everywhere, but on January 11th, in Grand Forks, during the second period, it should have been.

     A player delivering a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable player puts themselves in jeopardy of being penalized under this rule.

    Back to my overthinking... there are TWO ways you can look at the hit on Roy. First, I thought the initial contact on Roy was in the numbers -- it's a minor to Keane for hitting from behind.

    That contact put Roy in a vulnerable position, where he took a second hit -- to the head. Granted, Kiersted is a victim of circumstance -- he's not attempting to check Roy -- it's easy to forgive his actions. But that's not how the rule is written (see above). There is no clause that waives the penalty when your opponent if falling out of control. So you have a minor to Kiersted for contact to the head.

    Objectionably, you won't penalize both. Take one, and you're covered for the entire situation. Nobody with complain about Kiersted not being penalized, if Keane gets his for the initial contact from behind. And you can lose Keane's involvement if you take Kiersted for the secondary contact.

    Now, back me up on this, Jim. I know it's a different rule book. But I believe there is a situation where Keane technically could have be penalized for contact to the head. (This will be a reach, but I think you'll understand the line of thought in the following example.)

    In the USA Hockey Rulebook/Situation Manual, there is the following scenario: Red-5 and Blue-3 are racing toward the puck along the end board. Blue-4 is also in pursuit.

    a) Blue-4 accidentally bumps into Blue-3, who then contacts Red-5 from behind. Blue-4 is penalized for checking from behind, as he is the player providing the force for the hit.

    b) likewise, if Blue-4 bumps into Red-5, who then contacts Blue-3 from behind. Blue-4 is penalized for checking from behind, even though it is his own player being fouled -- because he provided the force for the hit.

    So... IF Keane's contact if not judged to be from behind... is Keane still subject to being penalized for Kiersted's contact to the head? Keane's contact created the situation where Roy took a check to the head.

  • Sunday, January 19, 2020 12:44 PM
    Reply # 8622142 on 8573281

    Penalty goes to Kiersted:

    Any contact directly with the player’s head and neck area must be penalized with a major penalty and a game misconduct or disqualification. A player delivering a check to an unsuspecting and vulnerable player puts themselves in jeopardy of being penalized under this rule.

    Officials are to pay particular attention to these examples when applying this rule. These are intended as guidance and include, but are not limited to, the following:

    • Direct contact with the head or neck in any manner from any direction;

    • A player that is reckless;

    • A player that has just released a shot or pass;

    • A player that is about to receive a pass;

    • A player that delivers a late hit;

    • A player that extends and directs the arm, elbow, forearm or shoulder

    to contact the head and neck area of the opponent.

    On the Bowen play:

    Whether he ‘steps on the stick’ or not...

    Role of the Official – Officials are encouraged to use their discretion in determining the effect of an attacking player making contact with a goaltender or with goaltender equipment. Referees are instructed to give more significant consideration to the degree and nature of the contact than to the exact location of the goalkeeper at the time of the contact. If, in the opinion of the official, the incidental contact had no effect on the goaltender’s ability to defend the goal, a goal may be allowed in such situations.

    Doesn't matter, the game is in the books. If sharing opinions is bad, and the idea is to limit that, I can abide. A web board with 3 or 4 participants might as well be a group text. 

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software