Frozen Four Predictions

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,651
Reaction score
6,748
Points
113
Actually it's intermission I will break my word one time quick

Along with not knowing hockey, you also still don't know what quotes("") are. That means you word for word are stating I said "Huskies aren't a tournament threat".

So go find that exact quote. You won't because I didn't say it.

Otherwise, like I said the facts are one sided. I will respond if you provide that exact quote. Make sure you tag me though. Cause if I see you simply replied, im skimming over it. My head hurts too much trying to comprehend the insane.

You're right. Not an exact quote. I was paraphrasing. Either way it was a failure of a take which you are prone to now.


Mugopher: Huskies aren't a good tournament team. Not a threat. Tend to play clunkers.

Frozen Four

Mugophers: Huskies are getting trucked.

Win 4-1


Put your hubris down for a nap. The only thing you are doing is proving that you might not understand what you are seeing on the screen. People are going to start hunting down your posts so that they can bet against any of your predictions and make bank. Big time fade material.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,651
Reaction score
6,748
Points
113
It would be a huge disappointment for this game to be decided by two marshmallow soft goals in the first. Hopefully they can capitalize on the upcoming powerplay.
 

MUgopher32

Active member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
696
Reaction score
236
Points
43
Kato is good, probably deserved to be a 1 seed over Wisco.

But doesnt excuse it. We didn't play well at all and they took it to us. Well deserved first Frozen Four.

Rooting for Cloud. But if Kato beats them, I am rooting for them.
 


stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,651
Reaction score
6,748
Points
113
Obviously want the Huskies to win....especially now that the Gophers are out. But Mankato would be a decent consolation.
 



upnorthkid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
6,064
Reaction score
1,133
Points
113
Hope you were playing with house money!
i mean, i would've taken umd minus MI. the rest i hit on the MN to beat Omaha and KAto to win. all of the bridgeport regional, mn to win and kato to win. overall won money on the weekend pretty handily
 

TRF Guy

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
407
Reaction score
240
Points
43
didn't like the call. the point of the offsides review is to fix the egregious ones, not to catch a single frame difference and debate whether or not the guy had control of the puck. clearly you could tell it in no way affected the play on the ice
If I remember right UND had the same thing happen to them when they scored against
BU in the regional at Scheels Arena in 17’ I believe. They looked at the replay for a good 10 minutes and decided it was offsides by a fraction of an inch. Did not effect the play at all. I hate it but it is what it is
 

GopherJack

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
2,174
Reaction score
401
Points
83
Pulling for Kato. As I live in southern MN, lots of my friends went to (then) Mankato State.
 



bleedsmaroonandgold

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
5,850
Reaction score
163
Points
63
If I remember right UND had the same thing happen to them when they scored against
BU in the regional at Scheels Arena in 17’ I believe. They looked at the replay for a good 10 minutes and decided it was offsides by a fraction of an inch. Did not effect the play at all. I hate it but it is what it is
I am not a fan of the "did not affect the play at all" logic. If he was offsides (even by a little bit), then the team did not enter the zone legally and it should have been whistled. In football, they enforce penalties for 12 defensive players on the field even when one of them is clearly leaving the field, not involved in the play, and only has one foot left on the field of play. That player did not affect the play at all, but his presence on the field is a violation of the rule.
 

Taji34

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
2,789
Reaction score
1,046
Points
113
I am not a fan of the "did not affect the play at all" logic. If he was offsides (even by a little bit), then the team did not enter the zone legally and it should have been whistled. In football, they enforce penalties for 12 defensive players on the field even when one of them is clearly leaving the field, not involved in the play, and only has one foot left on the field of play. That player did not affect the play at all, but his presence on the field is a violation of the rule.
It's the eternal battle. Do refs enforce rules as written, or the interpretation of what that rule prevents.
 

Gophers1992

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
445
Reaction score
417
Points
63
Offsides is pretty black and white. I hate UND more than anything in the world but it was an obvious call. And bleeds is correct you can't say that it doesn't affect the play when the play should have been blown dead to begin with.
 

upnorthkid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
6,064
Reaction score
1,133
Points
113
Offsides is pretty black and white. I hate UND more than anything in the world but it was an obvious call. And bleeds is correct you can't say that it doesn't affect the play when the play should have been blown dead to begin with.
so there's only a million layers to this but I'll try be short.

There was the argument of possession. A player can't put himself offside if he is in possession, which is a judgment call on the ice which he may have felt he did in real time but was overruled as they reviewed. Further, he's offside by a fraction of an inch, not 3 feet, and so to not "blow it dead" is one that easily could be made repeatedly and no one would've batted in eye nor contested the goal. The fact you call it an "obvious call", just is disingenuous, given on the ice watching it live, no one at all questioned if he was offsides (ie the players, the announcers, etc.) until it went to replay, and even then they debated whether or not it should've stood (hence why the review didn't take 10 seconds).
 



upnorthkid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
6,064
Reaction score
1,133
Points
113
I am not a fan of the "did not affect the play at all" logic. If he was offsides (even by a little bit), then the team did not enter the zone legally and it should have been whistled. In football, they enforce penalties for 12 defensive players on the field even when one of them is clearly leaving the field, not involved in the play, and only has one foot left on the field of play. That player did not affect the play at all, but his presence on the field is a violation of the rule.
Just for context, as if you're going to try use the 12 men on the field argument as justification.

Imagine the offense comes to the line and snaps the ball to run a play on 4th down and goal. They run the play and the defense gets a stop. However, after the play, the officials huddle together after not throwing a flag on the play while it happened because the booth buzzed down and said they have to look at a player leaving the field. They use sideline technology and find out that his left foot was on the field by 2 inches and then throw a flag on the play after, awarding the team a repeat of down. The rule was put in place to catch egregious offsides, the same as if players were egregiously on the field and impacting the play. That's my personal opinion but any time you have to review something for over 5 minutes and play it frame by frame to make the call, stick with what you called on the ice/field/pitch/diamond and don't rely on the replay as your out. It's part of what makes sports sports (I think we've probably all been on the winning and losing side of a call, it happens).
 

bleedsmaroonandgold

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2011
Messages
5,850
Reaction score
163
Points
63
Just for context, as if you're going to try use the 12 men on the field argument as justification.

Imagine the offense comes to the line and snaps the ball to run a play on 4th down and goal. They run the play and the defense gets a stop. However, after the play, the officials huddle together after not throwing a flag on the play while it happened because the booth buzzed down and said they have to look at a player leaving the field. They use sideline technology and find out that his left foot was on the field by 2 inches and then throw a flag on the play after, awarding the team a repeat of down. The rule was put in place to catch egregious offsides, the same as if players were egregiously on the field and impacting the play. That's my personal opinion but any time you have to review something for over 5 minutes and play it frame by frame to make the call, stick with what you called on the ice/field/pitch/diamond and don't rely on the replay as your out. It's part of what makes sports sports (I think we've probably all been on the winning and losing side of a call, it happens).
I'm all for the argument that we should be more selective with what is or is not reviewable. Basketball is a great example where I think the act of frequently stopping the play to review tenths of a second on the clock in end of game situations actually impacts the game more than the disputed seconds by adding extra stoppages. I don't think offsides in hockey should be a reviewable play.

Once it is reviewable, I also don't think there should be an "affected the play" component to the standard. If he was a little offsides (and while it is debatable given the possession issue, I think he was), then I don't think you can say it didn't affect the play. To become onside, he would have needed to alter his stride, slow down, or change his angle. Any of those would have changed the way he was skating, which could have impacted how well he handled the puck, what angle he took after he corralled it, and how the defense reacted to him. If him being offsides really did not affect the play at all, then he should have just chosen to be onside.
 

Gophers1992

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
445
Reaction score
417
Points
63
so there's only a million layers to this but I'll try be short.

There was the argument of possession. A player can't put himself offside if he is in possession, which is a judgment call on the ice which he may have felt he did in real time but was overruled as they reviewed. Further, he's offside by a fraction of an inch, not 3 feet, and so to not "blow it dead" is one that easily could be made repeatedly and no one would've batted in eye nor contested the goal. The fact you call it an "obvious call", just is disingenuous, given on the ice watching it live, no one at all questioned if he was offsides (ie the players, the announcers, etc.) until it went to replay, and even then they debated whether or not it should've stood (hence why the review didn't take 10 seconds).
I should have said it was obvious after watching the replay, poor wording on my part. If we want to argue that offsides shouldn't be reviewable, I guess I could at least understand the thought behind that, but after going to replay they made the call that had to be made.
 

Lady Gopher

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Messages
80
Reaction score
45
Points
18
I watched all the regionals and thought that the Minnesota Duluth/North Dakota game was the highest skilled game. I do believe that Duluth will win the Championship and I hope St. Cloud beats
Mankato.
 

upnorthkid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
6,064
Reaction score
1,133
Points
113
I'm all for the argument that we should be more selective with what is or is not reviewable. Basketball is a great example where I think the act of frequently stopping the play to review tenths of a second on the clock in end of game situations actually impacts the game more than the disputed seconds by adding extra stoppages. I don't think offsides in hockey should be a reviewable play.

Once it is reviewable, I also don't think there should be an "affected the play" component to the standard. If he was a little offsides (and while it is debatable given the possession issue, I think he was), then I don't think you can say it didn't affect the play. To become onside, he would have needed to alter his stride, slow down, or change his angle. Any of those would have changed the way he was skating, which could have impacted how well he handled the puck, what angle he took after he corralled it, and how the defense reacted to him. If him being offsides really did not affect the play at all, then he should have just chosen to be onside.
that is incredibly fair to say.
I'm all for the argument that we should be more selective with what is or is not reviewable. Basketball is a great example where I think the act of frequently stopping the play to review tenths of a second on the clock in end of game situations actually impacts the game more than the disputed seconds by adding extra stoppages. I don't think offsides in hockey should be a reviewable play.

Once it is reviewable, I also don't think there should be an "affected the play" component to the standard. If he was a little offsides (and while it is debatable given the possession issue, I think he was), then I don't think you can say it didn't affect the play. To become onside, he would have needed to alter his stride, slow down, or change his angle. Any of those would have changed the way he was skating, which could have impacted how well he handled the puck, what angle he took after he corralled it, and how the defense reacted to him. If him being offsides really did not affect the play at all, then he should have just chosen to be onside.
I think we agree on the first part. I think the second portion is fair from your perspective. To me, if you have to watch it more than once or it’s a debate, stick with the call on the ice. That’s just me and your point is a very fair one
 

upnorthkid

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
6,064
Reaction score
1,133
Points
113
I should have said it was obvious after watching the replay, poor wording on my part. If we want to argue that offsides shouldn't be reviewable, I guess I could at least understand the thought behind that, but after going to replay they made the call that had to be made.
That is fair to say. I’d prefer, for all replay, you watch it once real time speed and if it’s egregious, you’ll catch it. If you’re having to look multiple times at a ton of angles, stick with the call on the ice/field/etc. I hate the overutilization of replay and the reliance of it by officials and the use of the replay booth to buzz down at all, especially when they buzz it down just to look closer. Feels like to me that it completely kills the flow and what the original point of the replay was, which was to catch big things. Ok soapbox over
 

Taji34

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Messages
2,789
Reaction score
1,046
Points
113
that is incredibly fair to say.

I think we agree on the first part. I think the second portion is fair from your perspective. To me, if you have to watch it more than once or it’s a debate, stick with the call on the ice. That’s just me and your point is a very fair one
I'm honestly surprised with today's technology that some of these types of calls aren't automated. Like surely with maybe a few more camera's and enough CPU power we could have near instant Computer calls for things like offsides, whether someone stayed in-bounds, etc. Tennis and baseball pretty much perfect ball tracking just a few seconds (not even) after the play.

Imagine, a world where for simple rulings like this we have a definitive answer a few seconds after the play, rather than having to wait a few minutes for a ref to review a few angles and make a decision.
 

PMWinSTP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2015
Messages
10,919
Reaction score
1,565
Points
113
so there's only a million layers to this but I'll try be short.

There was the argument of possession. A player can't put himself offside if he is in possession, which is a judgment call on the ice which he may have felt he did in real time but was overruled as they reviewed. Further, he's offside by a fraction of an inch, not 3 feet, and so to not "blow it dead" is one that easily could be made repeatedly and no one would've batted in eye nor contested the goal. The fact you call it an "obvious call", just is disingenuous, given on the ice watching it live, no one at all questioned if he was offsides (ie the players, the announcers, etc.) until it went to replay, and even then they debated whether or not it should've stood (hence why the review didn't take 10 seconds).
First thing I thought of when the review was not quick was that they are looking at if he was offsides.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,651
Reaction score
6,748
Points
113
Huskies up 3-1 nearly halfway through the second.

Sounds like UMass might have a few players out for their game against UMD tonight. Why not give the Bulldogs a few more breaks?
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,651
Reaction score
6,748
Points
113
Going to be a tense last 8 minutes in a tied game.

Gotta say....Mankato looks like the better team. That forecheck is just devastating.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,651
Reaction score
6,748
Points
113
Wow. Huskies got a crazy tip goal with a little over a minutes left to take the lead.

Going to the National Championship with a 5-4 win.

Mankato is a damn good team. I think that they may very well have been the better team.
 

bonin21

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2014
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
530
Points
113
NCHC owns college hockey.

Big Ten was a devastating blow to the Gopher hockey program. We should still be playing these teams week in and week out.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,651
Reaction score
6,748
Points
113
NCHC owns college hockey.

Big Ten was a devastating blow to the Gopher hockey program. We should still be playing these teams week in and week out.

Definitely not good for the Gophers. The NCHC is very good top to bottom. Gotta give the WCHA its flowers though.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
25,651
Reaction score
6,748
Points
113
Umass takes down UMD 3-2 in OT. It honestly didn't even look fair in OT. Umass was living on the UMD side of the ice. It was pure domination.
 



MRJ

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
5,329
Reaction score
616
Points
113
Gotta give tons of credit to UMass. They were all over the Bulldogs in overtime and it really felt like it was only a matter of time until the Minutemen won it.

Incredible run by UMD. The toughness they showed the past few years and during their title run was incredible to watch. But all runs come to an end and last night was the time for the Bulldogs' run to end.
 




Top Bottom