People seem to need no prompting, but it is there to tinker with:
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/ratings/yatc.php
I got three ECAC teams in by having us lose to Union in the final...
And let's remember ... this is the ORIGINAL tool ... programmed by your very own JTW. Found at CHN. Any other tool owes its code to John.
If everything plays out according to seeds (including our games) we would end up as a #2 seed, 6th overall.
If we lose both games and everything else goes according to seed, then we would be the first team out of the tournament (#14) with Union, RIT, and UAH taking the 3 non-at-large spots. If we flip the Union and SLU game so that we play Union in the consy then we would still end up out at #16 overall.
If we beat Brown and lose to Union in the final and everything else goes according to seed we end up at #11.
Thats all I had time to run for now... basically if we win one game next weekend we should be ok as long as not every AQ is a team that wouldn't have otherwise had a bid (no really possible as whoever wins the WCHA should be high enough). Lose 2 games and we might be able to squeak in but I wouldn't want to find out (Found one scenario where Ferris, ND, and Vermont win the AQ's and we still get in with losses to Brown and Union...)
On the downside, if every game goes to the LOWER seed, we end up 20th.
The folks at USCHO don't seem real friendly with this kind of blog posting!!! ::flipc::
http://www.uscho.com/blogs/bracketology/jayson/20100315/how-to-get-cornell-out.html
Shouldn't we be taking a more positive approach to this process????
Looks hopeful to me. Bimidji losing didn't help, but the way the USCHO blog post scenarios play out it says "if every game is an upset, then Cornell is out."
You've got to like your chances when all you have to do (aside from win) is root for the favorites.
Has any one been able to get Yale to drop out? I can't seem to. I've tried a few different ways and they still remain in.
Quote from: ryeguyHas any one been able to get Yale to drop out? I can't seem to. I've tried a few different ways and they still remain in.
Try this: It involves a bunch of upsets in conference tournaments reducing the at-large pool.
http://www.uscho.com/blogs/bracketology/jayson/20100315/and-heres-yale-not-getting-in.html
So far I haven't found a combination where we don't make it if we win at least 1 game.
FWIW
Quote from: Chris 02Quote from: ryeguyHas any one been able to get Yale to drop out? I can't seem to. I've tried a few different ways and they still remain in.
Try this: It involves a bunch of upsets in conference tournaments reducing the at-large pool.
http://www.uscho.com/blogs/bracketology/jayson/20100315/and-heres-yale-not-getting-in.html
That works. ::burnout::
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82So far I haven't found a combination where we don't make it if we win at least 1 game.
FWIW
Have you tried anything if we tie in the 3rd place game?
If we tie against Union in the 3rd place game, I have us as the last team to be taken out. That's if all those terrible upsets happen.
the best thing is that the possibilities do down after day one.. at least the team should know if they have to pull the goalie or not before the game is over and is tied.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82So far I haven't found a combination where we don't make it if we win at least 1 game.
FWIW
Found
one a bunch where if we beat Brown and lose to Union we would be out (one example below puts us at #15)... we don't want Maine anywhere near the HEA final, Ferris winning seems to be better than N. Mich. Playing St. Lawrence in the final (or consy) is a lot better for us because a loss to Union is costing us 3 or 4 comparisons due to TUC record. We really need NoDak to beat UMD in the first round of the final 5, it gives us the COp against UMD and helps out our RPI just a bit. I haven't found a scenario yet where if NoDak beats UMD and we beat Brown we don't get in.
Hockey East Semifinal #2: Maine defeats Boston University.
Hockey East Semifinal #1: Boston College defeats Vermont.
Hockey East Championship game: Maine defeats Boston College.
ECAC Semifinal #2: Union defeats St. Lawrence.
ECAC Semifinal #1: Cornell defeats Brown.
ECAC Championship game: Union defeats Cornell.
ECAC Consolation game: St. Lawrence defeats Brown.
Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #2: Sacred Heart defeats Air Force.
Atlantic Hockey Semifinal #1: Canisius defeats RIT.
Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Canisius defeats Sacred Heart.
CCHA Semifinal #2: Northern Michigan defeats Ferris State.
CCHA Semifinal #1: Michigan defeats Miami.
CCHA Championship game: Northern Michigan defeats Michigan.
CCHA Consolation game: Ferris State defeats Miami.
WCHA Play-in #1: Minnesota-Duluth defeats North Dakota.
WCHA Semifinal #2: St. Cloud State defeats Wisconsin.
WCHA Semifinal #1: Minnesota-Duluth defeats Denver.
WCHA Championship game: Minnesota-Duluth defeats St. Cloud State.
WCHA Consolation game: Wisconsin defeats Denver.
Quote from: mikekQuote from: Jeff Hopkins '82So far I haven't found a combination where we don't make it if we win at least 1 game.
FWIW
Found one a bunch where if we beat Brown and lose to Union we would be out (one example below puts us at #15)... we don't want Maine anywhere near the HEA final, Ferris winning seems to be better than N. Mich. Playing St. Lawrence in the final (or consy) is a lot better for us because a loss to Union is costing us 3 or 4 comparisons due to TUC record.
Interesting thought: Would a win against Union hurt us were it not for the AQ? It would switch our TUC on, right?
Quote from: mnagowskiInteresting thought: Would a win against Union hurt us were it not for the AQ? It would switch our TUC on, right?
Not really, as a win puts at .500 instead of .400 with a loss. Most of the teams that we would lose this comparison to that matter have records between .400 and .500. UMD would have to win out to have a TUC record > .500 which would give them a higher RPI than us anyway. Vermont could also have a TUC record > .500 but then we would beat BC in the TUC comparison so that evens out.
Some more thoughts:
We want RIT to win its semifinal so that UMass/Northeastern can't become a TUC (we lose that comparison to UMass if we lose to Union and it helps other HEA teams win the TUC against us I believe).
We want NoDak to beat UMD (which would give us the comparison against UMD if we beat Brown)
If those 2 things happen and we beat Brown I can't find a scenario where we don't get it.
Edit: Actually I can't find a scenario where NoDak beats UMD and we beat Brown that we don't make it... regardless of what RIT does.
This isn't going to help North Dakota's chances... http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,18404/WCHASuspendsNorthDakotasFrattinforHit.html
"The WCHA suspended North Dakota's Matt Frattin late Monday for the forward's hit on Minnesota's Kevin Wehrs on Sunday."
Quote from: sockralexThis isn't going to help North Dakota's chances... http://www.uscho.com/news/college-hockey/id,18404/WCHASuspendsNorthDakotasFrattinforHit.html
"The WCHA suspended North Dakota's Matt Frattin late Monday for the forward's hit on Minnesota's Kevin Wehrs on Sunday."
This is what he was doing before:
Quote from: USCHOFeb. 4 — North Dakota forward Matt Frattin has been acquitted on drunk driving charges, the Grand Forks Herald reported.
A jury of six Grand Forks County (N.D.) residents delivered a not guilty verdict after less than 30 minutes of deliberation on Tuesday, the newspaper reported.
Frattin, a junior, was dismissed from the team in August for what was called a violation of team rules. That move came after he was arrested and charged with driving under the influence.
Frattin was reinstated to the team in late December.
The Grand Forks Herald reported that Frattin was pulled over by campus police in the early morning hours of Aug. 19, and a test at the police station recorded his blood-alcohol level at .12 percent. The legal limit in North Dakota is .08 percent.--
Innocent till proven guilty, but I should go back and see how he got acquitted.
it was a nasty hit.. but ND was getting away with murder from the 2nd period on.. Minn was getting hosed.
Quote from: upperdeckit was a nasty hit.. but ND was getting away with murder from the 2nd period on.. Minn was getting hosed.
Here is the hit, if some one hasn't seen it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX6wqVuAQ6w
Gotta love the goalie going after Frattin. Minnesota was lucky there wasn't a penalty called on him. It looked like he blatantly hit Frattin in the back of the head with his stick.
Jeez. That's dirty in any league.
Quote from: TrotskyJeez. That's dirty in any league.
Meh. If it was in open ice that would just be a garden variety charging penalty IMO. It's the proximity to the boards that elevates it into the danger zone.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: TrotskyJeez. That's dirty in any league.
Meh. If it was in open ice that would just be a garden variety charging penalty IMO. It's the proximity to the boards that elevates it into the danger zone.
I think wherever that was it's a major, at least I hope so. Rule 6-8 is no contact to the head or neck of any manner. He also left his feet. I think that's enough to be tossed from the game. To me it's worse than hitting from behind and tossed.
You notice how the announcers said nothing about the hit, just talked about how neither coach was happy, etc.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: TrotskyJeez. That's dirty in any league.
Meh. If it was in open ice that would just be a garden variety charging penalty IMO. It's the proximity to the boards that elevates it into the danger zone.
I think wherever that was it's a major, at least I hope so. Rule 6-8 is no contact to the head or neck of any manner. He also left his feet. I think that's enough to be tossed from the game. To me it's worse than hitting from behind and tossed.
You notice how the announcers said nothing about the hit, just talked about how neither coach was happy, etc.
Here's the boxscore. (http://www.collegehockeystats.net/0910/boxes/mminndk1.m14) Frattin got 5 for contact to the head but was not tossed.
Meh. The Minnesota player was already leaning backwards, making the hit happen higher and look rougher than it was otherwise.
I wouldn't be happy if I saw one of our guys get rattled next to the glass like that.
People were saying similar things about an RPI hit on one of the Cornell player's @ RPI last year. There was a couple of seconds left in the game and our player was skating with the puck heading towards the back of the net when the RPI player checked him and sent him into the boards. It looked dirty to me. A lot of RPI people were saying he was off balance and already close to the boards so it looked worse than it was and shouldn't have been a DQ. Either way, our guy was injured and the RPI player got a game DQ.
Clearly my memory is fuzzy on who did the hitting and who got hurt, but I do remember it resulting in a similar argument about how much responsibility should be on the person who got hit.
Quote from: sockralexI wouldn't be happy if I saw one of our guys get rattled next to the glass like that.
People were saying similar things about an RPI hit on one of the Cornell player's @ RPI last year. There was a couple of seconds left in the game and our player was skating with the puck heading towards the back of the net when the RPI player checked him and sent him into the boards. It looked dirty to me. A lot of RPI people were saying he was off balance and already close to the boards so it looked worse than it was and shouldn't have been a DQ. Either way, our guy was injured and the RPI player got a game DQ.
Clearly my memory is fuzzy on who did the hitting and who got hurt, but I do remember it resulting in a similar argument about how much responsibility should be on the person who got hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PnJ-KfBIkw
Burgdoerfer hit Taylor Davenport. Gotta love the team reaction.
Quote from: amerks127Quote from: sockralexI wouldn't be happy if I saw one of our guys get rattled next to the glass like that.
People were saying similar things about an RPI hit on one of the Cornell player's @ RPI last year. There was a couple of seconds left in the game and our player was skating with the puck heading towards the back of the net when the RPI player checked him and sent him into the boards. It looked dirty to me. A lot of RPI people were saying he was off balance and already close to the boards so it looked worse than it was and shouldn't have been a DQ. Either way, our guy was injured and the RPI player got a game DQ.
Clearly my memory is fuzzy on who did the hitting and who got hurt, but I do remember it resulting in a similar argument about how much responsibility should be on the person who got hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PnJ-KfBIkw
Burgdoerfer hit Taylor Davenport. Gotta love the team reaction.
I don't think I'm just looking through Carnelian colored glasses but the Burgdoerfer hit was much worse. He intentionally pushes Davenport backwards into the boards. It was alos the last second of the game, leading me to think that he was venting frustration at the end of a bad game by trying to hurt an opponent. The NoDak hit, by contrast, looks a lot more like a regular check. No doubt that it was illegal since he left his feet and made contact to the head and probably worthy of five due to proximity to the boards. But I can't get worked up about it.
No doubt I would be calling for Frattin's execution if he'd hit a Cornell guy like that.
A real good start to the weekend would be a UMD loss tomorrow, as the other four WCHA teams are locks for the NCAA.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: amerks127Quote from: sockralexI wouldn't be happy if I saw one of our guys get rattled next to the glass like that.
People were saying similar things about an RPI hit on one of the Cornell player's @ RPI last year. There was a couple of seconds left in the game and our player was skating with the puck heading towards the back of the net when the RPI player checked him and sent him into the boards. It looked dirty to me. A lot of RPI people were saying he was off balance and already close to the boards so it looked worse than it was and shouldn't have been a DQ. Either way, our guy was injured and the RPI player got a game DQ.
Clearly my memory is fuzzy on who did the hitting and who got hurt, but I do remember it resulting in a similar argument about how much responsibility should be on the person who got hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PnJ-KfBIkw
Burgdoerfer hit Taylor Davenport. Gotta love the team reaction.
I don't think I'm just looking through Carnelian colored glasses but the Burgdoerfer hit was much worse. He intentionally pushes Davenport backwards into the boards. It was alos the last second of the game, leading me to think that he was venting frustration at the end of a bad game by trying to hurt an opponent. The NoDak hit, by contrast, looks a lot more like a regular check. No doubt that it was illegal since he left his feet and made contact to the head and probably worthy of five due to proximity to the boards. But I can't get worked up about it.
No doubt I would be calling for Frattin's execution if he'd hit a Cornell guy like that.
What more do you need to say than that, it's a terrible, illegal check that should never be allowed. You'd also probably think differently if you got hit like that.
http://www.areavoices.com/undhockey/?blog=73641
As you can see from the stills, Frattin didn't leave his feet to make the hit. It was still definitely a charging/contact to the head penalty.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKI don't think I'm just looking through Carnelian colored glasses but the Burgdoerfer hit was much worse. He intentionally pushes Davenport backwards into the boards. It was alos the last second of the game, leading me to think that he was venting frustration at the end of a bad game by trying to hurt an opponent. The NoDak hit, by contrast, looks a lot more like a regular check. No doubt that it was illegal since he left his feet and made contact to the head and probably worthy of five due to proximity to the boards. But I can't get worked up about it.
No doubt I would be calling for Frattin's execution if he'd hit a Cornell guy like that.
What more do you need to say than that, it's a terrible, illegal check that should never be allowed. You'd also probably think differently if you got hit like that.
I just don't get all that worked up about charging or this kind of contact to the head (guy is looking down, check goes high). It's illegal, give him a penalty, that's enough for me.
Quote from: tretiakhttp://www.areavoices.com/undhockey/?blog=73641
As you can see from the stills, Frattin didn't leave his feet to make the hit. It was still definitely a charging/contact to the head penalty.
Come on, those stills are terrible. The skates are blurred and the picture is from a top angle. From that angle you can't tell if his skates are touching the ice. View the video, he certainly had a jumping motion, off the ice and back down. Stop the video at 11 seconds and look.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKI don't think I'm just looking through Carnelian colored glasses but the Burgdoerfer hit was much worse. He intentionally pushes Davenport backwards into the boards. It was alos the last second of the game, leading me to think that he was venting frustration at the end of a bad game by trying to hurt an opponent. The NoDak hit, by contrast, looks a lot more like a regular check. No doubt that it was illegal since he left his feet and made contact to the head and probably worthy of five due to proximity to the boards. But I can't get worked up about it.
No doubt I would be calling for Frattin's execution if he'd hit a Cornell guy like that.
What more do you need to say than that, it's a terrible, illegal check that should never be allowed. You'd also probably think differently if you got hit like that.
I just don't get all that worked up about charging or this kind of contact to the head (guy is looking down, check goes high). It's illegal, give him a penalty, that's enough for me.
Have you ever had or seen someone recover from a concussion? All sports are trying to stop head hits, as they are accumulative over a players lifetime, and can lead to serious neurological problems. The NHL just made a new midseason rule on blindside hits to the head and are actually trying to implement it during this season.
As I've said, there is no room for that type of play. It can cause serious permanent damage. The player never came back, either.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: amerks127Quote from: sockralexI wouldn't be happy if I saw one of our guys get rattled next to the glass like that.
People were saying similar things about an RPI hit on one of the Cornell player's @ RPI last year. There was a couple of seconds left in the game and our player was skating with the puck heading towards the back of the net when the RPI player checked him and sent him into the boards. It looked dirty to me. A lot of RPI people were saying he was off balance and already close to the boards so it looked worse than it was and shouldn't have been a DQ. Either way, our guy was injured and the RPI player got a game DQ.
Clearly my memory is fuzzy on who did the hitting and who got hurt, but I do remember it resulting in a similar argument about how much responsibility should be on the person who got hit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PnJ-KfBIkw
Burgdoerfer hit Taylor Davenport. Gotta love the team reaction.
I don't think I'm just looking through Carnelian colored glasses but the Burgdoerfer hit was much worse. He intentionally pushes Davenport backwards into the boards. It was alos the last second of the game, leading me to think that he was venting frustration at the end of a bad game by trying to hurt an opponent. The NoDak hit, by contrast, looks a lot more like a regular check. No doubt that it was illegal since he left his feet and made contact to the head and probably worthy of five due to proximity to the boards. But I can't get worked up about it.
No doubt I would be calling for Frattin's execution if he'd hit a Cornell guy like that.
What more do you need to say than that, it's a terrible, illegal check that should never be allowed. You'd also probably think differently if you got hit like that.
I agree with you Jim. If someone hit me like that I would be lucky if I didn't expire. I too wonder how many on this board would like to be hit like that.
Quote from: KeithKI just don't get all that worked up about charging or this kind of contact to the head (guy is looking down, check goes high). It's illegal, give him a penalty, that's enough for me.
I agree: it was a hit from the front. If he had his head about him and weren't staring at his skates, he would have seen the check coming. Start going down the road of handing out DQ's for hard hits from the front and the game suddenly becomes a lot less physical.
Quote from: martyI agree with you Jim. If someone hit me like that I would be lucky if I didn't expire. I too wonder how many on this board would like to be hit like that.
I weigh 150 lbs, don't work out in the weight room, haven't been playing since I was in diapers (ed: though with any luck I *will* be playing until I'm in diapers), and don't practice 5 hours a day: your argument is a straw man.
A better point of argument is whether the punishment for a hit should depend on how observant the receiving player is, or on how much physical damage the hit does. I say "no" to both of those, too, but at least it could make for a legitimate discussion.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: martyI agree with you Jim. If someone hit me like that I would be lucky if I didn't expire. I too wonder how many on this board would like to be hit like that.
I weigh 150 lbs, don't work out in the weight room, haven't been playing since I was in diapers (ed: though with any luck I *will* be playing until I'm in diapers), and don't practice 5 hours a day: your argument is a straw man.
A better point of argument is whether the punishment for a hit should depend on how observant the receiving player is, or on how much physical damage the hit does. I say "no" to both of those, too, but at least it could make for a legitimate discussion.
It has nothing to do with how observant the receiving player is, it's an illegal hit to the head, period. Hits to the head are illegal. This was a particularly vicious one as he left his feet and drove him into the boards. If you don't think this deserves a suspension, then I don't want you on my team, nor on my opponents team. As I said sports in general are trying to stop headhunters because of the terrible damage they can cause. This was clearly one of those.
The terrible part of he game was that Minny couldn't score and he came back to score for UND. Minny was left with 5 D'men and had another, due to a hit, play sparingly.
Quote from: Jim HylaThe terrible part of he game was that Minny couldn't score and he came back to score for UND. Minny was left with 5 D'men and had another, due to a hit, play sparingly.
Even if Frettin had delivered an overhand two-handed slash to Wehr's head as if the stick were a battle axe and the blow nearly decapitated the maroon clad victim I would've been happy if Minnesota didn't score on the ensuing powerplay.
Though I would support a suspension in that case.
Quote from: Come on, those stills are terrible. The skates are blurred and the picture is from a top angle. From that angle you can't tell if his skates are touching the ice. View the video, he certainly had a jumping motion, off the ice and back down. Stop the video at 11 seconds and look.
I've paused it at several spots on the attached video. Pre-contact, Frettin's feet are still on the ice. Then there's contact. Then Frettin's feet leave the ice after contact has already been made. For those of you who didn't play in checking leagues, the force from a hard hit often propels both players off the ice. Also you can't discredit the stills and then base your argument on a similar resolution video.
Quote from: tretiakQuote from: Come on, those stills are terrible. The skates are blurred and the picture is from a top angle. From that angle you can't tell if his skates are touching the ice. View the video, he certainly had a jumping motion, off the ice and back down. Stop the video at 11 seconds and look.
I've paused it at several spots on the attached video. Pre-contact, Frettin's feet are still on the ice. Then there's contact. Then Frettin's feet leave the ice after contact has already been made. For those of you who didn't play in checking leagues, the force from a hard hit often propels both players off the ice. Also you can't discredit the stills and then base your argument on a similar resolution video.
I can believe that. So what is the letter of the rule? If the force of the hit causes propels the hitter off the ice is it by definition an illegal hit? Is it only leaving your feet beforehand? Intent to do so?
I'm asking about the letter here, not the squishy "referees shouldn't enforce that" part (which I sometimes agree with).
Quote from: KeithKI can believe that. So what is the letter of the rule? If the force of the hit causes propels the hitter off the ice is it by definition an illegal hit? Is it only leaving your feet beforehand? Intent to do so?
I'm asking about the letter here, not the squishy "referees shouldn't enforce that" part (which I sometimes agree with).
Quote from: 2008-10 NCAA MEN'S AND WOMEN'S ICE HOCKEY RULES AND INTERPRETATIONSBoarding
SECTION 3. A player shall not body check, cross-check, elbow, charge or
trip an opponent from the front or side in such a manner that causes the
opponent to be thrown violently into the boards (see 6-23).
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee, based on degree
of violence of the impact with the boards.
Charging
SECTION 6. a. A player shall not skate more than two steps or jump into or
charge an opponent. Charging is the action of a player, who as a result
of distance traveled, checks an opponent violently in any manner from
the front or side.
Note: A fair body check is one in which a player checks an opponent who is in
possession of the puck, by using the hip or body from the front or diagonally
from the front or straight from the side.
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee.
Contact to the Head
SECTION 8. A player shall not make contact with an opposing player's
head or neck area in any manner.
PENALTY—Minor or major or disqualification at the discretion of the
referee. Contact to the head shall be assessed in front of the
infraction (i.e., contact to the head – elbow).
Note: The rules committee instructs officials to use a zero tolerance policy in
this area.
Hitting After the Whistle
SECTION 22. A player shall not make physical contact with an opponent,
including the goalkeeper (see 6-6-b), anywhere on the ice after the whistle
has blown if, in the opinion of a referee, the player had sufficient time after
the whistle to avoid such contact.
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee.
Note: Officials are encouraged to pay particular attention to a player who
instigates or escalates an incident after play is stopped.
Hitting From Behind
SECTION 23. a. A player shall not push, charge, cross-check or body check
an opponent from behind in open ice.
PENALTY—Minor or major at the discretion of the referee.
b. Hitting from behind into the side boards, end boards or goal cage is a
flagrant violation.
RULE 6 / PLAYING RULES HR-73
PENALTY—Major and game misconduct or disqualification at the
discretion of the referee.
Note: The committee reminds coaches and players that the responsibility
remains with the player approaching an opponent along the boards in this
rule. While players turning to draw penalties are a concern, the positive
change in behavior the committee observed outweighs this issue. Any penalty
in relation to this rule along the boards or into the goal cage must be a major
penalty and a game misconduct or disqualification.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: tretiakQuote from: Come on, those stills are terrible. The skates are blurred and the picture is from a top angle. From that angle you can't tell if his skates are touching the ice. View the video, he certainly had a jumping motion, off the ice and back down. Stop the video at 11 seconds and look.
I've paused it at several spots on the attached video. Pre-contact, Frettin's feet are still on the ice. Then there's contact. Then Frettin's feet leave the ice after contact has already been made. For those of you who didn't play in checking leagues, the force from a hard hit often propels both players off the ice. Also you can't discredit the stills and then base your argument on a similar resolution video.
I can believe that. So what is the letter of the rule? If the force of the hit causes propels the hitter off the ice is it by definition an illegal hit? Is it only leaving your feet beforehand? Intent to do so?
I'm asking about the letter here, not the squishy "referees shouldn't enforce that" part (which I sometimes agree with).
As I said before, it's an illegal hit because he hit his head. It's dangerous and isn't allowed. One player had his feet jump off the ice, the other players feet left the ice because he was hit high and flattened. You can try and make it OK as much as you like, but the powers to be don't agree, and I'm glad they don't. Remind me not to play in your league; I'd like to leave with my mental capacity intact. Oh, maybe that's the problem.::smashfreak::
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: tretiakQuote from: Come on, those stills are terrible. The skates are blurred and the picture is from a top angle. From that angle you can't tell if his skates are touching the ice. View the video, he certainly had a jumping motion, off the ice and back down. Stop the video at 11 seconds and look.
I've paused it at several spots on the attached video. Pre-contact, Frettin's feet are still on the ice. Then there's contact. Then Frettin's feet leave the ice after contact has already been made. For those of you who didn't play in checking leagues, the force from a hard hit often propels both players off the ice. Also you can't discredit the stills and then base your argument on a similar resolution video.
I can believe that. So what is the letter of the rule? If the force of the hit causes propels the hitter off the ice is it by definition an illegal hit? Is it only leaving your feet beforehand? Intent to do so?
I'm asking about the letter here, not the squishy "referees shouldn't enforce that" part (which I sometimes agree with).
As I said before, it's an illegal hit because he hit his head. It's dangerous and isn't allowed. One player had his feet jump off the ice, the other players feet left the ice because he was hit high and flattened. You can try and make it OK as much as you like, but the powers to be don't agree, and I'm glad they don't. Remind me not to play in your league; I'd like to leave with my mental capacity intact. Oh, maybe that's the problem.::smashfreak::
For once, I completely agree with Jim. Hits to the head need to be eliminated from the game of Hockey. No one deserves to be permanently harmed from playing hockey, and head injuries are a heartless bitch.
Quote from: Jim HylaThis was clearly one of those.
Actually, that's not at all clear to me from the videos or the stills. There was certainly contact to the head, but it's not clear that it was intentional ("head-hunting" ). Wehrs put his head down at the last second, presumably to dick around with the puck. What is Frettin supposed to do? Veer off a good check because Wehrs decided to cushion the blow to his body with his head? He should have and could have seen Frettin coming, but instead put his own head in a dangerous place. Sorry, but I have very little sympathy for Wehrs in this case (beyond the usual sympathy I would have for someone who was hurt, no matter what the cause). I would have a very different opinion were it hitting from behind, but it wasn't.
And FWIW I play non-checking hockey. Body checks are
not allowed. This is not the case in men's college hockey: part of the game is keeping your head up and looking for checks.
Quote from: Hits to the head need to be eliminated from the game of Hockey. No one deserves to be permanently harmed from playing hockey, and head injuries are a heartless bitch.
No one here has tried to refute the fact that contact to the head is illegal. I'm not arguing that the hit wasn't dirty. It was both a hit to the head and a charge because Frettin took multiple strides before delivering a hit. Jim tried to argue that it was a dirty hit because Frettin left his feet. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, he's now changing his argument and using straw-man arguments to make his point.
KeithK, as pointed out in the rules and interpretations, the charging penalty only occurs if the player leaves his feet before the hit. Once contact is made, then there can't be a charging penalty; ie: there is no penalty if a player is knocked into the air as a result of a hit.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: KeithKQuote from: tretiakQuote from: Come on, those stills are terrible. The skates are blurred and the picture is from a top angle. From that angle you can't tell if his skates are touching the ice. View the video, he certainly had a jumping motion, off the ice and back down. Stop the video at 11 seconds and look.
I've paused it at several spots on the attached video. Pre-contact, Frettin's feet are still on the ice. Then there's contact. Then Frettin's feet leave the ice after contact has already been made. For those of you who didn't play in checking leagues, the force from a hard hit often propels both players off the ice. Also you can't discredit the stills and then base your argument on a similar resolution video.
I can believe that. So what is the letter of the rule? If the force of the hit causes propels the hitter off the ice is it by definition an illegal hit? Is it only leaving your feet beforehand? Intent to do so?
I'm asking about the letter here, not the squishy "referees shouldn't enforce that" part (which I sometimes agree with).
As I said before, it's an illegal hit because he hit his head. It's dangerous and isn't allowed. One player had his feet jump off the ice, the other players feet left the ice because he was hit high and flattened. You can try and make it OK as much as you like, but the powers to be don't agree, and I'm glad they don't. Remind me not to play in your league; I'd like to leave with my mental capacity intact. Oh, maybe that's the problem.::smashfreak::
Jim, I was just inquiring into the leaving his feet part, the charge part. I've never said the check was not illegal. We just disagree on the subjective part of how dirty/especially dangerous the hit was, which plays into the quesiton of outrage and additional discipline.
Quote from: David HardingCharging
SECTION 6. a. A player shall not skate more than two steps or jump into or
charge an opponent. Charging is the action of a player, who as a result
of distance traveled, checks an opponent violently in any manner from
the front or side.
Note: A fair body check is one in which a player checks an opponent who is in
possession of the puck, by using the hip or body from the front or diagonally
from the front or straight from the side.
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee.
This is an odd way to state the rule. In my mind a body check is by definition violent. According to the letter of the rule here you could call charging on virtually every hit that occurs in every game.
Obviously I'm not going to convince some of the above, I'm just glad the WCHA decided to do something about it. I'm also glad that Kyle plays in a non-checking league; I'd hate to have him lose some mental function. After all, I need as many disagreements as possible to have a good discussion.::bolt::
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: David HardingCharging
SECTION 6. a. A player shall not skate more than two steps or jump into or
charge an opponent. Charging is the action of a player, who as a result
of distance traveled, checks an opponent violently in any manner from
the front or side.
Note: A fair body check is one in which a player checks an opponent who is in
possession of the puck, by using the hip or body from the front or diagonally
from the front or straight from the side.
PENALTY—Minor or major at discretion of the referee.
This is an odd way to state the rule. In my mind a body check is by definition violent. According to the letter of the rule here you could call charging on virtually every hit that occurs in every game.
You are neglecting the "as a result of distance traveled" part. Essentially they are saying if you carry a ton of speed in to a hit and hit the person violently, then it is charging. Notice it also says "jump into" not jump before hitting the player. I think the UND player violated the spirit of the charging rule, and the contact to the head made it worse. I hate this whole tough guy "keep your head up" phenomenon. Sometimes in hockey you actually have to look at the puck to figure out where it is, it doesn't make you any dumber or worse as a hockey player. The UND player could've lowered his shoulder and delivered a hit to the chest instead of launching off of the ice into the guys head. Even that probably would have ended up as a charge or a board with the speed he came in to the hit with and the fact that the MN player was a couple feet off the boards and was going to fly in to them violently.
Quote from: Jacob '06The UND player could've lowered his shoulder and delivered a hit to the chest instead of launching off of the ice into the guys head.
I agree with Jacob (and by implication, disagree with tretiak) that this is what Frettin did. The stills show that he was still on the ice before contact, but they also show him (IMO) crouching into position and releasing upwards, to explode through Wehrs on contact. He didn't leave the ice incidentally to contact, he left the ice in order to finish the check hard.
I'm not calling for a criminal indictment either, and it is arguable that the hit to the head was accidental, but I'm not the person who thinks it is a good argument. A major and ejection were appropriate. Not sure about a suspension. For that I'd want to look to precedent.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: Jacob '06The UND player could've lowered his shoulder and delivered a hit to the chest instead of launching off of the ice into the guys head.
I agree with Jacob (and by implication, disagree with tretiak) that this is what Frettin did. The stills show that he was still on the ice before contact, but they also show him (IMO) crouching into position and releasing upwards, to explode through Wehrs on contact. He didn't leave the ice incidentally to contact, he left the ice in order to finish the check hard.
I'm not calling for a criminal indictment either, and it is arguable that the hit to the head was accidental, but I'm not the person who thinks it is a good argument. A major and ejection were appropriate. Not sure about a suspension. For that I'd want to look to precedent.
I suspect he got the suspension because he wasn't ejected.
With UMD loss tonight, 1-1 should get us in (at least I haven't found a way it doesn't). Still plenty of ways to not make the NCAA's if 0-2 and some at 0-1-1.
Let's Go Red.
Quote from: Kyle RoseQuote from: Jim HylaThis was clearly one of those.
Actually, that's not at all clear to me from the videos or the stills. There was certainly contact to the head, but it's not clear that it was intentional ("head-hunting" ). Wehrs put his head down at the last second, presumably to dick around with the puck. What is Frettin supposed to do? Veer off a good check because Wehrs decided to cushion the blow to his body with his head? He should have and could have seen Frettin coming, but instead put his own head in a dangerous place. Sorry, but I have very little sympathy for Wehrs in this case (beyond the usual sympathy I would have for someone who was hurt, no matter what the cause). I would have a very different opinion were it hitting from behind, but it wasn't.
And FWIW I play non-checking hockey. Body checks are not allowed. This is not the case in men's college hockey: part of the game is keeping your head up and looking for checks.
Kind of off-topic (although I suppose this whole conversation is off-topic), but having been flattened several times in my non-checking hockey league this season, I can tell you that you should keep your head up whether or not body-checking is legal.
Michigan or Maine could take a tournament slot and knock out a bubble PWR team by winning their league, although a Maine win tomorrow night could raise their PWR enough to put them in even without the automatic bid. Cornell sitting at #8 at 11:28pm EDT.
I've been playing a bit since I've been Back at the hotel. The lowest I've been able to get us so far is 11. Even if both Maine and Michigan win tomorrow, along with us losing to Union, 11 should get us in since the WCHA winner will be a ranked team.
I didn't spend very much time on it at all, but the following might save someone a minute or two. All the higher seeds winning would result in Cornell winding up 7th.
Definitely rooting for a Cornell win tomorrow, but getting 3 ECAC teams into the NCAA's should we lose is not decent consolation. I guess there's a silver lining in either outcome tomorrow. Still, LET'S GO RED!
Quote from: RedARDefinitely rooting for a Cornell win tomorrow, but getting 3 ECAC teams into the NCAA's should we lose is not decent consolation. I guess there's a silver lining in either outcome tomorrow. Still, LET'S GO RED!
Exactly. Just win.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: RedARDefinitely rooting for a Cornell win tomorrow, but getting 3 ECAC teams into the NCAA's should we lose is not decent consolation. I guess there's a silver lining in either outcome tomorrow. Still, LET'S GO RED!
Exactly. Just win.
This is why I love our fans! :-)
Quote from: andyw2100I didn't spend very much time on it at all, but the following might save someone a minute or two. All the higher seeds winning would result in Cornell winding up 7th.
And if they go straight 1-8, 2-7, etc. that means we go to Fort Wayne to play in Miami's bracket. Because as close as I can figure, Miami is locked in at #2, and if we win, we're 7, no matter what else happens.
So unless they dick around with the brackets to boost attendance, get ready to head west again.
So far it looks like a win puts us at 7 and a loss puts us at 10 or 11. Haven't run all the cases (not working graveyard shift like I was last year at this time) but I'm getting comfortable that with a win we'll be a #2 seed and with a loss we'll be a #3.
It also looks like Yale is in. They show up between 8 and 11 in everything I've run.
The results of the WCHA games seem to have no effect at all on the seedings of ECAC teams.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: andyw2100I didn't spend very much time on it at all, but the following might save someone a minute or two. All the higher seeds winning would result in Cornell winding up 7th.
And if they go straight 1-8, 2-7, etc. that means we go to Fort Wayne to play in Miami's bracket. Because as close as I can figure, Miami is locked in at #2, and if we win, we're 7, no matter what else happens.
So unless they dick around with the brackets to boost attendance, get ready to head west again.
Not a bad unless.
The following puts us 12th and as the last at large. That's as low as I've been able to get us to drop. So it looks like we're in for sure.
If you switch the winner of either HEA or WCHA it doesn't change the result.
Miami winning, RIT winning, or Michigan winning bumps us up to 10 or 11.
# Hockey East Championship game: Maine defeats Boston College.
# ECAC Championship game: Union defeats Cornell.
# ECAC Consolation game: Brown defeats St. Lawrence.
# Atlantic Hockey Championship game: Sacred Heart defeats RIT.
# CCHA Championship game: Northern Michigan defeats Michigan.
# CCHA Consolation game: Ferris State defeats Miami.
# WCHA Championship game: North Dakota defeats St. Cloud State.
# WCHA Consolation game: Denver defeats Wisconsin.
If we win I can't get us anywhere but 7th.
It looks like the top 6 are fixed:
1 Denver
2 Miami
3,4,5,6 - NoDak, St. Cloud, BC, and Wisconsin in some order.
Now if we win, we win the RPI comparison with Bemidji and Yale, and the TUC comparison with NMU, UVM, and UNH, so we finish 7th.
If we lose, UVM, NMU, and UNH all win the TUC comparison, Bemidji and Yale win on RPI, and we drop to 10th or 11th. 10th if Miami beats Ferris, 11th if Ferris beats Miami, depending on how Ferris does.
That's it. Those are the options.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82It looks like the top 6 are fixed:
1 Denver
2 Miami
3,4,5,6 - NoDak, St. Cloud, BC, and Wisconsin in some order.
Now if we win, we win the RPI comparison with Bemidji and Yale, and the TUC comparison with NMU, UVM, and UNH, so we finish 7th.
If we lose, UVM, NMU, and UNH all win the TUC comparison, Bemidji and Yale win on RPI, and we drop to 10th or 11th. 10th if Miami beats Ferris, 11th if Ferris beats Miami, depending on how Ferris does.
That's it. Those are the options.
Edit: Other than the one case where we drop to 12th :-)
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82It looks like the top 6 are fixed:
1 Denver
2 Miami
3,4,5,6 - NoDak, St. Cloud, BC, and Wisconsin in some order.
Now if we win, we win the RPI comparison with Bemidji and Yale, and the TUC comparison with NMU, UVM, and UNH, so we finish 7th.
If we lose, UVM, NMU, and UNH all win the TUC comparison, Bemidji and Yale win on RPI, and we drop to 10th or 11th. 10th if Miami beats Ferris, 11th if Ferris beats Miami, depending on how Ferris does.
That's it. Those are the options.
It least we don't have to watch the scoreboard, just win.
oops. :)
If we win, then it looks like we are #7. The #1-2 seeds are between Denver and Miami which will come down to their TUC and is very close. If Miami does better than Denver today it will get the overall #1 seed (i.e., Denver loss with Miami win or tie or Denver tie and Miami win). If Miami takes the #1 seed, then Denver as the number #2 seed would likely be in Albany with us as the #7. If Denver gets the overall #1, then it looks like we are headed west unless they dick around with the brackets to boost attendance.
Quote from: dsk1If we win, then it looks like we are #7. The #1-2 seeds are between Denver and Miami which will come down to their TUC and is very close. If Miami does better than Denver today it will get the overall #1 seed (i.e., Denver loss with Miami win or tie or Denver tie and Miami win). If Miami takes the #1 seed, then Denver as the number #2 seed would likely be in Albany with us as the #7. If Denver gets the overall #1, then it looks like we are headed west unless they dick around with the brackets to boost attendance.
I like how my comment is getting repeated.
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: dsk1If we win, then it looks like we are #7. The #1-2 seeds are between Denver and Miami which will come down to their TUC and is very close. If Miami does better than Denver today it will get the overall #1 seed (i.e., Denver loss with Miami win or tie or Denver tie and Miami win). If Miami takes the #1 seed, then Denver as the number #2 seed would likely be in Albany with us as the #7. If Denver gets the overall #1, then it looks like we are headed west unless they dick around with the brackets to boost attendance.
I like how my comment is getting repeated.
I like how my comment is getting repeated.
....and when was the last time they dicked around the brackets to boost attendance...?
Quote from: Robin....and when was the last time they dicked around the brackets to boost attendance...?
They usually dick around with the brackets just to screw Cornell.
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: Robin....and when was the last time they dicked around the brackets to boost attendance...?
They usually dick around with the brackets just to screw Cornell.
One consolation is that this year they can't
Screw BU!
Why wouldn't Denver get sent to Minnesota vs Albany?
Quote from: RobinWhy wouldn't Denver get sent to Minnesota vs Albany?
A flight is a flight. Distance matters a lot less if you have to fly anyway. Now whether Denver fans would drive to Minnesota or whether Minnesota locals would root for a WCHA team is a different question.
I also think a Winsconsin win over Denver locks them in for a #1 seed (#3 overall) and they would likely get sent to Minnesota since it is pretty close for them. . .Denver will be traveling pretty far either way.
The last post over simplified the analysis a little, but I think Denver gets sent east (most likely Albany). If BC and St. Cloud both win, I think 3-6 are Wis, St. Cloud, BC, ND in which case St. Cloud would likely stay in Minnesota with Wisconsin and Denver going to Albany and Worcester. If BC and ND win, I think 3-6 are Wis, BC, ND, St. Cloud in which case BC would get Worcester, Wisconsin would go to Minnesota (with St. Cloud as the #6) and Denver to Albany. If BC loses, Wis. is #3 and BC is #6 with St. Cloud and ND #4 & #5 in which case St. Cloud and ND would be in Minnesota, Wisconsin would go to Worcester (with BC at the #6) and Denver would get sent to Albany.
The possibilities (if I've got them right):
Cornell wins - we are #7 and Denver is #2.
Union wins and at least one of Mich. and RIT wins - Cornell is #10 and Bemidji #7.
Union, NMU and SH win - Cornell is #11.
Quote from: jkahnThe possibilities (if I've got them right):
Cornell wins - we are #7 and Denver is #2.
Union wins and at least one of Mich. and RIT wins - Cornell is #10 and Bemidji #7.
Union, NMU and SH win - Cornell is #11.
That's what I'm getting also.
If Michigan holds on, our regional, if they go by the numbers, could be:
2 Denver, 7 Cornell, 10 No. Mich, 15 RIT
Quote from: jkahnIf Michigan holds on, our regional, if they go by the numbers, could be:
2 Denver, 7 Cornell, 10 No. Mich, 15 RIT
Pretty sweet bracket, especially if Denver continues to struggle.
Michigan finished off Northern 2-1. Looks like it will be Denver-RIT and Cornell-Northern in Albany next weekend.
3-14, 6-11 looks like Wisc. - Vermont, St. Cloud - UNH, so they could put them in Albany
Quote from: ansky629Michigan finished off Northern 2-1. Looks like it will be Denver-RIT and Cornell-Northern in Albany next weekend.
I still am not sure whether it'll be Albany or St. Paul. Hopefully having RIT and Cornell there will make the attendance issue push them over the edge to put it in Albany.
Its amazing that there's not one intra-conference issue in the raw 1-16, 2-15, etc matchups this year.
Who are the hosts this year? Trying to run through it myself.
Quote from: DeltaOne81Its amazing that there's not one intra-conference issue in the raw 1-16, 2-15, etc matchups this year.
Who are the hosts this year? Trying to run through it myself.
Hosts are all out: Minn., Notre Dame, RPI, Holy Cross
Quote from: DeltaOne81Who are the hosts this year? Trying to run through it myself.
Albany: RPI
Fort Wayne: Notre Dame
Worcester: Holy Cross
St. Paul: Minnesota
Wow, talk about simple-as-can-be.
The straight-up result would put us in Minnesota. The question is will the committee combine the flight-is-a-flight concept with attendance and put us in Albany. We'll see.
Miami - UAH, Bemidji - Yale
Denver - RIT, Cornell - No. Mich.
Wisc. - Vermont, SCS - UNH
BC - Alaska, No. Dak. - Michigan
Yeah, its either UNH and Vermont in albany, or Cornell and RIT. Who knows who wins out for attendance in that one.
Quote from: Jacob '06Yeah, its either UNH and Vermont in albany, or Cornell and RIT. Who knows who wins out for attendance in that one.
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure who wins out for attendance in St. Paul between Wisconsin/St.Cloud and Denver/N.Michigan (the other teams in those pods).
USCHO's Jayson Moy agrees:
http://www.uscho.com/blogs/bracketology
Adam thinks they'll send us to Albany. The brackets look to be a no-brainer this year though.
http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2010/03/20_bracket.php
In case you were not aware: NCAA Selection Show: Today, 11:30 AM. ESPN2