Post Game!

Jim Hyla · January 28, 2007, 05:03:39 PM

[quote Townie]I think Ben's doing an adequate job, but I'm not especially impressed. I'd rate him a B-. He's made some nice saves and let in some soft goals. I still find myself holding my breath!

Frankly, I believe Ben benefitted from a tighter defense last night, especially from the forwards. The team played more physically and sounder overall hockey, missing on some prime opportunities. Easier for a goalie to look good when the team is playing well.[/Q]

Agree with this. The team has gone back to a lot more grinding in the corners and wearing them down. They still do more freelance skating to get offensive ops than we've done in the past. However, I like the fact that if it's not there, they are not adverse to playing the physical. Our free skating offensive players are too young to make that our only offense.

[Q]ps: the 5 minute misconduct was bogus! I just saw the replay, and it looked as weak as when I saw it in Lynah.[/quote]

I disagree, it's a tough judgement call. Seeing it in replay it didn't look as harmful as in person, but a crosscheck from behind, into the boards, is almost always going to be called these days. Basically it was an unrestrained move on our point. We have to be able to walk away and just be happy keeping the man in check, especially at that point in the game.

cth95 · January 28, 2007, 06:01:38 PM

[quote Townie]

Burton shot from an extreme angle in the left circle. Scrivens' positioning was poor. His pads were open, as though he was trying to get a jump on moving across the crease to his right. Burton shot instead, and hit Ben's wide open 5-hole, deflecting off the inside of his right pad/skate. Soft goal.

I think Ben's doing an adequate job, but I'm not especially impressed. I'd rate him a B-. He's made some nice saves and let in some soft goals. I still find myself holding my breath!

Frankly, I believe Ben benefitted from a tighter defense last night, especially from the forwards. The team played more physically and sounder overall hockey, missing on some prime opportunities. Easier for a goalie to look good when the team is playing well.[/quote]

I think you hit Ben's performance right on the head- both tonight and overall. There were only 3 or 4 shots allowed for the whole 21 minutes of PK, and I think all of them were on that last, 5-minute kill. The defense was very impressive.

As a goalie, I have gotten burned just like he did, anticipating a pass and leaving my legs open to get a jump moving across the crease. Unfortunately, this leaves a pretty wide target if you get fooled and get a shot instead.

[quote Townie] ps: the 5 minute misconduct was bogus! I just saw the replay, and it looked as weak as when I saw it in Lynah.[/quote]

The TWCNY announcers were very surprised it wasn't a 2-min penalty, saying that both players were battling. I was actually thinking 5 before it was announced, though, because the Colgate player went face-first into the boards.

duffs4 · January 28, 2007, 06:08:10 PM

[quote cth95]ps: the 5 minute misconduct was bogus! I just saw the replay, and it looked as weak as when I saw it in Lynah.[/quote]

+1. I thought the game was well called up to that point. That would have been a perfect situation for a dive and a boarding call. Give that guy an oscar he deserved it.

redheadfanatic · January 28, 2007, 06:13:55 PM

exactly how I felt, both at the game last night, and watching it more than once today. I do think it could have warranted a penalty, but in no way did I see a 5 minute, especially without some sort of penalty for the 'Gate player.

cth95 · January 28, 2007, 06:15:32 PM

[quote duffs4][quote cth95]ps: the 5 minute misconduct was bogus! I just saw the replay, and it looked as weak as when I saw it in Lynah.[/quote]

+1. I thought the game was well called up to that point. That would have been a perfect situation for a dive and a boarding call. Give that guy an oscar he deserved it.[/quote]

That's actually Townie's quote. I said I wasn't surprised it was a 5-min major even if it was the wrong call, because the Colgate player was driven face first into the boards. I even was thinking 5 before it was official and the announcers were saying it would only be 2-min.

duffs4 · January 28, 2007, 06:49:39 PM

I was suprised, as were the announcers on the telecast. It was soft live and even softer on the broadcast. Was it a disqulification or misconduct? Will we see Krantz Friday??

Robb · January 28, 2007, 06:56:54 PM

Isn't hitting from behind an automatic major these days? The ref definitely made the hitting from behind signal, and as soon as he does that, it's 5 (I think).

cth95 · January 28, 2007, 06:59:08 PM

It was a misconduct, so Krantz should be able to play. Like I said above, the hit was soft, but it was from behind. It might not have been deserved, but I wasn't surprised with the 5-min call.

Dpperk29 · January 28, 2007, 07:24:38 PM

from watching it on TV last night, my first reaction was that it should be a Major. it looked like Krantz stopped trying to play the puck and simply decided to bury Bogdanich. 98% of the time when there is a check from behnd along the boards like that you will see a major. The other 2% of the time the player pops right back up and you see a boarding minor. but when it is along the boards, I am fairly certain checking from behind is an automatic major.

Tom Lento · January 28, 2007, 07:31:05 PM

[quote Robb]Isn't hitting from behind an automatic major these days? The ref definitely made the hitting from behind signal, and as soon as he does that, it's 5 (I think).[/quote]

Sort of. It's possible to get hitting from behind as a minor penalty, but according to the rulebook hitting from behind into the side boards or end boards is a flagrant violation and results in a major penalty.

I've seen some pretty clear boarding incidents where the hit was from behind and the official (appropriately, IMO) called a boarding minor instead of a major for hitting from behind, so the ref has some leeway in deciding whether or not it should be a five minute major. If he decides it's a clear case of hitting from behind into the boards then it'll be a major penalty, which may be what happened in this case.

Cactus12 · January 28, 2007, 08:40:39 PM

Agreed. I watched the game again on tws26 today. There was barely contact. Great acting though... I especially liked the part where he came out for his next shift 30 seconds later.

Cactus12 · January 28, 2007, 08:55:57 PM

Bogdanich still had the puck...

My opinion- great acting (the "burying" contact was very, very minimal at most), but if the ref. feels so compelled to use his whistle- boarding(2min) is the better call.

All said and done, the resultant penalty kill is probably good for team momentum going into next weekend.

Robb · January 28, 2007, 08:57:08 PM

[quote Cactus12]Agreed. I watched the game again on tws26 today. There was barely contact. Great acting though... I especially liked the part where he came out for his next shift 30 seconds later.[/quote]
That's a fairly dangerous line of thinking - no blood, no foul? If an action is illegal, it's illegal, period, and not dependent on the result of the play.

billhoward · January 28, 2007, 09:52:55 PM

It was a 2-minute shove from behind, not a 5-minute major. If you believed the refs were in debt to a bookie who had money on Colgate, it would have been understandable. Since that's not the case, the next best explanation is: It was a bad call by referees who wanted to keep the game safe ... and over-reacted.

ajec1 · January 28, 2007, 10:15:20 PM

[quote Robb][quote Cactus12]Agreed. I watched the game again on tws26 today. There was barely contact. Great acting though... I especially liked the part where he came out for his next shift 30 seconds later.[/quote]
That's a fairly dangerous line of thinking - no blood, no foul? If an action is illegal, it's illegal, period, and not dependent on the result of the play.[/quote]

I agree. I haven't seen the play (and couldn't see it at all from Section A, but, personally, I think any back check should result in a five minute major. Checking from behind is extremely dangerous. I don't know if it's the same around here, but in high school hockey the players wear bright orange stop signs to prevent back checking (due to the number of players paralyzed and otherwise seriously hurt by unnecessary back checks). Of course, if you do choose to check from behind, you are suspended and would have to be lucky (or really good) to see the ice again that season.