Majors for piddly shit

[Greenberg \'97]

[Q]Robb Wrote:

 What exactly do you think you mean by "gamer" and "got the gate?"  For the umpteenth time this season, the two penalties are called:

Game Misconduct: you get 10 min in penalties added to your stats and cannot return to the current game.

Game Disqualification: you get 10 minutes added to your stats, cannot return to the current game, and are suspended for the next game*

Both of these penalties have the word "game" in them, so what is a "gamer?"  In both cases, you "get the gate" from the current game.  Totally useless and misleading terms.

*for your second DQ of the season, you're suspended for the next two games, 3 game suspension for the 3rd DQ, etc.

I'm positive that I heard Moulson's penalty read over the Gutterson PA as a misconduct, that's what the UVM broadcasters reported, so I believe that Moulson will play tonight.[/q]

My bad... didn't realize that game misconduct and game DQ were two different penalties.

In any event, you answered my question.

[Molly]

It seems like it was a DQ--Moulson's not playing tonight.
(from Dartmouth audio feed)

[ACM]

"Game misconduct" and "game disqualification" are two different penalties.

I distinctly heard the Moulson penalty announced as as "game disqualification" over the radio last night. Yet it was apparently recorded as a "game misconduct" on at least one web site.

The league, and the NCAA, have a communication problem they have to solve. The penalty called by the official is apparently not being adequately communicated to the arena and the college hockey community. I don't know whether the problem originates with the officials, the scorekeepers, the announcers, or whatever, but it's got to be corrected.

[billhoward]

"Game disqualification" needs to have a clearer name, such as "next-game disqualification." "Game DQ" by itself could be read to mean DQ for the current game or the next game. Clearly it's not clear or we'd not be having these questions pop up. You'll notice the game reports on USCHO.com or cornellbigred.com don't excactly go into detail.

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

 "Game disqualification" needs to have a clearer name, such as "next-game disqualification." "Game DQ" by itself could be read to mean DQ for the current game or the next game. Clearly it's not clear or we'd not be having these questions pop up. You'll notice the game reports on USCHO.com or cornellbigred.com don't excactly go into detail. [/q]

There are two different names for two different penalties: game disqualification and game misconduct.  Is it too much to ask that those who cover the game for a living know the difference?

[Bio '04]

I noticed this in The Sun this morning:

[Q] The backbreaking call came against Moulson just over a minute into the period, when he received a game misconduct and a five-minute major for hitting from behind. [/Q]

Definitely lots of confusion across the board on the names of these two penalties.

http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/11/22/41a1765c6dc18

[Greenberg \'97]

[Q]Bio '04 Wrote:

 I noticed this in The Sun this morning:

[Q2] The backbreaking call came against Moulson just over a minute into the period, when he received a game misconduct and a five-minute major for hitting from behind. [/Q]
Definitely lots of confusion across the board on the names of these two penalties.[/q]

Certainly.  I covered the sport for a year and I didn't realize there were two penalties until just now.

From what I remember, though, I never actually heard a "game misconduct" penalty assessed.  So I always thought that "game disqualification" was the NCAA equivalent of an NHL game misconduct, and it also happened to have a one-game suspension attached to it.

I guess often enough, when a ref decides something is severe enough to warrant ejection, it's also enough for a suspension.  Although I'd like to see actual numbers -- which penalty is called more often, and how often does the box score correlate with whether a suspension was served.

[CowbellGuy]

Since the '99-2000 season (including exhibitions):

Game DQ (both teams): 26
Game DQ (Cornell): 13
Called accompanying majors for Fighting, Spearing, Leaving the Bench, Kneeing, Clipping, Punching*, Excessive Roughness, Hitting From Behind

Game Misconduct (both teams): 15
Game Misconduct (Cornell): 9
Called accompanying majors for Hitting From Behind, Checking From Behind, minors for Roughing*, or no accompanying penalty at all

* Interestingly Hornby got 5m for Punching + 10m DQ while Jamie Sifers got 2m Roughing + 10m Misconduct + 10m Game Misconduct

[Greenberg \'97]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 Since the '99-2000 season (including exhibitions):

Game DQ (both teams): 26
Game DQ (Cornell): 13
Called accompanying majors for Fighting, Spearing, Leaving the Bench, Kneeing, Clipping, Punching*, Excessive Roughness, Hitting From Behind

Game Misconduct (both teams): 15
Game Misconduct (Cornell): 9
Called accompanying majors for Hitting From Behind, Checking From Behind, minors for Roughing*, or no accompanying penalty at all

* Interestingly Hornby got 5m for Punching + 10m DQ while Jamie Sifers got 2m Roughing + 10m Misconduct + 10m Game Misconduct[/q]

But can you be sure that each time the box score shows a DQ, there was an associated suspension, and that each misconduct doesn't have one?

[CowbellGuy]

Yes, because that's what they mean.

[Jordan 04]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:



* Interestingly Hornby got 5m for Punching + 10m DQ while Jamie Sifers got 2m Roughing + 10m Misconduct + 10m Game Misconduct[/q]

Reputation?  Instigation?

[Greenberg \'97]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 Yes, because that's what they mean.[/q]

I understand that.  But if mistakes have been made on collegehockeystats.com, perhaps similar mistakes show up in the box scores.

Then again, if anyone has accurate stats, it's you, Age.

[CowbellGuy]

I'm sure if it's intended to be a DQ, the player won't be dressed in the next game. In this case, they announced a DQ at the game, so I'm not sure where the communication breakdown happened. CHS either just got it wrong it it was wrong on the official box score. At any rate, Schafer was very clear that it was a DQ since he waited for the refs to get off the ice to give them several pieces of his mind about it.

[calgARI '07]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 I'm sure if it's intended to be a DQ, the player won't be dressed in the next game. In this case, they announced a DQ at the game, so I'm not sure where the communication breakdown happened. CHS either just got it wrong it it was wrong on the official box score. At any rate, Schafer was very clear that it was a DQ since he waited for the refs to get off the ice to give them several pieces of his mind about it.[/q]

I saw him waiting for the refs too and I just couldn't believe it.  I thought it's consistency that Schafer and all the coaches wanted.  Well the Vermont player got thrown out for a less severe hit from behind earlier in the game, so how were the refs not going to assess a severe penalty to Moulson for the same thing?
I was thinking that maybe Schafer waiting to talk to the refs because there was a Vermont player in the crease on the first goal.

[KeithK]

[q]I saw him waiting for the refs too and I just couldn't believe it. I thought it's consistency that Schafer and all the coaches wanted. Well the Vermont player got thrown out for a less severe hit from behind earlier in the game, so how were the refs not going to assess a severe penalty to Moulson for the same thing? [/q]The Vermont player received only a game misconduct, not a disqualification.  Schafer could have been complaining that the refs decided to suspend one of his best players for a game while not giving the same penalty to Vermont.  That wouldn't be asking for differential treatment.  Of course, I have no idea what Schafer actually said.