I've read all the arguments here (and on the broadcast) about how MN started playing prevent defense, going into a shell, playing to protect, etc. I just watched the 3rd period back and then the 1st, and honestly can't spot the difference in strategy, other than the fact that UMass just started playing harder and winning more battles. But isn't that just hockey? MN can't be expected to dominate for the entirety of every game they played. There will be momentum shifts (in large part due to the terrible missed call on UMass's 2nd goal). It doesn't seem (to my limited knowledge of hockey strategy/positioning), that MN changed any part of their game plan.
I still see through the entirety of the 3rd period, MN forechecking 2 guys, having good offensive zone posession, creating scoring chances.
So I just feel dumb/ignorant/gaslit. Can someone who knows Xs and Os well tell me specifically the plays (with ESPN+ timestamps) where you see MN changing their strategy? Is our forecheck different? Neutral zone positioning? Defensive zone? Because if you're going to argue that they completely changed their game (and it's not just you, broadcasters were saying it too), please back it up. I want to learn.
Getting news from a source close to the situation the ncaa is pulling those refs from the regional, unbelievable
I have heard the same from a reliable source.
I think when people post saying "from my source", people raise their eyebrows a bit. I seen one too many times someone post "from my source"... and their source may be correct, but many times they were not. That's why I side with @kelly-red
Getting news from a source close to the situation the ncaa is pulling those refs from the regional, unbelievable
I call BS. Please don’t come on here the day after a huge disappointment and spout gossip you don’t back up. “source close to the situation” is who? Or in what capacity? You’re just being a shit stirrer.
It isn't gossip. It's true.
I was told a crew from the CCHA is taking over for the regional final.
Getting news from a source close to the situation the ncaa is pulling those refs from the regional, unbelievable
I have heard the same from a reliable source.
I think when people post saying "from my source", people raise their eyebrows a bit. I seen one too many times someone post "from my source"... and their source may be correct, but many times they were not. That's why I side with @kelly-red
I don't blame you. Random names on the internet sitting behind a keyboard can 100% just say "I heard from a source" and spout whatever they want.
I'm just posting what I was told by somebody that is actively involved with NCAA hockey and in particular hockey officiating. If they are making it up, so be it. But they have never given me a reason not to believe them so far.
I’ve been patient with Clymer for the most part but to quote from the movie tombstone, “Not anymore, not after this night.”
Understand that Clymer on TV is not gonna say anything controversial. I spoke with both him and Roxy after the game for a while and both were stunned at the no calls and Clymer was not happy at all.
Do not like how this board is run? Get your own board! ♃
So I’m curious when the last goal was being reviewed was it a standard review or were they reviewing the non trip at center ice? Or both? IIRC the gophers scored not too many games ago and after review the goal came off the board and a penalty was issued besides. So if that’s possibly the case they’re saying there wasn’t a trip at center after looking at it again? Because if there was then that goal comes off the board correct?
So I’m curious when the last goal was being reviewed was it a standard review or were they reviewing the non trip at center ice? Or both? IIRC the gophers scored not too many games ago and after review the goal came off the board and a penalty was issued besides. So if that’s possibly the case they’re saying there wasn’t a trip at center after looking at it again?
The game you're referring to was a review for a major penalty (contact to the head IIRC). The rulebook says you can review for possible major penalties with a coach's challenge. The blatant trip at center ice last night would not have been a reviewable penalty.
My guess is they were reviewing to see if they could call offsides to make up for their epic failure.
Getting news from a source close to the situation the ncaa is pulling those refs from the regional, unbelievable
I call BS. Please don’t come on here the day after a huge disappointment and spout gossip you don’t back up. “source close to the situation” is who? Or in what capacity? You’re just being a shit stirrer.
It isn't gossip. It's true.
I was told a crew from the CCHA is taking over for the regional final.
Is this a change to the plan or just what was going to happen? They frequently have more than one crew at a site (especially when multiple conferences are involved), so had they planned for our crew to do the regional final (given no ECAC team in the region) and are changing as a result of the game or always had plans for a different crew pending the leagues represented in the final?
So I’m curious when the last goal was being reviewed was it a standard review or were they reviewing the non trip at center ice? Or both? IIRC the gophers scored not too many games ago and after review the goal came off the board and a penalty was issued besides. So if that’s possibly the case they’re saying there wasn’t a trip at center after looking at it again?
The game you're referring to was a review for a major penalty (contact to the head IIRC). The rulebook says you can review for possible major penalties with a coach's challenge. The blatant trip at center ice last night would not have been a reviewable penalty.
My guess is they were reviewing to see if they could call offsides to make up for their epic failure.
Also, the NCAA requires any OT goal to be reviewed during the NCAA's
I was recently informed by a GPLer that I'm related to Airey
So I’m curious when the last goal was being reviewed was it a standard review or were they reviewing the non trip at center ice? Or both? IIRC the gophers scored not too many games ago and after review the goal came off the board and a penalty was issued besides. So if that’s possibly the case they’re saying there wasn’t a trip at center after looking at it again?
The game you're referring to was a review for a major penalty (contact to the head IIRC). The rulebook says you can review for possible major penalties with a coach's challenge. The blatant trip at center ice last night would not have been a reviewable penalty.
My guess is they were reviewing to see if they could call offsides to make up for their epic failure.
The only thing this fiasco is missing is a rule change to allow for reviewing a missed call on a goal a la the Wolves and the out of bounds / clear foul fiasco from last year.
Great, the NCAA can issue a meaningless apology to the Gophers like the Wolves got in last year's NBA playoffs that didn't change anything. "Hey, we acknowledge we hosed you and likely cost you the game. Oopsie, we're sorry. Good luck next year."
I guess at least the Wolves forced a rule change.
and the gophers football team earlier this year post michigan in terms of a protocol. what a year it's been
Getting news from a source close to the situation the ncaa is pulling those refs from the regional, unbelievable
I call BS. Please don’t come on here the day after a huge disappointment and spout gossip you don’t back up. “source close to the situation” is who? Or in what capacity? You’re just being a shit stirrer.
It isn't gossip. It's true.
I was told a crew from the CCHA is taking over for the regional final.
Is this a change to the plan or just what was going to happen? They frequently have more than one crew at a site (especially when multiple conferences are involved), so had they planned for our crew to do the regional final (given no ECAC team in the region) and are changing as a result of the game or always had plans for a different crew pending the leagues represented in the final?
From what I was told it is a change to the plan. That crew was supposed to be there the whole weekend and have been pulled from working any additional games.
So I’m curious when the last goal was being reviewed was it a standard review or were they reviewing the non trip at center ice? Or both? IIRC the gophers scored not too many games ago and after review the goal came off the board and a penalty was issued besides. So if that’s possibly the case they’re saying there wasn’t a trip at center after looking at it again?
The game you're referring to was a review for a major penalty (contact to the head IIRC). The rulebook says you can review for possible major penalties with a coach's challenge. The blatant trip at center ice last night would not have been a reviewable penalty.
My guess is they were reviewing to see if they could call offsides to make up for their epic failure.
yeah standard protocol to review it and you could 100% see it on the refs faces after the goal was scored that they didn't feel great about it and i'm sure were hoping they could find a marginal offside or something to overturn the goal.
I hope it does not lead to a rule change where a minor is reviewable (at any point or on an OT goal). Too much subjectivity in those at times (last nights was not subjective, but it's a can of worms situation).
Wally and Pat were sitting at the top of the center section, exposed and people walking around them, really bad setup for press coverage. Scheels is a Terrible venue, too small, like cramming 8,000 people in a 5K arena. They sold tickets to people who had to stand on a platform down on the floor on the end of the ice. But walking out I saw Pat and he looked wiped out at the end. His head was down looking at the floor and silent, Wally was doing the talking.
So I’m curious when the last goal was being reviewed was it a standard review or were they reviewing the non trip at center ice? Or both? IIRC the gophers scored not too many games ago and after review the goal came off the board and a penalty was issued besides. So if that’s possibly the case they’re saying there wasn’t a trip at center after looking at it again?
The game you're referring to was a review for a major penalty (contact to the head IIRC). The rulebook says you can review for possible major penalties with a coach's challenge. The blatant trip at center ice last night would not have been a reviewable penalty.
My guess is they were reviewing to see if they could call offsides to make up for their epic failure.
yeah standard protocol to review it and you could 100% see it on the refs faces after the goal was scored that they didn't feel great about it and i'm sure were hoping they could find a marginal offside or something to overturn the goal.
I hope it does not lead to a rule change where a minor is reviewable (at any point or on an OT goal). Too much subjectivity in those at times (last nights was not subjective, but it's a can of worms situation).
I wouldn't be opposed to allowing a review of a minor penalty that leads to a goal - but ONLY in OT. My concern on that is that the officials will turn into MLB umpires and refuse to overturn the call, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the (non-) call on the ice was wrong.
Tact is the ability to step on a man's toes without messing up the shine on his shoes - Harry S Truman
@mnnavy Have a rules committee based somewhere else like the NFL has in New York I believe? It takes it out of the officials hands at that point so they get it right. Just a thought
I still don’t like it. What constitutes “leads” will be subjective, and they could also call any tiny ticky-tack thing that is in the book to call things back.
I get that it would create a situation in our favor last night, but I think we’d end up very upset about it more often than not.
So I’m curious when the last goal was being reviewed was it a standard review or were they reviewing the non trip at center ice? Or both? IIRC the gophers scored not too many games ago and after review the goal came off the board and a penalty was issued besides. So if that’s possibly the case they’re saying there wasn’t a trip at center after looking at it again?
The game you're referring to was a review for a major penalty (contact to the head IIRC). The rulebook says you can review for possible major penalties with a coach's challenge. The blatant trip at center ice last night would not have been a reviewable penalty.
My guess is they were reviewing to see if they could call offsides to make up for their epic failure.
yeah standard protocol to review it and you could 100% see it on the refs faces after the goal was scored that they didn't feel great about it and i'm sure were hoping they could find a marginal offside or something to overturn the goal.
I hope it does not lead to a rule change where a minor is reviewable (at any point or on an OT goal). Too much subjectivity in those at times (last nights was not subjective, but it's a can of worms situation).
I wouldn't be opposed to allowing a review of a minor penalty that leads to a goal - but ONLY in OT. My concern on that is that the officials will turn into MLB umpires and refuse to overturn the call, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the (non-) call on the ice was wrong.
happens in all leagues. was the same when they introduced challenges for PI in the NFL and its the shit that pro soccer leagues blow all the time now with VAR. Too many subjective hockey minors that would make this a cluster fuck. The refs blew it in OT on the call and the Gophs compounded it by falling asleep. We'll get an apology from the NCAA behind closed doors which will do nothing and they'll probably add some clarification on the goalie equipment issue timing/delay which will do nothing for the players this year or the fans, but you also don't want to overreact and go the other way with adding rules and then you end up screwing someone the next year on a marginal call (or like when WMU got boned by the auto 5 and a game for head contact as they used to have it).
To me, the Mittelstadt penalty is the more egregious of them as he's hit in the face and then tripped and it leads directly to the pass to a wide open guy. The OT one you at least have a chain of things that had to happen and so to make that one reviewable just because it's in OT but not the regulation one that was out of a textbook on officiating doesn't make a ton of sense to me.
I still don’t like it. What constitutes “leads” will be subjective, and they could also call any tiny ticky-tack thing that is in the book to call things back.
I get that it would create a situation in our favor last night, but I think we’d end up very upset about it more often than not.
I'd tend to agree, but in the past 10 months:
- Wolves lose a playoff game due to a bad ref call that can't be reviewed
- Gopher football loses a key conference game and has a chance stolen due to a bad ref call that can't be reviewed
- Gopher hockey is b%@ch slapped 3x by bad ref calls that who knows how they impacted the full game, but the OT situation is clear
I still don’t like it. What constitutes “leads” will be subjective, and they could also call any tiny ticky-tack thing that is in the book to call things back.
I get that it would create a situation in our favor last night, but I think we’d end up very upset about it more often than not.
Agreed, in favor of anything to get it right last night, sure. Personally I’m all for the review system used now one day, and don’t care for any of it the next because at times they still don’t get it right after a 10 minute delay anyway.
as a general question for everyone, is there history as to why refs decide to not call anything in playoff hockey? It's pretty apparent across the NHL all the way down to HS but to me I don't see any reason why you change the calls? Would people find it less fun to watch had last night featured say 4 PPs each (Rinzel had a cross check, easily could've called Clark for a hook, just for some quick examples)? I just really don't understand the "let the players decide it" as don't they decide the games all year long? I understand the "don't want to insert myself", but don't you want to do that every single night all year.
For comparison, a smack middle of the road NCAA team averages 8-9PIM/game (so 16-18min between the 2 teams). Removing BU's misconduct penalty, there were a total of 36 PIM in 4 games yesterday when your predicted would be 64. Or if you want to use the averages for the actual teams 58min. ST are one of the major facets of the game all season long but we've decided as a sport we minimize that in the postseason for no reason. Would be like eliminating the kicking game in football but just for playoffs
I still don’t like it. What constitutes “leads” will be subjective, and they could also call any tiny ticky-tack thing that is in the book to call things back.
I get that it would create a situation in our favor last night, but I think we’d end up very upset about it more often than not.
I'd tend to agree, but in the past 10 months:
- Wolves lose a playoff game due to a bad ref call that can't be reviewed
- Gopher football loses a key conference game and has a chance stolen due to a bad ref call that can't be reviewed
- Gopher hockey is b%@ch slapped 3x by bad ref calls that who knows how they impacted the full game, but the OT situation is clear
It's frankly uncanny.
why would you leave out darnold getting facemasked plain as day and that's a call that's not auto-reviewable in the NFL? It's been a tough year
What I don't like about refs swallowing the whistle (whenever that is), is that it favors the less talented and those willing to push the boundaries (I won't say willing to cheat). It is why Gopher fans are likely always frustrated and whining about the refs.
Gopher hockey is anecdotally undersized and more skilled than most other college hockey teams. So, all that clutching, grabbing, interference impacts our ability to succeed and helps the less skilled team slow us down. Levels the playing field kind of like Amazing Race having staggered departure times but the firs available flight isn't for 8 hours so everyone is on the same plane anyway (separate pet peeve, sorry).
This seems to work, looking back it's fairly frequent you've seen under seeds get into the NCAA tournament and win the title over skilled teams like MN, Michigan, etc. Providence, Quinnipiac, Union, etc. I have no data to back this up, but I do wonder if that feels more frequent in the playoffs (and why it's an under seed beating the top seed) because refs get even stingier in the playoffs.
Refs putting whistles in their pocket. They should call all penalties if it causes a puck possession turnover or if the penalty clearly negates a scoring opportunity. We all saw the trip that caused Chesley to lose control of the puck & Mass putting it into the net a few moments later.
Tough set of circumstances to fully process after last night's disappointing result. Reading through the comments thus far, there's a wide range of views/emotions, and to be expected for sure. For the sake of my own grief processing, I'll lay out my two cents on the season and the game.
Firstly, on the season, I don't draw many comparisons between this team and anything that's happened in the past. The Tampa debacle lives in it's own space as a tactical coaching mistake in an otherwise dream season. In my opinion, for most of the season this team didn't look/feel like a true chip contender. The teams record in the first half was built on mostly playing bad/mediocre hockey teams and cleaning up B1G opponents who had not gotten to their game (i.e. PSU and WISCO). The 2nd half of the season the mistakes and shortcomings became much more noticeable (faceoffs, PK, inconsistent play, turnovers, defensive lapses, shaky goaltending, etc etc). I think the players worked hard for the most part, but the chemistry and puck hunger was just not where it needed to be to consistently. I can't come up with more than one or two games where this team played a solid 60 minutes. We had some good pieces and enough talent, but they weren't able to put it together in the end.
Having said that, my thoughts on the game. I think both teams came out of the gate with some rust. Very disjointed start (I thought they were going to set a record for icings in a period for a while there LOL). I think the Gophers got to their game first and once they did really carried play through the first two periods. I'm sure most agree with that and it all comes down to the third period. I don't believe the Gopher's changed tactics per se. I think the players started to "play safe" and instead of elevating our intensity we dropped it like a rock. I'm not going to take a stance on whose shoulder's that falls on. I'm sure some of that could be coaching and some could be on the players too. I'm not in that locker room to know that answer. What I do know is, that follows the story of the entire 2nd half of the season in terms of inconsistent play. UMass had no chance to win that game if we don't drop our intensity. Now where this takes a turn for the absolutely surreal is that even with the drop in level of play during the period I still don't think UMass ties or wins that game without the litany of inexcusable decisions by the refs. Put your whistle's away for ticky-tacky stuff, fine. You cannot swallow your whistle when penalties lead directly to scoring chances. While UMass was pressing and controlling play, they were NOT creating much in the way of high danger chances before that high-stick/cross check on Mittlestadt. The goalie change situation was a complete goat rodeo and I firmly believe Airey coming in cold and knowing he is already a slow reactor to the puck directly leads to goal #3. At that point the game was out of control and the Gopher's were scrambling to find some stability. Unfortunately, it wasn't until goal #4 that we finally found our game again. I felt like they stabilized, got back to it and were able to punch one in thanks to Jimmy. From there I thought, this is a 50-50 game now and we're going to have a battle, but we're not going away in this game. Queue the ultimate screw job on Chesley and seasons over. As bad as it was with the 3rd period calls, I would have accepted our fate if not for the ludicrous call in OT. While this team had flaws and did not put it together for all 60 minutes, I do agree with Bob that win/lose they deserved better than what they got.
What I don't like about refs swallowing the whistle (whenever that is), is that it favors the less talented and those willing to push the boundaries (I won't say willing to cheat). It is why Gopher fans are likely always frustrated and whining about the refs.
Gopher hockey is anecdotally undersized and more skilled than most other college hockey teams. So, all that clutching, grabbing, interference impacts our ability to succeed and helps the less skilled team slow us down. Levels the playing field kind of like Amazing Race having staggered departure times but the firs available flight isn't for 8 hours so everyone is on the same plane anyway (separate pet peeve, sorry).
This seems to work, looking back it's fairly frequent you've seen under seeds get into the NCAA tournament and win the title over skilled teams like MN, Michigan, etc. Providence, Quinnipiac, Union, etc. I have no data to back this up, but I do wonder if that feels more frequent in the playoffs (and why it's an under seed beating the top seed) because refs get even stingier in the playoffs.
why they can’t keep calls/no calls consistent in the tournament with the regular season is beyond me and frustrating as hell. So with one swallowed whistle in the regular season that’s like a warning so you know next time something similar justifies a penalty it’s called. It keeps the game in check ( (no pun intended) letting everything go should be a player safety concern for starters, and soon it’s backyard rink hockey with the neighbor kids who can’t skate but can trip just fine.
Bob said he didn’t change anything in the 3rd and the UMass coach said he didn’t see a different style from the gophers in the 3rd, but, some will stay adamant that Bob told the players in the second intermission to sit back and go into a shell. Maybe a good UMass team found their game and played well in the 3rd?
Well, if true, then there is a bigger disconnect and issue because we've seen this time and time again. '23 National Title game, last night, against MSU earlier this season at home on Saturday night (yes, aware of the short bench for that one, it only bothers me in the context of being part of a pattern).
It's an inability to finish that carries over from game to game or season to season. Something is changing in the 3rd period consistently in these scenarios and it transcends the individual players who have come and gone. I also don't believe it's every single opponent finding their inner Rudy magically when playing the Gophers in a once in a lifetime against all odds moment. If it happened once or twice, ok. It happens too frequently - whatever the reason.
I will continue to say, the inability to score a breakaway or shootout goal haunts. That lost point really changed the trajectory of the Gopher post season. It's like Final Destination, mapping back to the thread of time.
One point, we don't play Notre Dame, Huglen isn't hurt, we advance to the Semi's, likely retain our #1 seed, blah blah blah. Though in that scenario, Mankato probably does to us what UMass did anyway.
Not disagreeing entirely here, but they did not lose to UMASS because of the layoff (they controlled the game for 2 periods) and even if they didn't have to play ND there is no telling what other injuries might have occurred otherwise. I'm sorry but boiling down the end result to 1 point is just silly.
What I don't like about refs swallowing the whistle (whenever that is), is that it favors the less talented and those willing to push the boundaries (I won't say willing to cheat). It is why Gopher fans are likely always frustrated and whining about the refs.
Gopher hockey is anecdotally undersized and more skilled than most other college hockey teams. So, all that clutching, grabbing, interference impacts our ability to succeed and helps the less skilled team slow us down. Levels the playing field kind of like Amazing Race having staggered departure times but the firs available flight isn't for 8 hours so everyone is on the same plane anyway (separate pet peeve, sorry).
This seems to work, looking back it's fairly frequent you've seen under seeds get into the NCAA tournament and win the title over skilled teams like MN, Michigan, etc. Providence, Quinnipiac, Union, etc. I have no data to back this up, but I do wonder if that feels more frequent in the playoffs (and why it's an under seed beating the top seed) because refs get even stingier in the playoffs.
The refs really cheapen the overall product of college hockey, this is especially true in the B1G. Idk if Motzko/Coyle can do anything to try and achieve change there but it’d probably be in their best interest to try. You’re right, this program doesn’t typically build teams around the assumption that the refs will never call anything while their opponent successfully bends the rules in their favor. It definitely doesn’t help on that front but just purely from a fan perspective it’s also not as fun to watch. I found myself watching more of the other conference tourneys because of it and when I did switch back to the B1G games there was some egregious reffing decisions, especially in the final.
Last night proves that other conferences probably have their share of bad reffing too but it seems like it’s almost a constant in the big ten.
Not disagreeing entirely here, but they did not lose to UMASS because of the layoff (they controlled the game for 2 periods) and even if they didn't have to play ND there is no telling what other injuries might have occurred otherwise. I'm sorry but boiling down the end result to 1 point is just silly.
The entire purpose of a message board is opinionated conjecture. Obviously have no idea what winning the B1G outright or getting the #1 playoff seed would have meant other than we for sure don't play in the first round, we avoid 2 bad losses (maybe still have one in the semis), and Huglen doesn't get hurt in that moment. Also, likely that the lack of losing to a ND type twice keeps us a #1 NCAA seed.
But you're correct, it's all a bunch of what ifs as is any debate around here. And both can be true, conjecture and it's unacceptable that the Gophers couldn't score 1 shoutout goal much less win a shoutout all season.
A number of recent posts in this thread seem to be suggesting that the refs always swallow their whistles in big games...
I think Logan Cooley might beg to differ.
The irony of that call was that the ref 10 feet from them was pointing to both players, shaking his head "no no no." I was sitting right on the other side of the glass from that ref. It was the idiot 180 feet away who made the call, deciding it was Cooley and only Cooley who committed a penalty. If only the ref closer would have sent them both to the box....
Now, I blame Cooley 100% for his inability to simply skate away. That would have probably meant a Gopher National Title. Instead, he gave an incompetent ref the opportunity to make a one-sided call in the closing minutes of the game.
I've now re-watched the GWG a half dozen times and while the no-call on Chesley was horrid, the Gophers were still in position to defend the rush that resulted in the goal. To blame them being distraught over the no-call just doesn't fly with me. No whistle, keep playing. UMass took advantage, plain and simple.
For me the fact they went from being fairly dominant to getting essentially no shots in the 3rd when they were up by 2 is more disturbing. I really like Motzko and this was a generally fun season, but the fact they played quite average down the stretch is what I find the most disappointing. Really feel like over the past 3 seasons there has been a really good core, and especially on the defensive side that makes me feel like they really missed a window to hang a banner.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I fear what NIL is doing to college sports. It may be inevitable, and this is most certainly a "get off my yard" comment, but if we start seeing the mass changes in hockey that we are seeing in basketball and it becomes all about getting paid then I'll be turning in my Gopher season tickets and start paying more attention to the NHL. College sports for me is about playing for your school, developing over your time there and doing something as a team. I really feel like the transfer rules need to be tightened up. I say you get one freebie, then the next time you sit a year. If your coach leaves you get a 2nd freebie. End of rant.
I've now re-watched the GWG a half dozen times and while the no-call on Chesley was horrid, the Gophers were still in position to defend the rush that resulted in the goal. To blame them being distraught over the no-call just doesn't fly with me. No whistle, keep playing. UMass took advantage, plain and simple.
For me the fact they went from being fairly dominant to getting essentially no shots in the 3rd when they were up by 2 is more disturbing. I really like Motzko and this was a generally fun season, but the fact they played quite average down the stretch is what I find the most disappointing. Really feel like over the past 3 seasons there has been a really good core, and especially on the defensive side that makes me feel like they really missed a window to hang a banner.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I fear what NIL is doing to college sports. It may be inevitable, and this is most certainly a "get off my yard" comment, but if we start seeing the mass changes in hockey that we are seeing in basketball and it becomes all about getting paid then I'll be turning in my Gopher season tickets and start paying more attention to the NHL. College sports for me is about playing for your school, developing over your time there and doing something as a team. I really feel like the transfer rules need to be tightened up. I say you get one freebie, then the next time you sit a year. If your coach leaves you get a 2nd freebie. End of rant.
Yes the Gopher players cannot be excused, but neither can criminal officiating.
I agree that full blown competition for NIL money in hockey will probably kill the sport. It will for me at least. The portal has changed the sport for the worse already.
When vocal Gophers Hockey hater Dan Myers says it is a penalty... We just need Ryan Sandelin to come forward and say the same thing and then the world is truly ending.
I noticed how noticeably bad the refs were in the game before this one and kinda forgot about them until the second UMass goal. I’m sorry but tripping is one of the most obvious calls you can make, the slashes, holding, and obstruction are way more subtle and you could see how some get missed (not as many as B1G refs miss but I digress). The only difference between the first and second game was that nobody scored directly off the missed calls in that one.
I will say I’d rather the team get screwed like this in the first round than later in the playoffs, that’d be all the more heartbreaking. I also don’t think either of these teams was gonna beat WMU either.
With all the talk about missed penalties, I haven't seen anyone mention Koster getting an elbow to the head behind our net in the 1st period.
I think it's because people remember the more recent transgressions. However, now that you've mentioned it, I do remember saying to my wife at the time that contact to the head is apparently legal now.
Tact is the ability to step on a man's toes without messing up the shine on his shoes - Harry S Truman
