I listened to the 2nd and 3rd Wally and frank were losing their shit it was entertaining but frustrating. Too many ism’s to count but when their goalie took his sweet time to get up he “milked that for everything but the cow.” Gophers dominated so even with the outcome I’m feeling pretty good about their game.
Can we finally put to bed that Motzko teams don't play well against Hastings coach teams?
They are both great coaches. Their teams are going to have many great battles over the next few years with each team getting wins.
If Mankato would have beaten St. Could in the first round of the NCAA tournament last year we would have ended Mankato/Hastings season in the region finals but instead Mankato went out in the 1st round so we ended Jane's season instead.
Can we finally put to bed that Motzko teams don't play well against Hastings coach teams?
They are both great coaches. Their teams are going to have many great battles over the next few years with each team getting wins.
If Mankato would have beaten St. Could in the first round of the NCAA tournament last year we would have ended Mankato/Hastings season in the region finals but instead Mankato went out in the 1st round so we ended Jane's season instead.
Motzko actually seems to have learned a lot in defending Hastings teams. Everything Wisconsin had was to the outside in low threat zones. They may have dominated possession at times, but the threat chances felt very very low much of the time. Really was great to see
To be a hockey player for the Badgers is there a requirement to take a few semesters in Drama or Embellishment class? It was not a good look for the buckies this weekend. Unfortunately they were rewarded. They are trying to play hockey as if they are playing in a European soccer league.
To be a hockey player for the Badgers is there a requirement to take a few semesters in Drama or Embellishment class? It was not a good look for the buckies this weekend. Unfortunately they were rewarded. They are trying to play hockey as if they are playing in a European soccer league.
Each year one of the Badger players receives the Robbie Earl Award it is their most prestigious award. 😉
If I recall all she did was like a post on social media. Liking a post on social media means dinky-doo… If there’s more, then I don’t know about. Though anyone who’s a parent knows you’ll be defensive of your kid. And now days who can’t sneeze without someone blowing up and making a big deal about it.
In this day and age, if you are someone of some stature or related to someone of stature, you don't do things like that. No, it's not fair, no, it's not right, but it is a matter of fact. One has to watch EVERY footprint, so to speak.
When you tell somebody somethin', it depends on what part of the United States you're standin' in... as to just how dumb you are.
Now that it’s the next morning I have a few thoughts.
1. I will admit that part of it is because Hastings has gotten the better of us quite a few times in the past few years and I’m still salty but it is just not enjoyable to watch games against his teams. I mentioned this before but whether it’s with the style of play, challenging one thing after another, or the embellishment on the ice, it’s actually kind of embarrassing to watch. I hope I never have to watch him, Wisconsin, or his style of play get rewarded with any real success.
2. Between last week and this week I don’t know what we have to do to get a goal if one of our players is driving the net. One of the most basic, fundamental tactics in hockey, drive the net, set up a screen, and be a nuisance, and apparently the Gophers aren’t allowed to do it. The refs really need to figure it out because thankfully last week it didn’t hurt us but it just cost us 2 points last night.
3. The worst part about the result this weekend, and this season for Wisconsin in general, is all of the unintelligent, fair weather Badger hockey fans who are coming out of the woodwork. Boy they really are a dumb bunch.
4. I was very impressed with this Gopher team this weekend. Friday night might not have always been pretty but they hung in there, Close played outstanding, and got the win. Last night they overall played a really solid game. Loved the effort I saw from everyone. Senior line might have had their best game of the season. Did a really good job to get a solid 3-1 win on the road against a good Wisconsin team 😉. They keep playing like this and they could actually go on a decent run down the stretch.
If I recall all she did was like a post on social media. Liking a post on social media means dinky-doo… If there’s more, then I don’t know about. Though anyone who’s a parent knows you’ll be defensive of your kid. And now days who can’t sneeze without someone blowing up and making a big deal about it.
For the record, she has done it more than once. I ignored the 1st time thinking it was a "like" by mistake. I also don't think anyone has viciously said anything bad about her. I take most of the comments as tongue in cheek or a ribbing more than anything. For me, a "like" is saying that you agree with the statement that was said. She would be best to create a "fake" account if she wants to express her opinions in that way. I don't personally know her, but I have to say that she shows up to every game and must be very proud of her son. I respect that and I'm sure it was tough to watch him sit the past 3 years with little playing time and like all parents she thinks her son should have played. I hold no ill will towards her at all, but if she was my friend, I would ask her WTH was she thinking and rib her about it in person. I also don't hold her thoughts against her son, ( his play I do ) as I'm sure we all would hate to be judged by something one of our family members has done in the past. In the end, it is just message board fodder of a nothing burger.
In the grand scheme of things hockey parents have said or done, this is spec of sand on a beach. I'm sure Bob could write a book on some of the stuff he has dealt with, including some parents and advisors from a couple of years ago.
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
The Wisconsin Student announcers were not that bad.. They actually provided some insight and pronounced the players names correctly. Way better than the Sparty students.
On the 1st overturned goal, the announcers correctly said that the goalie did not react like he was interfered with. We all know that if a goalie is remotely touched, or he thinks there is a high stick, they always point to the scoreboard or something. Makes me think the goalie thought it was a good goal.
I'm somewhat surprised that the actual good goal wasn't looked at. Nevers and the defender were engaged and the defender ended up on his back in the crease near the goalie. The way the refs were calling that last night, I'm shocked that they did not take a look at that one.
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
On the radio Wally and Frank said they ran into the refs at the hotel bar after Fridays game. F&W asked about embellishments not being called and one refs response was “which one?”. And I’ll just add my complaining too, that 3rd period goal waved off was a travesty. Contact barely made, goalie laid there thinking he was going to draw a whistle. He didn’t, so he pops up, gets himself squared off against a shooter TWICE. Gets scored on and THEN it gets waved off?
Note: Due to inflation dirty deeds will no longer be done dirt cheap.
Motzko introducing a new drill to practice this week. Defense just pushes every attacking player into the goalie to make sure if they score it can be challenged and overturned for GT interference.
We have to take some solace in the fact that we outplayed, out shot, and out scored them. It was a great all-around effort and we were by far the better team last night. It’s sad that the refs made sure we weren’t rewarded for that. I’m sure there will be no review or better definition of what goaltender interference is and the refs will just go on not understanding hockey. (I mean as Bob said, anyone who know hockey know those were both goals ;))
Wonder what happens if we just start shoving guys into Close, I mean it seems to work for everyone else?
I've commented in the past that we have to be willing to live with video replay. It's the best way to interpret the rules by the book, looking frame by frame. After last night, I'm not so sure. Those idiots worked so hard at it that they came up with 1 + 1 = 0.
I've come to accept that either I don't understand the rules or the refs are incompetent. They did get the hit-to-the-head challenge right, but they missed what should have been a 2-min penalty on Lamb - and the malingering member of the Badger dive team who laid there motionless like he had stepped on a Claymore Mine.
On the second gopher goal called back, they did not call a goaltender interference call against Minnesota but did claim the goalie was interfered with several seconds before the puck went in.
Does the NHL send challenges to a neutral site of rules officials? Maybe this isn't practical for college hockey, but clearly Minnesota could do no worse. They were jobbed last night as badly as they were last April.
“When your best friend is the son of God, you get tired of losing every argument.”
― Christopher Moore, Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob and the team absolutely deserve an apology. And there needs to be some better clarification documented in the rules for goalie interference moving forward so we continue to not get screwed by idiot refs.
Another aspect of the second no-goal that I don’t think is being discussed as much is a Wisconsin defenseman slides back into Nelson and basically clips Jaxon, causing him to careen off balance and into McClellan. I’m not sure what else you would want Nelson to do there. While Nelson isn’t pushed that, to me, would still fall under the definition of a defenseman physically impacting an opposing player and causing that opposing player (in this case Nelson) to run into the goalie. Thus causing the goalie interference himself (the Wisconsin defenseman). Which shouldn’t that negate goalie interference?
I'll vote for the Nevers interference as the most asinine of the three bogus calls. I don't think he did any thing to impede the goalie. And if he did it was because the D was pushing him.
Monday every NCAA coach will be telling their players if you're in trouble just push an opponent into your goalie.
It's hard enough to score in today's hockey, let alone waiving off good goals.
Would someone explain to me the “indirect contact to the head” penalty from Friday?
Does mean there was no contact to the head but they had to call a penalty anyway?
I believe the initial contact was to the shoulder and the momentum drove it to the head. I've seen it called a few times, but not often. I will have to rewatch it to verify that was the case.
I'm 50% factual and 50% sarcastic. When you get to know me, you will know which is which.
Would someone explain to me the “indirect contact to the head” penalty from Friday?
Does mean there was no contact to the head but they had to call a penalty anyway?
I believe the initial contact was to the shoulder and the momentum drove it to the head. I've seen it called a few times, but not often. I will have to rewatch it to verify that was the case.
Plus if I recall it was called 5 minutes on the ice and reviewed. And since it was a 5 on the call, it can only be reviewed and not overturned.
The first Nelson play is not only a good goal but should've also been a crosschecking/interference penalty.
The Moore play is goaltender interference.
The second Nelson play is borderline tripping on Wisconsin or Goaltender interference on Minnesota. Could go either way IMO. But once the official decides to let both plays go and continue the game, he has no business waiving the goal.
The Moore play is definitely not goalie interference. Moore is barely in the crease and barely touches him. More importantly, Moore is backed into by the Wisconsin defenseman. Which is what causes him to back up into McClellan.
The Moore play is definitely not goalie interference. Moore is barely in the crease and barely touches him. More importantly, Moore is backed into by the Wisconsin defenseman. Which is what causes him to back up into McClellan.
Just like Gopher fans will complain that it's not ok for defenseman to push players into the goalie. Wisconsin fans can make the same argument that getting bumped into doesn't give a player the freedom to run into the goalie. Moore makes no attempt to avoid the goaltender/crease and the contact from the Wisconsin player isn't enough to excuse it.
