At 2:44 PM -0500 1/12/1998, CH11111 wrote:
> Brian was the Captain designated to go talk the penalty over with the
> officials, and did not invade the charmed circle, so why was that a call?
 
I didn't see exactly when he came onto the ice.  I know the Maine side is
that he only came on after the altercation.  I can't say one way or the
other.
 
However, I believe this call was signaled by the linesman -- again, not sure.
 
> Walsh was trying to find out what the calls were, as any coach would.
 
That's a mild way of putting it. :-)  I was not surprised that a bench
minor was assessed.  He was quite vociferous at the time.
 
> These
> two penalties, especially the game DQ for White, turned the tide of a game
> which was on the way to being a rout, allowing Merrimack back into the game.
 
I don't think I would call a 6-4 game a rout, but I agree that the way the
situation turned allowed Merrimack a golden chance.
 
> Fitzgerald used to be one of the fairest officals we had in HE, but the last
> season or so he has been, well, uneven is the kindest way to put it.
 
Tough to call this game "uneven" when there were a multitude of calls that
did not go Merrimack's way as well.  For example, Clevenger being hooked
down at center ice with no call just prior to the call on Scoville.  I
thought that perhaps Fitzgerald knew he had missed that call and that was
why Scoville didn't get anything for slamming his stick on the boards on
his way into the box.
 
> Walsh
> said in his pre-game comments on Saturday that the head of officials couldn't
> do anything but shake his head (in disbelief) at the game tape review.
>Why is
> it that the head of officials is so powerless to stop this kind of
> officiating?
 
Does the tape show when White came onto the ice?  If so and if it was
clearly long after the altercation had subsided, then Maine may have a beef
here.
 
But again, I can't agree with the sentiment that the officiating was uneven.
 
Kevin Tompkins <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> I think Maine looked great offensively against Merrimack, especially in
> the first 2 periods.  They were really pressing the action and playing
> some vintage "Maine" hockey that we have come to know and appreciate.
 
Helped out by the terrible defense that Merrimack was playing. :-)  (which
continued in the 10-7 loss to Colgate.)
 
> They got back on their heels a little bit in the 3rd especially when
> they gave up the SHG -- this was just an ugly goal where Lundback got
> stripped by LaRoche and seemed to give up on the play.
 
Right, although I figured this washed with the awful turnover at center ice
that led to Parmentier's SHG.  Both teams were sloppy at times.
 
> After that, the hotly contested playing involving Wansborough and
> Rodrigues really seemed to spark MC (a play that Fitzy really blew in my
> opinion --  Walsh and the Maine faithful really let him have it when he
> skated over to the announcer's booth).  I think most of the Maine
> faithful expected Rodrigues to get the major and that Wansborough would
> get no more than a minor (what Wansborough did - a little extra poke at
> the puck goes on all the time!).
 
It was a little more than just a poke at the puck -- it was a poke at the
goalie too. :-)  That's what set Rodrigues off.  You might have a case with
the White DQ, but not this one.  You could also see this one building.
 
> Interestingly enough, just prior to
> this incident, Scoville had shattered his stick upon entering the
> penalty box to give Maine the original 5-3 situation.  Fitzy obviously
> missed that as well since Scoville should have been whistled for an
> extra 2 minutes for that unnecessary display.
 
Well, as I said, there was a bad noncall that had gone in Maine's favor
just seconds prior to this call.
 
> There was another questionable call with about a minute left in the
> action.  Maine had narrowly missed an ENG as they had cleared the puck
> down the ice -- but they had 2 attackers down ice to one Merrimack
> defender so they still had a good chance to poke home the loose puck but
> the Merrimack defender slid into the goal and knocked it off its
> moorings.  It looked intentional to several of us in attendance but
> again no call from Fitzy.
 
Remember what happened...I think it was Kariya who chased the puck down as
it went through the crease and behind the net.  Scoville went in after him.
Then another Maine player was trailing the play (uncovered as usual) and in
perfect position to score on the empty net if Kariya had been able to get
it to him.  Scoville went down to block the pass and took the net out too.
 
As it turned out it was a good play by Scoville.  Maybe he did intend to
knock the net off.  But you can also point to the fact that he had to block
the pass.  If not for that then I would expect a penalty to be called.
It's the kind of play that I'm sure Maine fans would be lauding with good
reason if it had been done by a Maine player. :-)
 
> I thought Fitzy really lost control of the game in the 3rd period --
> this will inevitably lead to some ugly hockey.
 
Some Merrimack folks thought he lost control earlier when Wansborough took
a few liberties here and there.  It does go both ways.
 
> If Fitzy can't take the "heat"
> when he makes a "controversial" call, maybe it is time to step aside.
 
Wouldn't you call the reaction from the bench a little more than a little
"heat"? :-)
 
> I also agree with Cathy that there should be some recourse against
> officials who do have a bad game ...
 
Did you feel this way after the second Merrimack-Maine game when power
plays favored Maine 6-0 until the last couple of minutes? :-)
 
---                                                                   ---
Mike Machnik                [log in to unmask]               *HMM* 11/13/93
*****         Color Voice of Merrimack Hockey  WCAP 980 AM          *****
*****       Unofficial Merrimack Hockey home page located at:       *****
*****   http://www.tiac.net/users/machnik/MChockey/MChockey.html    *****
>>>    U.S. College Hockey Online http://www.uscollegehockey.com/     <<<