1:50 left in a 3-3 national semi-final game. You can use your challenge
for a potential major penalty, or save it for a disputed goal (for or
against you). That's the decision the coach has to make, and has to make
right now.
--david
On 4/12/19 11:46 AM, Mark Lewin wrote:
> Not sure I agree with Mike's assessment. The only reason I could see
> Carle not challenging the non-call is if both he and his staff
> upstairs did not see the hit.
>
> At that point in the game, the clock is running down and DU has UMass
> back on their heels (do hockey skates have heels?). A 5 minute major
> plus the loss of another forward would afford an enormous advantage to
> the surging Denver team. Well worth the risk of losing a challenge.
> Even if the referees claim they didn't see it or didn't think it was a
> major penalty, forcing them to look at the video would "surely" have
> changed their minds (as surely as anything is sure when dealing with
> referees).
>
> I think the first year coach was overly cautious and made a bad
> choice. I think he will look at the replay and regret his decision
> of non-challenge for many years to come
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:00 AM Mike Machnik
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hi all — David Carle is a pretty smart guy. To make the decision
> to risk his challenge at that time in the game, he had to be
> pretty sure that he would win the challenge, and I think he
> wasn't. That could have been due to several things — we don’t know
> if anyone he was in contact with on his staff (i.e. up above) had
> access to a replay that showed what we saw on the broadcast, and
> we don’t know if the officials told him they didn’t see it at all,
> or that they did see it and didn’t consider it a penalty (big
> difference). Also, it had to rise to the level of being a major,
> because if they looked at it and decided it should have been
> called but just a minor, then no call is made and he still loses
> his timeout. In short, I think he made the best decision he could
> based on the info he had at the time.
>
> BTW — David’s younger brother Alex played the last four years at
> Merrimack. When Denver played at Merrimack after Christmas this
> season, it was the first known time that an NCAA Division I coach
> went against his brother on another team. Kind of a neat moment.
> DU won the game, last season, MC won at Denver (when David was
> assistant coach) and my understanding is some brotherly jabs were
> exchanged in the handshake line. :) David is a good guy and coach,
> and I thought he and his staff came up with a terrific game plan
> vs UMass. They had the better of the play 5-on-5 and certainly
> could have won the game in regulation with the third period they
> had, despite having to go without their best player. He will do
> good things at DU and already did this season in getting them
> where he did in a season where few expected it.
>
> The final should be a good one. UMass found a way to win when not
> playing its best, but UMD will be the best team they’ve faced all
> season, and a team that is full of guys who have won it before.
> —
> Mike Machnik
> Merrimack Radio
> College Hockey News
>
>> On Apr 12, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Carol White
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Those were my thoughts as well David. It was thought (someone on
>> the broadcast) that the officials didn't want to call the penalty
>> because it would adversely effect the outcome of the game.
>> WHAT?? Chickensheet! There is one advantage to watching the
>> games at home, they replay the call over and over. And we get to
>> see it a lot.
>>
>> I think Carle should have used that challenge, he might have won
>> the game.
>>
>> Carol, QoGH
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 2:35 AM David Parter <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> I didn't see it live, and did not see where the officials
>> were (or what they might have seen).
>>
>> According to College Hockey News:
>>
>>> "I asked them to take a look at it," Carle said. "I was
>>> asked if I wanted to use my challenge and I chose not to."
>>
>> I want that call made at the time, and the NCAA wants that
>> call made. But if it wasn't made during play, and the
>> officials did not see enough to call for video review on
>> their own, and the coach chooses not to use his challenge..
>> then that's the way it is.
>>
>> Why didn't he use his challenge? saving the challenge/timeout?
>>
>> ---david
>>
>> On 4/12/19 12:31 AM, Tom wrote:
>>> I have never been a fan of the ref swallowing the whistle so
>>> they don't influence the outcome of a game. If its a
>>> penalty in period one, its a penalty with 2 min to go in
>>> period 3! If you swallow the whistle you ARE influencing
>>> the outcome of the game just as much as if you call the
>>> penalty. Clearly that 3rd major should have been called. I
>>> question the first major or UMass where it looked to me like
>>> the chest glanced off the shoulder then hit the head, but it
>>> was called. why, then, not the last one which was more
>>> egregious?
>>>
>>> Tom Rowe
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Sometimes I use big words I don't full understand
>>> in order to make me seem more prosopagnosic.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> On 4/11/2019 10:37 PM, Mark Lewin wrote:
>>>> Of all the stupid hits, the one that probably qualified as
>>>> a game DQ was the one they didn't call. Refs don't like to
>>>> make a call that will affect the outcome of the game,
>>>> especially a championship game, but that was just negligent
>>>> on the part of the referees. Of all penalties to call
>>>> consistently, no matter when in the game or whether it
>>>> affects the outcome of a game, you would expect that
>>>> contact to the head to be the one they always call.
>>>>
>>>> I'm thinking this might not be the last we hear about this.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
>>>> Virus-free. www.avast.com
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:30 PM Joe LaCour
>>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Unless the NCAA, after reviewing the call(s), imposes
>>>> supplemental discipline and says he (they) sit out the
>>>> next game.
>>>>
>>>> Trivigno got away with one.
>>>>
>>>> Joe LaCour
>>>> Sent from my Mobile phone
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019, 11:23 PM Mark Lewin
>>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No. They were game misconduct penalties.
>>>> Suspensions are issued for game disqualifications
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> > On Apr 11, 2019, at 23:14, Carol White
>>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > There were three 5-min major penalties called in
>>>> the game. Each had a 10 min game Misconduct with
>>>> it. Are the players suspended for the next game?
>>>> >
>>>> > Carol, QoGH
>>>> >
>>>> > Sent from my iPod
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
