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]> 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]> 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]> 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]>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>