Hi Adam,
At the risk of continuing an argument,  what I saw was that every or almost every infraction was called.  And very few calls were made that should have been "non-calls".    It really doesn't matter much, to me anyway, what they call them as long as the infractions get called, which they did.   I have played hockey, coached hockey, and reffed hockey for about 50 years and it's been common for refs to be creative in their interpretation of their calls even at the NHL level.  Just ask Andy Brickley. 

I'm just so glad that Hockey East reffing has finally caught up with the NHL and their interpretations of the rule book.  I think that, especially if you have ever been a player, you can really appreciate that the clutching and grabbing that used to be allowed (at the college and pro level) really spoiled the game.  It was the main reason that Mario stopped playing.  Now it is more of a game where the skilled players like Nyquist can get full use if their talents. 

When I went to reffing/coaching school they taught us to make calls by the book.  Which we did.  No interference, clutching, grabbing, hooking, etc. No pushing forwards away from the front of the net when they didn't have the puck.  According to the book you cannot retard or interfere with an opposing players progress unless making or finishing a check.  And you can't use your stick at any time to retard progress.

I recommend getting a rule book and reading it.  Pretty interesting.  It helps to appreciate the game a bit more I think.  Especially the reffing part of it. 

I don't play much any more except some pond hockey now and then when there is ice.  But I sure enjoy watching Maine and the Bruins especially now with the skilled players carrying the day!

On 3/23/2010 8:56 PM, Adam Parker wrote:

Clair - I have to say that I thought the refs called it fairly - but come on.  For the entire first period every call was a hook.  Cross check in the chest = hook.  Pushing from behind face first into the boards = hook.  Stick to the head = hook.

I was glad they got that straightened out for the 2nd period.

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Clair <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I'll second that Pat!  I'm really looking forward to next year to see what these guys can accomplish!  I am also really interested to see how far BC will go.  They are definitely a good team. 
The only other comment about the BC game is that I thought it was the best reffed college hockey game that I had ever seen.  It was nice to see a game called the way the rule book actually reads! 
I am very proud of the team this year and I'm wearing my Maine Hockey baseball hat with pride! 

On 3/22/2010 5:04 PM, Pat Leathers wrote:

Thank you Bob for your comments!  Your positive - and realistic view, in my opinion, is always a welcome addition to the discussion.  The team did a fantastic job and should feel very proud of themselves.   2011 should be another fun season - can't wait!

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Bob Woodbury <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

"one significantly longer than many people thought would be" is the ONLY thought I might disagree with in your post. I would change "many people" to "everyone." I really got upset with those who posted comments after game stories that said the season was a disappointment. They either had their head buried in the sand all season or they were bandwagon jumpers who had NO idea what had gone on either pre-season or during the season. I started to write "I couldn't be happier," then realized I'd really like to have one goal back. Then after some thought, I couldn't be happier with the season that really had NO expectations when it began. GO BLUE. DROP THE PUCK!