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
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
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.
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
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