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
 |
Virus-free. www.avast.com |
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 MachnikMerrimack RadioCollege Hockey News
On Apr 12, 2019, at 7:31 AM, Carol White <[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
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.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
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