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