As I always say, it's just soooo easy to be a Monday morning quarterback. And, it takes no talent whatsoever. <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> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 2:21 PM David Parter <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 1:50 left in a 3-3 national semi-final game. You can use your challenge > for a potential major penalty, or save it for a disputed goal (for or > against you). That's the decision the coach has to make, and has to make > right now. > > --david > > On 4/12/19 11:46 AM, Mark Lewin wrote: > > 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 > > > <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 Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 10:00 AM Mike Machnik < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> 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 >> >> >> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >