Right — and one other key component of the decision that has to be made: if you decide to challenge and ask for a video review, and you lose the challenge, you lose your timeout. With 3:10 left in a 3-3 game, you run the risk, for example, of not having your timeout available to use if your team ices the puck. That could cost you the game. Of course, if you win the challenge, you have a golden opportunity to win the game. Tough decision to make, but one where I think you have to be very sure you’re going to win it, including that it has to be ruled a major and ejection for the offending player by the rules. As mentioned under the current rules, even if the review results in a determination that it was a penalty but didn’t quite rise to that level, no penalty at all is called and you still lose the challenge and timeout.
What we don’t know is what information the DU staff had available to it at the time they had to decide. But with the experience they have on that staff — including two former head coaches as assistants, and both Carle and MacMillan having been assistants on the 2017 NCAA Championship team — I just don’t think a lack of experience or the fact that Carle is in his first year as head coach was a factor. I think they made the best decision they could with what they knew at that time, one that even a longtime head coach may have made.
And I would reiterate that what Denver did in that game yesterday without Pettersen was just remarkable. I didn’t give them much chance knowing he was out. Even Carvel commented after the game on the great game plan that Denver had. I don’t think you come up with that plan and coach the way you do during that game as a staff and then suddenly make a blunder like this. To me it wasn’t a blunder. In hindsight it certainly looks like they should have called for the challenge, but there’s so much that can go into a decision like this that it’s hard for me to question it.
I do think that what we saw just in the games yesterday, not to mention throughout the season, indicates there is still work to be done to refine the replay/review system. It should not have to come down to a coach having to make a decision like this in a game of this magnitude. IMO, the purpose of replay is to avoid the egregious mistakes that may sometimes occur as a result of officials simply being human. It should augment the work they do down on the ice. To that end, I’d like to see an official in the booth who has the power to call down and say, hey guys, here’s a play you should take a look at. It’s not going to be possible to do this every game nor do I think it should, but it could be done at least in conference semifinals and championships, as well as the NCAA tournament.
And in support of that, it just doesn’t look good for the game on this stage to have things like this happen. On the DU side, you have a play where they almost certainly should have received a major power play and had that opportunity to win the game. On the UMass side, you have a player who went to practice today getting ready to play in the NCAA championship game and was told he won’t be playing. If the call had been made at that time, it probably would have resulted in a major and game misconduct, and while he would have been out the rest of that game, he probably would have been able to come back tomorrow night — although we don’t know that of course, because the supplemental discipline could have still been handed down. But maybe not.
We have the technology. We just have to use it right.
Along the same lines, I wanted to touch on the fact that often it seems like video review is taking an extraordinarily long time — with the very valid thought that if it isn’t that clear to make a quick decision to change the call on the ice, then that should tell you the call should stand. But many times it is actually the case that they’re having trouble getting the system to work and show them the replays and angles they want to see. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve learned after a game that that happened. That means there is still work to be done to improve the system and access to what they need to see. We’re still relatively early in the era of video review, with the inevitable growing pains — I think we’ll see further refinement to the entire process in the near future.
- mike
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:
[log in to unmask]" class="">
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
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
