|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 10, 2008 21:38:27 GMT -4
Can somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe after the 1st PP expired and the 1st stoppage of play, there should have been 4 players on the ice for Moncton and 3 for Victo instead of 5 against 4. Yes ... thats what happened. Both teams had too many men on the ice when the goal was scored. There was a stoppage after the first penalty expired and that is when both teams should have taken a player off to make it 4 on 3. Now some would say it doesn't make a difference ... we still had the man advantage. but it does make a difference ... a 4 on 3 is a lot harder to defend than a 5 on 4. Plus ... if its 4 on 3 then the Vic forward doesn't forecheck and hangs back. With 4 guys on the ice they could send one guy in on the forecheck and that created the goal. It wasn't Domingue's fault .. .the puck stopped within the trapezoid and he couldn't play it ... the Dman hung back expecting Domingue to play it up to him ... but he couldn't and the Vic forechecker got the puck ... and then you know the rest. Flynn sent Cameron to the timekeepers bench after the refs had left ... and I assume he was filing a protest. Murphy blew it at the end of the game ... I doubt they overturn the result but that mistake had a big effect on the outcome. we didn't deserve to win tonight ... but that doesn't change the mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Dman on Oct 10, 2008 21:38:41 GMT -4
On another note... it was discussed at the game that rookie referees should always be paired up with a referee with more experience... Couldn't agree more. We were discussing that as well. Alot of missed calls. He made Cory Cassidy look good on a few occasions.
|
|
|
Post by tostitos on Oct 10, 2008 21:39:04 GMT -4
You pretty much had two rookie officials tonight ( linesman and a rookie referee ) and a veteran linesman. I'm surprised the vet linesman didn't catch that. Anyone catch if Larry Christian was at the game?
|
|
|
Post by buckybuckbuck on Oct 10, 2008 21:39:12 GMT -4
Oh well, lots to learn and take away from in that game. Liked Biduke, he hit everything and it made a difference on his line. Dimitruk was playing strong I thought.
I thought I would like a referee that just let them play hockey but it seemed to be a clutching and grabbing night and once it was ignorred it was impossible to start calling later. It doesn't change that the Tigers just out hustled the Cats tonight. We were lucky to get the point even though the ending was strange.
|
|
|
Post by bystander on Oct 10, 2008 21:40:32 GMT -4
i forgot the rule about where the goalie cannot play the puck that sucks...oh well. yes 1 pt is 1 more than we deserved tonight.. take it and run..
|
|
|
Post by tostitos on Oct 10, 2008 21:42:26 GMT -4
Can somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe after the 1st PP expired and the 1st stoppage of play, there should have been 4 players on the ice for Moncton and 3 for Victo instead of 5 against 4. Yes ... thats what happened. Both teams had too many men on the ice when the goal was scored. There was a stoppage after the first penalty expired and that is when both teams should have taken a player off to make it 4 on 3. Now some would say it doesn't make a difference ... we still had the man advantage. but it does make a difference ... a 4 on 3 is a lot harder to defend than a 5 on 4. Plus ... if its 4 on 3 then the Vic forward doesn't forecheck and hangs back. With 4 guys on the ice they could send one guy in on the forecheck and that created the goal. It wasn't Domingue's fault .. .the puck stopped within the trapezoid and he couldn't play it ... the Dman hung back expecting Domingue to play it up to him ... but he couldn't and the Vic forechecker got the puck ... and then you know the rest. Flynn sent Cameron to the timekeepers bench after the refs had left ... and I assume he was filing a protest. Murphy blew it at the end of the game ... I doubt they overturn the result but that mistake had a big effect on the outcome. we didn't deserve to win tonight ... but that doesn't change the mistake. If you file a protest you don't send your assistant captain over, and you file with the league, not the off-ice officials. But, I'm pretty sure you can't protest this. Les Stoodley said he was trying to retrieve a puck or something. I remember this same situation occured in the AHL a few years ago, and the win wasn't reversed.
|
|
tal
Blue-Chip Prospect
Posts: 327
|
Post by tal on Oct 10, 2008 21:43:02 GMT -4
On another note... it was discussed at the game that rookie referees should always be paired up with a referee with more experience... I'm not convinced that would really solve anything. Any official moving from one level to another faces some adjustment period - there's no way to really know whether an official can adjust (or how fast) until they actually do that level. Putting a rookie ref with an experienced ref is good from the perspective of mentoring, but both refs are still refs - the rookie can't be passing calls by the senior ref during the game. Rookie refs need mentoring, but in the sense of reviewing video of games with senior officials, learning from the experience, etc. As painful as it is by times, the Q is a developmental league - for officials as well as players.
|
|
|
Post by hockey1981 on Oct 10, 2008 21:43:13 GMT -4
I thought Cats 1st & 2nd period were worst 2 periods they played all year. Take the point & run
I hope they have a better game on Sunday, should be goalies duel Riopel vs Allen...
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Afanasenkov on Oct 10, 2008 21:45:39 GMT -4
Yes ... thats what happened. Both teams had too many men on the ice when the goal was scored. There was a stoppage after the first penalty expired and that is when both teams should have taken a player off to make it 4 on 3. Now some would say it doesn't make a difference ... we still had the man advantage. but it does make a difference ... a 4 on 3 is a lot harder to defend than a 5 on 4. Plus ... if its 4 on 3 then the Vic forward doesn't forecheck and hangs back. With 4 guys on the ice they could send one guy in on the forecheck and that created the goal. It wasn't Domingue's fault .. .the puck stopped within the trapezoid and he couldn't play it ... the Dman hung back expecting Domingue to play it up to him ... but he couldn't and the Vic forechecker got the puck ... and then you know the rest. Flynn sent Cameron to the timekeepers bench after the refs had left ... and I assume he was filing a protest. Murphy blew it at the end of the game ... I doubt they overturn the result but that mistake had a big effect on the outcome. we didn't deserve to win tonight ... but that doesn't change the mistake. If you file a protest you don't send your assistant captain over, and you file with the league, not the off-ice officials. But, I'm pretty sure you can't protest this. Les Stoodley said he was trying to retrieve a puck or something. I remember this same situation occured in the AHL a few years ago, and the win wasn't reversed. I don't think anybody here expects the loss to be reversed. I'm sure what most would like to see if that steps be taken to try and prevent this from happening again. The Q league would never admit fault.
|
|
|
Post by tostitos on Oct 10, 2008 21:48:48 GMT -4
If you file a protest you don't send your assistant captain over, and you file with the league, not the off-ice officials. But, I'm pretty sure you can't protest this. Les Stoodley said he was trying to retrieve a puck or something. I remember this same situation occured in the AHL a few years ago, and the win wasn't reversed. I don't think anybody here expects the loss to be reversed. I'm sure what most would like to see if that steps be taken to try and prevent this from happening again. The Q league would never admit fault. As people were questioning, why not put an experienced ref with a rookie ref? I guarantee you if a Dupuis, Arsenault or Pellerin were out there this would never have happened. These officials were undoubtedly be fined, but will it be made public? We can only wait and see.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Oct 10, 2008 21:48:59 GMT -4
Yes ... thats what happened. Both teams had too many men on the ice when the goal was scored. There was a stoppage after the first penalty expired and that is when both teams should have taken a player off to make it 4 on 3. Now some would say it doesn't make a difference ... we still had the man advantage. but it does make a difference ... a 4 on 3 is a lot harder to defend than a 5 on 4. Plus ... if its 4 on 3 then the Vic forward doesn't forecheck and hangs back. With 4 guys on the ice they could send one guy in on the forecheck and that created the goal. It wasn't Domingue's fault .. .the puck stopped within the trapezoid and he couldn't play it ... the Dman hung back expecting Domingue to play it up to him ... but he couldn't and the Vic forechecker got the puck ... and then you know the rest. Flynn sent Cameron to the timekeepers bench after the refs had left ... and I assume he was filing a protest. Murphy blew it at the end of the game ... I doubt they overturn the result but that mistake had a big effect on the outcome. we didn't deserve to win tonight ... but that doesn't change the mistake. If you file a protest you don't send your assistant captain over, and you file with the league, not the off-ice officials. But, I'm pretty sure you can't protest this. Les Stoodley said he was trying to retrieve a puck or something. I remember this same situation occured in the AHL a few years ago, and the win wasn't reversed. If you get the opportunity ... you get it written on the game sheet that the game is under protest.
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Afanasenkov on Oct 10, 2008 21:53:03 GMT -4
I'm not convinced that would really solve anything. Any official moving from one level to another faces some adjustment period - there's no way to really know whether an official can adjust (or how fast) until they actually do that level. Putting a rookie ref with an experienced ref is good from the perspective of mentoring, but both refs are still refs - the rookie can't be passing calls by the senior ref during the game. Rookie refs need mentoring, but in the sense of reviewing video of games with senior officials, learning from the experience, etc. As painful as it is by times, the Q is a developmental league - for officials as well as players. You're right, it is a developmental league for players as well as officials. Throwing a rookie referee out there may not be the smartest thing, I'm not saying you limit what he can call and that he must pass his calls through the senior guy or that he needs to OK his calls before blowing his whistle. Say you take a new job, you aren't going to be thrown into a position being told "Here ya go... go to it...". If you have minimal experience you would always have some sort of mentorship while on the job. Not after.
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Afanasenkov on Oct 10, 2008 21:59:38 GMT -4
On another note... who picked the stars? Lahey first star?
|
|
|
Post by sec21critic on Oct 10, 2008 21:59:58 GMT -4
On another note... it was discussed at the game that rookie referees should always be paired up with a referee with more experience... I'm not convinced that would really solve anything. Any official moving from one level to another faces some adjustment period - there's no way to really know whether an official can adjust (or how fast) until they actually do that level. Putting a rookie ref with an experienced ref is good from the perspective of mentoring, but both refs are still refs - the rookie can't be passing calls by the senior ref during the game. Rookie refs need mentoring, but in the sense of reviewing video of games with senior officials, learning from the experience, etc. As painful as it is by times, the Q is a developmental league - for officials as well as players. However, it is an extra set of eyes out there... and for me, it further justifies the two referee system. Cats didn't deserve the point... but Flynn had every right to be hot at the end, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Over60 on Oct 10, 2008 22:01:16 GMT -4
On another note... it was discussed at the game that rookie referees should always be paired up with a referee with more experience... I'm not convinced that would really solve anything. Any official moving from one level to another faces some adjustment period - there's no way to really know whether an official can adjust (or how fast) until they actually do that level. Putting a rookie ref with an experienced ref is good from the perspective of mentoring, but both refs are still refs - the rookie can't be passing calls by the senior ref during the game. Rookie refs need mentoring, but in the sense of reviewing video of games with senior officials, learning from the experience, etc. As painful as it is by times, the Q is a developmental league - for officials as well as players. Some officials get developed in the Q but it should not be considered a development league for officials. Unlike the players the officials are paid to officiate. That being said we, the fans, should be expecting the officials to be performing at an higher level (mistake free??) than the players. Many good officials such as Pellerin (referee) and Doucette (linesman), stay in this area likely for personal reasons. They are not likely to "develop" any further and have reached a pinnacle by their assignments to world tournaments. So don't consider the Q a development for officials. The real problem is that NHL expansion has created a void in the talent pool meaning officials who should only be doing minor hockey games are doing major junior games.
|
|