2008 NCAA Frozen Four

[Joshawaggie]

Wow... So much has changed. A few years ago, the WCHA had all four teams in the Frozen Four. Now, it's just one team for the WCHA (North Dakota). Did the balance of power shift to the other leagues or what?

Not really...I mean the WCHA had the most teams in the tournament (6) and 3 were in the same regional. I would say that the CCHA is catching up to the WCHA, but the WCHA top to bottom is still probably better.

At one point as recently as a couple weeks before the season ended, the bracketology showed 7-8 WCHA teams in the tourney. Then Duluth blew it, and so did Mankato, letting Wisconsin slip in ahead of them. As for the national tourney, I'm suprised at DU and CC losing, not suprised about St Cloud. No offense to Minnesota and Wisconsin, but them not making it to the frozen four isn't too suprising, neither were solid all year, although Wisconsin almost did what I though Minnesota would do, since the Gophs rode Kangas into the tourney, I thought they might make it to Denver.

Go Sioux!

[KevinMcD]

Looks like BC is headed to the title game. They are up 6-0 on North Dakota in the second intermission.

Nathan Gerbe (Sabres Prospect) already has a hat-trick.

[Breakwood]

Woohoo! BC's up big time. Their lost last year was heartbreaking (according to my friend on the team) so it's great to seem them on their way to another final.

[gingerbreadmann]

YES! This time let's pull it out!

Break-Wood, the last 2 years have been heartbreaking. 2 straight National Title game losses. This year, we have to finish the deal.

[Breakwood]

YES! This time let's pull it out!

Break-Wood, the last 2 years have been heartbreaking. 2 straight National Title game losses. This year, we have to finish the deal.

I only started following BC last year when my friend went to play for them. He had offers from Michigan and BC, so if the Eagles end up playing Michigan he will really want to win the game.

[Joshawaggie]

G.D.

[JJSCOTT]

this michigan vs nd game is unreal!!! most exciting game i have seen all year!!!

[lets_go_red]

Notre Dame in a thriller, interesting note I played against Calle Ridderwall 2 years ago and he is dating one of my teammates sisters (he scored the game winner). Anyways- spectacular game, goaltending has seemed to be suspect tonight for all teams but BC...I'm giving them the edge in the National Championship for that reason.

[myartsaywhat]

BC looked unstoppable today, we'll see if they can keep it going.

[rams80]

So anyway, my cable went out about 40 seconds before Notre Dame scored in O/T.

Not happy was I.

[Brass]

Notre Dame got robbed. That was a goal.

[gingerbreadmann]

YES!!! YESSS!!!! YYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

Notre Dame got robbed. That was a goal.

Are you kidding me?

here - this is the most simple explanation I can find from the USCHO boards. (among all the people complaining how incompetent it was)

1) Right skate was 'kicking forward' when the puck hit it. Player's stick was also in the direction of the net. In fact, a direct line between the skate and the goal line.

2) The obvious intent was to kick the puck FORWARD onto his stick and push it in the goal.

3) No stick touched the puck after a distinct kicking motion towards the net (where his stick was) nor was it touched by a Boston College player.

4) Thus, while not trying to kick it in the net, the puck was propelled into the net by forward and distinct kicking motion with the right foot. Not touched by the offensive stick, or a defensive player, and it crossed the line. No Goal.

Plus, IIRC, it never hit is stick anyeay, which is a rule. But it doesn't matter, does it? Ha ha! YEEESSS!!!!!!!

[Brass]

YES!!! YESSS!!!! YYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

Notre Dame got robbed. That was a goal.

Are you kidding me?

here - this is the most simple explanation I can find from the USCHO boards. (among all the people complaining how incompetent it was)

1) Right skate was 'kicking forward' when the puck hit it. Player's stick was also in the direction of the net. In fact, a direct line between the skate and the goal line.

2) The obvious intent was to kick the puck FORWARD onto his stick and push it in the goal.

3) No stick touched the puck after a distinct kicking motion towards the net (where his stick was) nor was it touched by a Boston College player.

4) Thus, while not trying to kick it in the net, the puck was propelled into the net by forward and distinct kicking motion with the right foot. Not touched by the offensive stick, or a defensive player, and it crossed the line. No Goal.

Plus, IIRC, it never hit is stick anyeay, which is a rule. But it doesn't matter, does it? Ha ha! YEEESSS!!!!!!!

The reason his leg kicked forward is because the BC defenseman was shoving his stick into the leg of the ND forward. And in all honesty, this happened AFTER the puck left his foot which was sitting still until the defenseman rammed his stick into his leg. There was no kicking-like motion until AFTER the puck was away from him. It's clearly visible in the instant replay. I have no reservations that ND would of tied it up shortly after that. Calling that a "no-goal" simply took all the momentum away from ND. Also, sending Gerbe out there with an empty net to get his hat-trick is a lame way to get it.

And for the record, I'm a BC fan who simply feels that ND got screwed.

[SEMOSTLfan]

As a Notre Dame fan, I am disappointed to come up short to BC in yet another athletic competition but it was one heck of a run for the Irish being the last team to qualify for the field.

[gingerbreadmann]

YES!!! YESSS!!!! YYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

Notre Dame got robbed. That was a goal.

Are you kidding me?

here - this is the most simple explanation I can find from the USCHO boards. (among all the people complaining how incompetent it was)

1) Right skate was 'kicking forward' when the puck hit it. Player's stick was also in the direction of the net. In fact, a direct line between the skate and the goal line.

2) The obvious intent was to kick the puck FORWARD onto his stick and push it in the goal.

3) No stick touched the puck after a distinct kicking motion towards the net (where his stick was) nor was it touched by a Boston College player.

4) Thus, while not trying to kick it in the net, the puck was propelled into the net by forward and distinct kicking motion with the right foot. Not touched by the offensive stick, or a defensive player, and it crossed the line. No Goal.

Plus, IIRC, it never hit is stick anyeay, which is a rule. But it doesn't matter, does it? Ha ha! YEEESSS!!!!!!!

The reason his leg kicked forward is because the BC defenseman was shoving his stick into the leg of the ND forward. And in all honesty, this happened AFTER the puck left his foot which was sitting still until the defenseman rammed his stick into his leg. There was no kicking-like motion until AFTER the puck was away from him. It's clearly visible in the instant replay. I have no reservations that ND would of tied it up shortly after that. Calling that a "no-goal" simply took all the momentum away from ND. Also, sending Gerbe out there with an empty net to get his hat-trick is a lame way to get it.

And for the record, I'm a BC fan who simply feels that ND got screwed.

I know you're a BC fan. I was laughing as no one in particular.

I think he shoved his stick into his torso. Even so, that kicking motion was far too deliberate to be incidental. I will admit it looked like the motion started immediately after the puck deflected but there is no rule that says it is a goal even if the player missed his kick, which the guy did. And it never hit his stick so that is why he tried to poke it in after, even when it was going in anyway. I agree it took away their momentum and they very well might have tied it up in the remaining time. I just feel it was the correct call.

So do we get a visit to the President Pope next week?

[Brass]

YES!!! YESSS!!!! YYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

Notre Dame got robbed. That was a goal.

Are you kidding me?

here - this is the most simple explanation I can find from the USCHO boards. (among all the people complaining how incompetent it was)

1) Right skate was 'kicking forward' when the puck hit it. Player's stick was also in the direction of the net. In fact, a direct line between the skate and the goal line.

2) The obvious intent was to kick the puck FORWARD onto his stick and push it in the goal.

3) No stick touched the puck after a distinct kicking motion towards the net (where his stick was) nor was it touched by a Boston College player.

4) Thus, while not trying to kick it in the net, the puck was propelled into the net by forward and distinct kicking motion with the right foot. Not touched by the offensive stick, or a defensive player, and it crossed the line. No Goal.

Plus, IIRC, it never hit is stick anyeay, which is a rule. But it doesn't matter, does it? Ha ha! YEEESSS!!!!!!!

The reason his leg kicked forward is because the BC defenseman was shoving his stick into the leg of the ND forward. And in all honesty, this happened AFTER the puck left his foot which was sitting still until the defenseman rammed his stick into his leg. There was no kicking-like motion until AFTER the puck was away from him. It's clearly visible in the instant replay. I have no reservations that ND would of tied it up shortly after that. Calling that a "no-goal" simply took all the momentum away from ND. Also, sending Gerbe out there with an empty net to get his hat-trick is a lame way to get it.

And for the record, I'm a BC fan who simply feels that ND got screwed.

I know you're a BC fan. I was laughing as no one in particular.

I think he shoved his stick into his torso. Even so, that kicking motion was far too deliberate to be incidental. I will admit it looked like the motion started immediately after the puck deflected but there is no rule that says it is a goal even if the player missed his kick, which the guy did. And it never hit his stick so that is why he tried to poke it in after, even when it was going in anyway. I agree it took away their momentum and they very well might have tied it up in the remaining time. I just feel it was the correct call.

So do we get a visit to the President Pope next week?

The stick was shoved into the back of his leg. I know that for a fact. The kicking motion was done AFTER the puck left. His foot was basically dormant until he was shoved with the stick. The ND forward had his foot positioned so that the puck would deflect off of his foot and land right in front of him. You can base that off of the fact that his stick was coming down to hit the puck. The way the pass was sent, it deflected off of his foot and into the next, with no extra assistance from the guy in front, minus his foot. I feel it was the incorrect call and cost Notre Dame the chance to be National Champions.

[winghaz]

I hate frickin Boston College.

[rams80]

I hate frickin Boston College.

Ehhh....as I said before, maybe ESPN will care a little more about hockey now. I can only hope.