The anatomy of a game-winning goal: Kozek to Malone to Zajac?

One fact that went largely unnoticed following Darcy Zajac's dramatic overtime goal against Colorado College last Sunday was that none of the three forwards involved in setting up and scoring the goal had been playing together on the same line.

While it's not unusual in the process of changing lines on the fly for a few players from different lines to be on the ice when a goal is scored, I couldn't recall an instance when teams were playing 5-on-5 in which all three forwards involved in a goal had each been playing on different lines during a game (Zajac third line center, Brad Malone fourth line center and Andrew Kozek first line wing).

When I asked Fighting Sioux coach Dave Hakstol how this happened, here's how he explained the situation:

When (Brett) Hextall came out of the box, he had an opportunity to join in the play, so he ended up staying out on the ice for about 30+ seconds, which made him unavailable for the next shift. With Rau up for CC, I wanted to get Duncan's line back on the ice. Malone was out in place of Hextall on the right wing. In the meantime, Duncan took a fairly short shift. Zajac's line was up next, so he took Duncan on the fly. After the partial change on the fly, instead of Kozek-Duncan-Malone, we had Kozek-Zajac-Malone. It made sense at the time, but I'm not sure if it does when I look at it in print!

Hakstol emphasized that the key element in making this work was Malone's reliability in playing any position in any situation, a trust he has gained over the past couple of months.

Who Is Running the WCHA?

Just when you think the WCHA can't get any more screwed up, they challenge that notion, again.

We're aware of the Wandering Coach Hockey Association (courtesy PCM) merely rubber-stamping a wrist-slap on George "The Dashing Dasher Dancer" Gwozdecky by Denver University. Coach Gwoz got a one-game suspension for: a) standing on the dasher and delaying play, b) a stroll across the ice attempt to intimidate a uniformed league game official, and c) violation of the "no contact with team until the contest is complete" rule that is part of a game ejection. (Did I mention that Coach Gwoz was part of the rules committee not that long ago?)

We're aware of the WCHA rubber-stamping another DU action when they suspended Mullen for a vicious, and near bench-clearning brawl triggering, slash at the end of a game at UM-Duluth.

We're aware of the league doing nothing about MSU-Mankato's Trevor Bruess (who should have been called for checking from behind after a vicious hit on UND's Jason Gregoire but it was called "boarding"). Before that, Bruess had been penalized for kneeing. The next night, in a game he probably shouldn't have been playing in due to the check from behind, he ends up (I'm going to say it) slew footing UND's Derrick LaPoint, breaking LaPoint's leg in two places in the process. The league rubber-stamped the MSU-Mankato "no reason given" suspension of Bruess for a game.

Oh, and MSU-M's Geoff Irwin laid just as vicious of a slash on a UND player as the one that got Mullen suspended by DU (not by the league remember). And like Mullen, Irwin's was at the end of a game and could've trigged a post-game brawl. Irwin received no sanction for that: Thank you MSU-M and WCHA.

The WCHA doesn't lead when it comes to player safety. It appears to have abdicated that role completely.

Turns out the WCHA doesn't even have a contingency plan for the (given recent seismic activity) likely event of a volcanic eruption affecting games and travel with Alaska-Anchorage. Don't get me wrong, volcano plans aren't the norm, but the league has no "act of God" (think: blizzard) contingency plan that applies?

Now we find out that the penalty to Wisconsin's Mitchell (at the end of the Saturday game with DU) is a major and game DQ, no, a double-minor, no, wait, a major but only a game misconduct. (Dear Wisconsin president, after you decide what to do with Mitchell, make sure the WCHA gets a chance to rubber-stamp it.)

Read all about Mitchell and the "no reason given" MSU-M suspension of Bruess at USCHO.

If Milewski's blog is correct the change appears to fly in the face of the NCAA (you've heard of them I'd guess) rule that penalties after games can only be INCREASED, not reduced. Then again, the WCHA didn't seem to care about the Dashing Dasher Dancer violating the NCAA "team contact" rule.

Then again, the league seems to not care about NCAA points of emphasis regarding checking from behind and obstruction much either.

Just when you think the WCHA can't get more screwed up it shows its consistency:

The WCHA lacks consistent leadership, and worse, consistently just lacks leadership.

A good example of a bad precedent

Perhaps I shouldn't attempt to paraphrase from memory what UND hockey coach Dave Hakstol said on Wednesday night's Fighting Sioux coaches show, but he made some good points worth examining. He noted that it wasn't up to him to determine what should happen to Denver University coach George Gwozdecky after last Saturday's game. Therefore, he wouldn't address that issue.

However, Hakstol was concerned about what happened during the game and how the officials handled it. He said that Gwozdecky's actions were calculated to fire up his team. Gwozdecky also admitted that he wanted "to get the attention of our officials."

Hakstol understood why Gwozdecky did this, but he believes that the in-game consequences should have been more severe than they were. Hakstol said that at a minimum, DU should have received a delay of game penalty for Gwozdecky's stroll across the ice, which would have resulted in a UND 5-on-3 power play.

Hakstol believes that when a coach resorts to such drastic action, his team should suffer the consequences. He didn't think the penalties assessed matched the level of the offenses committed by Gwozdecky, and I agree.

Of course, this begs the question as to whether UND could have capitalized on the two-man advantage. As bad as the Sioux power play was that game, I have my doubts. But if UND had scored at that point, it would have been a momentum swing in their favor and might have had a demoralizing effect on DU's bench. On the other hand, if DU had killed the penalties, the momentum might well have gone completely in the Pioneers' direction. Perhaps they would have won the game rather than settling for a 2-2 tie.

From my perspective, it's clear that the officiating crew was intimidated by Gwozdecky's actions. After he was tossed from the game, they refused to call the penalty on him that he richly deserved when he failed to comply with the ejection. The officials then proceeded to call five straight penalties on UND and none on DU. It was a shameful performance on many levels. Both coaches are justified in believing that they were shortchanged by the officiating.

During the post-game session with Gwozdecky, it became obvious that going into the series, there were issues between him and referee Todd Anderson related to the Mike Prpich-Geoff Paukovich incident in Denver a few seasons ago. In retrospect, having Anderson work this important series was an unwise decision.

What troubles me most is that Gwozdecky not only received no penalty for going out on to the ice to confront officials during the game, but that he also received no further discipline from Denver University or the WCHA (now known as the Wandering Coach Hockey Association) for this particular action. (He was later suspended a game by DU for communicating with the team during the game following his ejection.) Is this an appropriate message to send?

In hockey, as with all athletic contests, scarcely a game goes by in which a coach either disputes an official's call against his/her team or objects to a penalty or foul not being called. While coaches frequently display anger with officials, there must be limits on how far they go in acting on it. UND wasted no time in setting that standard when Hakstol made an obscene gesture toward officials during a game in Minnesota last season.

If neither DU nor the WCHA nor the NCAA will discipline Gwozdecky for his temper tantrum, his failure to obey a referee's decision, his willful interruption of a game attended by 11,800 paying fans or his display of poor sportsmanship witnessed by thousands of TV viewers across the Upper Midwest, who will?

A disturbing precedent is set when a league doesn't respond effectively to the intimidation of its officials during an athletic event and then refuses to discipline the coach who purposely engaged in the intimidation tactic. Does this mean that any WCHA coach who disagrees with an official's call during a game is now free to go berserk and storm on to the ice to debate the matter? Because that's exactly what happened here – and it worked. So why shouldn’t other WCHA coaches feel free to emulate Gwozdecky’s example?

In the end, it goes back to inconsistent, low-quality officiating in the WCHA and the inability of the organization's leadership to make prudent decisions. Until those issues are addressed, embarrassing episodes such as this will continue to happen and player safety will continue to suffer. Unfortunately, I fear that it will take a catastrophic event for any of this to change. Sadly, Robbie Bina’s broken neck wasn’t enough to transform the manner in which the WCHA operates.

So How'd I Do?

So, how'd I do in my speculations ("Should I Stay Or Should I Go")?

At forward I picked (albeit with inaccurate logic):
- Oshie to be the most likely to leave, and
- Hextall and Lamoureux to be coming in.

Where'd I miss? David Toews (not Brett Bruneteau) is scheduled to matriculate on the UND campus this fall.

So the tally appears to be: Hextall, Lamoureux, and Toews for Kaip, Radke, and Oshie.

At defense, well, you win some and lose some.

Ben Blood as Robbie Bina's replacement was all but a gimme, but I'll take it.

Let's hope Taylor Chorney's replacement, Corey Fienhage, can make that jump from MSHSL to the WCHA/NCAA. (I'd figured a guy with AJHL time to be the most likely replacement but it seems MacWilliams is another year in Canadian juniors.)

All in all, not terribly bad predicting for strictly looking from the outside in.

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

It seems appropriate that The Clash (stay or go, conflicted, a clash, get it?) filled the airwaves with that question many years ago. I’m sure many UND players with professional aspirations are struggling with that question right now.

But before we delve into those considerations, let’s view this not from the individual’s but the team’s point of view.

UND has 9 forwards lined up to come in between now and September 2009. (Yes, that does say 2009 intentionally.) UND has 8 forwards who will run out of eligibility between now and 2009 and another named Chris VandeVelde who most likely won’t play a senior season given his size and talent (two of the NHL’s favorite commodities).

UND has 4 defensemen lined up to come in between now and September 2009. UND has 4 defensemen who will run out of eligibility between now and 2009.

Goaltending? JP Lamoureux leaves and Brad Eidsness arrives.

About the only non-alignment I see is a replacement in fall of 2009 for Aaron Walski.

To use a badly overused phrase: Coincidence? I think not.

Ever since I was first exposed to that data I was impressed. It seems to me that Dave Hakstol and his staff recruit with a plan much larger than just “this fall”. They seem to be thinking in terms of a couple of falls from now. The numbers bear this out.

So knowing that the numbers align nearly as well as one could possibly imagine I’m only left to wonder: “Who is going when? Who is coming when?”

Put another way, a lot seems to hinge on the answer to the question on the minds of some of UND’s top players, namely: “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” Only those players can answer that question for themselves.

Me, however, I can speculate on who would be coming in.

We know Lamoureux is gone. Welcome Brad Eidsness.

Robbie Bina has expended all of his eligibility. Ben Blood is the obvious choice. He’s USHL tested and will be 19.5 years old come September 2008.

Andrew MacWilliam, Joe Gleason, and Cory Finehage will all be 18.5 years this fall; however, MacWilliam is coming from an AJHL championship team this season, the others, the MSHSL and short stints in the USHL. MacWilliam seems next in line if there is a defensive early departure, with the remaining two filling the slots due to open for 2009.

Forward is where it gets tricky.

Rylan Kaip and Kyle Radke open immediate spots at forward. Given their ages (each will be 20+ when school opens in 2008) Brett Hextall and Mario Lamoureux appear to be obvious replacements.

But after that comes pure speculation. TJ Oshie? Kozek? Duncan? VandeVelde?

Oshie’s departure assures Jason Gregoire coming in (if that’s not the case already). Another forward departing early would seem to signal to me Brett Bruneteau’s position.

Some of you are wondering why I speculate Bruneteau and not David Toews or Mike Cichy. I based that on Bruneteau’s age (full year older than either) and extensive USHL experience.

Toews and Cichy would each be just past their 18th birthdays (18 years, 3 months or 2 months) at start of school this fall. In the recent era UND has only brought in three forwards that young: Jonathan Toews, Drew Stafford, and Zach Parise. (Michael Forney and Brad Malone each arrived at 18 years 4 months.)

David Toews’ late season injury adds further question to his entry. Mike Cichy led Tri-City (USHL) in scoring but didn’t crack the top 25 in the league with his 45 point tally. Those things make me wonder if they are ready for the WCHA and make me really glad I’m not Dave Hakstol having to make these calls.

More importantly for each, where’s their slot in the line-up?

Right now we have more questions than answers, with the key question being, for current roster members: “Should I stay or should I go?”

Season finale: Fighting Sioux Coaches Show

Here’s a summary of UND hockey coach Dave Hakstol’s comments on tonight’s season finale of the Fighting Sioux Coaches Show with Tim Hennessy and Scott Swygman on KFAN (1440 AM).

On whether the Sioux are sick of playing Boston College:
I hope we get another shot at them. We’re beginning to work on getting back to the Frozen Four and trying to change that word “appearance.” We’re into our end of the season meetings. We turn the page and keep moving. That’s the excitement of college hockey in the playoffs. It’s one-game shots. Believe it or not, we did a lot of good things in that first period. In a matter of seven minutes we saw our season come and go. I give a lot of credit to BC. They were the better team and got the job done.

On not gooning it up when the score became lopsided:
There were a lot of shots thrown at our team throughout the year for playing good, hard- nosed hockey, playing together and sticking together. Once we got to that third period it was hard to keep our cool, but our guys did a great job of that. It wasn’t a lack of competitiveness. One of the hard things to do is to keep your cool and act with class. It was a tough way for that group to have their season end. I really wanted the seniors to go out with at least a shot at a national championship. That isn’t the way we wanted to see their season end.

On what he said to the team after the first two periods:
The real difference after one was that fourth goal. It was the one that really let the air out of the tire and we never recovered from. After the second period, all you can do is play for that crest on the front of the jersey. You try to get the first one and then try to get two. There’s no quit in our program. The one thing you do is you play for the program and the jersey. Under the circumstances, I think we did the best we could do. What else can you ask of the team?

On whether the Sioux would have acted differently in a regular-season game:
Yes, there was some chirping and jersey pumping going on, but you don’t come out on the right side of that. In the playoffs, it’s a different scenario and you’re working to build something.

On having BC on the ropes in the first half of the first period:
Somewhere after the Eagles scored their first two goals, we needed to get one. We had some great opportunities. We had 8 or 9 great opportunities that we didn’t capitalize on and they did. That’s the difference in the game. On both of our first power plays, we had a lot of good opportunities. Right off the first shift, Rylan Kaip’s line set a real good tone for us.

Were you surprised that Notre Dame was in the championship?
It wasn’t a surprise, but it was an upset. They had a tough second half, but they won some games late in the season and they started to get their confidence back. It was an upset to beat Michigan. The Wolverines couldn’t find their way out of the three-goal deficit. Notre Dame’s a good team. They’re really well prepared.

On a caller’s comment that he would have liked to see a third-place game between UND and Michigan:
It would have been one heck of an entertaining game. It’s hard to come back after a season-ending loss to play another game, and I think that’s why the NCAA did away with the third-place game. I would have liked to have played that game on Saturday in this case. It might have been easier for us to put our season in perspective. You have a chance to redeem yourselves and end on a high note. It’s tough when you take a look around the rink and see all the Sioux fans who were there and participating around the country. We had unbelievable support. I’ve never seen anything like it. You’d like to do something positive for the fans.

On whether Oshie, Duncan, Chorney, Finley and Kozek will leave early:
Those guys have decisions to make. We’re going to lose one or two or three guys. They have to look at the situation and figure out what the best opportunity is for them. If they’re ready to go, we help them out. That’s what we do. There are a lot of guys who are close. T.J.’s proven that he’s ready to go to the next level. For any of them, there’s nothing wrong with coming back to play a fourth year and getting a degree. We’ll know in the next two or three weeks. Nobody’s going to play, so they’ll stay here and finish up school. They’ll take several days to look at things and take their time. It comes down to a business aspect. Sometimes a player will want to play a game or two to earn the first year of a contract. None of our guys are in that situation.

On the importance of a player coming back for the right reason:
You have to come back for the right reasons. I believe all our guys who had opportunities to go last season came back for the right reasons. You have to be here for the right reason or it’s not going to work with the individual or the program. If there’s indecision and you spend half your time thinking you should be somewhere else, it’s not going to work. We have a very good relationship with our players and we’re able to talk to them about these things. We want to make sure everything’s in place and everything’s perspective. At the end of the day, it’s the players and their families who have to decide.

On next year’s goaltending situation:
We have to have three goaltenders. We have to give consideration to Landon Snider. I’m not going in with any preconceived notions. We know Aaron Walski is a good goalie and we know his work ethic. We know Brad Eidsness is a good goalie. We want to have a third goalie involved in that. Whether it’s Snider, I don’t know.

On whether some recruits scheduled for 2009-2010 could come next season:
Let’s be realistic and honest. It’s a combination of opportunity and readiness. I was in Chicago last night and Dane Jackson was in western Canada. We have to be part of making good developmental decisions for each recruit. We’re looking at a little bit of everything. We’re pretty comfortable with where we’re at with our guys. Jason Gregoire, Eidsness and Brett Hextall have all earned honors this season. All three are 19-20 year olds with great experience who could have come in last year.

On whether there will be any restructuring or revamping of the WCHA officiating system:
Officiating will definitely be on the agenda during the WCHA meeting in April. How in- depth we’ll get, I don’t know. What’s most important is the level of calls we want to hold our players to. That’s a tough one. You can show one video clip of a penalty to 10 people and get three or four different interpretations on how it should be called.

Does college hockey need a system where everyone calls penalties the same?
You have discrepancies from league to league and within the leagues. We have to get ourselves on the same page and keep working on it. From the last half of last year, our standards slipped. I thought we were getting away from clutching, grabbing and obstruction. I thought we slipped back there. That will be discussed in Florida.

On whether differences in officiating styles are what makes hockey unique:
To a certain degree, the personality of the referee has some bearing. But there has to be a more standardized, specific level. For example, what is a hook? What constitutes a penalty and what doesn’t? Two seasons ago, if you put an arm around a guy for two counts, it was a penalty. That has slipped back. Maybe I’m off base and I’m the only one who thinks that way. I’ve been the first one to say that we can’t go to the level of the NHL. They’re the best of the best and they still make mistakes. But I think we can get closer to that level of efficiency. We all have to be part of helping with that. One of the best ideas came from Dean Blais who said that after a 10-minute cooling down period, the coaches would meet with the officials after every game. He thought that would solve everything. (laughs) I thought that was a great suggestion, but I don’t think it was ever put to a vote.

Now, Sioux! Now is your time!

I'm a bit of a military history buff. The battle I've probably studied more than any other is Waterloo. It occurred in Belgium in 1815 when a British-allied force led by the Duke of Wellington and a Prussian force led by Blucher teamed up to defeat a French army led by Napoleon.

The painting here depicts a defining moment of the battle. The French Imperial Guard, which to that moment had never known defeat, believes it has broken Wellington's defensive line and is marching to victory. But the British commander has cleverly concealed some of his best troops behind a ridge. They are lying down in corn fields. At the right moment, Wellington waves his hat and shouts an order to his brigade commander: "Now, Maitland! Now is your time!"

With that command, lines of red-coated British troops rose up and fired the devastating volleys of musketry for which they'd become famous. After mowing down France's finest infantry in waves, the British infantry followed up with a bayonet charge that sent what remained of the Imperial Guard fleeing back down the slope. Seeing the Guard running for their lives sent a shockwave through the French army, which crumbled under the pressure from the advancing Prussians. The French went down to defeat at Waterloo and Napoleon was vanquished for good.

Wellington went into the campaign not knowing how much he could trust the Prussians or the allied units of his army. But he knew that the British infantry, which provided the backbone of his force during the Napoleonic war in Portugal and Spain, were absolutely reliable and dependable in critical situations.

What does this have to do with Fighting Sioux hockey? To me, the British infantry of North Dakota's team heading to the NCAA Frozen Four in Denver this week are the seniors and juniors. If UND brings home its eighth national championship, it will be because the older, more experienced players on the roster stepped up and provided leadership when it was most needed and made the key plays at the critical points in two games.

Against Princeton in the NCAA Midwest Regional at Madison, it was senior goalie Jean-Philippe Lamoureux who prevented the Tigers from taking advantage of UND's slow start. It was junior forward Andrew Kozek who got the first goal. And it was Ryan Duncan, a junior and last year's Hobey Baker winner, who took the team on his back by scoring three straight goals to put the game out of reach.

In the game that sent the Sioux to the Frozen Four, Lamoureux once again came through with stellar goaltending that kept Wisconsin from running away with the contest after two periods of dominance. As assistant coach Dane Jackson noted on last week's Fighting Sioux Coaches Show, it was senior captain Rylan Kaip who scored the first UND goal against the Badgers and sent the message to his teammates: "Follow me!"

Forty-seven seconds later, Duncan tied the game after being set up beautifully by junior T.J. Oshie, who was playing in pain after blocking a shot during a Wisconsin power play. In overtime, it was Oshie's faceoff win in the Badgers' zone and senior defenseman Robbie Bina's shot from the point that resulted in the rebound that Kozek pounced on and stuffed in to end the game with a UND victory.

Much has been written about the pact that brought juniors Oshie, Duncan, Taylor Chorney and Joe Finley back to Grand Forks for another season of Sioux hockey rather than signing NHL contracts when they had the opportunity. But championships at UND aren't won by individuals. They're won by teams with players who lead by example and inspire everyone around them to be their best.

That's why I look back at the Battle of Waterloo and put my own spin on Wellington's famous line: Now, Bina, Kaip, Lamoureux, Radke, Chorney, Duncan, Finley, Jones, Kozek, Martens, Miller, Oshie, Walski and Watkins.

Now is your time!