There should be a more reasonable approach to reviewing offsides

The NCAA needs to rethink which goals it disallows as the result of an offsides entry into the zone.

There was a time in college hockey when a goal was disallowed simply because a player from the attacking team had a skate blade in the crease. It didn't matter if it was on purpose or inadvertent. It didn't matter if the skate in the crease had anything to do with how the goal was scored or whether it affected the goalie's ability to make the save. The goal was automatically disallowed because the rules said that no player from the attacking team could be in the blue paint ahead of the puck. Even if the officials didn't see the infraction but the replay cameras confirmed it, the team scoring the goal was, in effect, penalized for the officials' blown call.

Fortunately, the NCAA came to its senses and changed the rule, realizing that goals were being waved off for an infraction that had no bearing on how the goal was scored. The "no harm, no foul" principle was applied. It's a much more reasonable approach.

This brings me to UND's disallowed goal against Boston University, a goal that would have given the Fighting Hawks an overtime win in Fargo. Even if you accept that the NCAA had conclusive evidence showing Ludwig Hoff was offsides entering the zone, the image shows that it was by the narrowest of margins. It's easy to see how the linesman missed the call. However, in light of what happened during the UND-BU playoff game, I believe the NCAA needs to revisit the rule on reviewing goals for offsides infractions.

If a team enters the zone on a rush, scores off the rush and was aided by an offsides call the officials missed, then the goal should be disallowed. However, my recollection is that this isn't what happened with Dixon Bowen's disallowed goal against BU. When UND entered the zone, there was no indication from neither the officials nor the players that they believed the entry was offsides. Play went on as usual. UND didn't score off the rush. When the goal was eventually scored, it wasn't as a result of the missed offsides call.

If the NCAA allows a goal to be scored on a crease violation because the violation had no effect on the goalie's ability to make a save, why shouldn't a more reasonable approach be applied to offsides? If nobody knew for certain that the zone entry was offsides, play continued as usual and a goal was eventually scored by the attacking team -- on a play that had nothing to do with the zone entry -- why shouldn't the goal stand? How far back in time should officials go to apply the results of a call they didn't make in real-time?

We know the officials aren't perfect and can't see everything. Sometimes they don't even see what they think they see, as evidenced during Minnesota-Duluth's game against Ohio State when two apparent goals were signaled by referees, only to be reviewed and then disallowed.

Getting the call right after a goal is scored is important to determining the game's correct outcome. The NCAA has already established a precedent that goals can be allowed when an uncalled infraction had no bearing on the scoring opportunity. Just as the NCAA wisely applied common-sense limits to the man-in-the-crease rule, it should do the same when it comes to rewinding the tape to review goals scored following a missed offsides call.

If being offsides created no unfair advantage that led to a goal, then why disallow the goal?

The 5PPG Plan With One Week Left

Here's what my proposed "5 Points Per Game" plan would have the NCHC standings showing:

Team RW-OTW-SOW-SOL-OTL-RL Points

1. UND 13-2-0-2-1-4 78 
2. Miami 12-1-1-0-0-8 67 
3. UNO 10-1-3-0-1-7 64 
4. DU 12-0-1-0-0-9 63 
5. UMD 9-2-0-3-1-7 60 
6. SCSU 10-0-0-1-1-10 53 
7. WMU 4-1-4-1-1-11 39 
8. CC 2-0-0-2-2-16 16 

 In this system,

•  UND would have secured the Penrose Cup 
•  SCSU would still have a shot (with a home sweep of DU and UMD having a poor weekend) at home ice.

What the NCHC needs to change

After watching the UND at UNO series in Omaha last weekend, I'm more convinced than ever that the following changes need to be made:

FIRST: Let’s put the second referee in the press box.

Yes, the press box, and connected wirelessly to the one on the ice.

Under my plan the press box official would call penalties during play through the on ice referee. The on ice official would behave as he does today, but with an earpiece. They would be in constant communication. 

I can rattle off the benefits immediately:

1. One fewer official on the ice opens up space.
2. The press box official will be in charge of replay calls so that process should speed up as they’ll be stationed in front of the replay views all the time.
3. We all know that there are things during the game that happen that are much more easily seen from the higher view of the game: These will be more readily recognized and penalized.
4. We’ll be able to hang onto the experience of the best of the best tenured officials as they will still be able to contribute to the game even if their physical capabilities to keep up with the speed of the game have diminished.

I can hear folks already explaining why it can’t work.

1. Player safety: With one fewer official, who’ll break up scrums? Uh, there aren’t supposed to be scrums; and, the eye in the sky will be in position to see everything, take notes, use replay immediately, and ensure the right folks are facing the right penalties.
2. Not every rink supports it. Really? Every rink has a press box, and replay, already.
3. The technology is unproven. So? That can be fixed by … proving it out. The NCHC has made the move to go away from goal judges to television replay technology. If the NCHC trusts that, why not trust wireless communications over maybe 400 feet? Redundancies can be built into the technology to ensure it works.
4. The press box official won’t have a real feel for the tempo of the game and what’s really happening on the ice. That’s why there is still an on ice referee. Plus, so what. Sometimes that feel and adrenaline may encourage officials to let them play (boys will be boys) rather than see how things look from the stands (and on television). Put another way, the press box official will probably tend to call things more to the letter of the book than the “feel” of the game because sometimes the feel gets out of control.

I’d like to see the NCHC pick a few exhibition games and give this a try. I believe it’s time to use the technology advances available to improve the college game. Goal replay is one step. This is the next.

NEXT: It’s time to look at “points” realistically and align them to risk and reward.

I’m not talking goals plus assists; I’m talking about points used in league standings.

I’d like to see every league game worth five points. Yes, five. I know it’s a vast departure from the past, but points really don’t serve a purpose other than sorting out league standings. Points are merely a standings shorthand, an accounting trick. 

If you get 21 wins and win the league title, does it matter if that standings column says “42 points”, “63 points”, “60 points”, or “105 points”? The key is this: You finished first in the standings. No one remembers the points.

Here’s my proposal:

5 – Win in regulation time

4 – Win in overtime

3 – Win in a shootout

2 – Lose a shootout

1 – Lose in overtime

0 – Lose in regulation time

The opponents will say, “You should get nothing if you lose.” What are they getting? “Standings Points” are just an accounting trick to sort out the standings. You don’t “get” those points to hang from rafters.

To show what my proposal would look like here are today’s standings and what they’d look like in this plan:

                W            L              T              Today    My Plan

UNO      10           5              1              32           53

UND      10           5              1              31           52

UMD     9              6              1              28           47

Miami   8              6              1              26           43

Denver 8              7              0              24           40

SCSU     7              8              1              22           37

WMU    4              7              4              19           31

CC           1              13           1              4              7

So what would be the benefit?

You’d have teams playing to win during the whole game. A team would actually benefit by winning in regulation instead of overtime. And instead of going into a shell in overtime to get the “overtime point” and reach a shootout you have a reason to try to win.

It’s a different approach, but it would make the standings clearer and probably reduce the need tiebreakers to set the seeds at the end of the season. 

Shaping Up: The 2011-12 Sioux Hockey Roster

With the announcements of F Michael Di Puma and D Dan Senkbeil it seems the final shape of the 2011 UND mens hockey roster is fairly well set.

I know some are fretful that F Jason Gregoire may still choose the professional option over a senior year, but I know two things on that front: 1) with the addition of Di Puma I still only see 15 forwards on the roster and that's the minimum UND normally carries, and 2) no amount of worry by me will alter what is ultimately Jason's decision.

I see 15 forwards. That's traditionally the roster size as it makes five complete lines for practice. And 3 goaltenders is traditional also. I see no surprises there.

What is unusual is 9 defensemen. Traditionally that number is 8 (four pairs). But thinking more about that number I think I understand why 9 going into this fall.

In the spring of 2012 UND will lose senior Ben Blood; but, it may also face losing Andrew MacWilliam and Derek Forbort to the professional ranks. That scenario would leave UND with Gleason, Hill, Simpson, the 2011 freshmen, and 2012 recruit Jordan Schmaltz. (That's just seven, so expect to hear at least one more 2012 defenseman recruit.)

Adding defensemen with potential to develop (Panzarella, Senkbeil) now, fall 2011, should smooth out a spring 2012 bump if UND were to see Blood, MacWilliam, and Forbort all depart.

Those are my thoughts given what I see right now. But what I also see is that Hakstol and his staff are playing both checkers (immediate impacts and tactics) and chess (long-term strategic roster planning). That's a lot strategy and tactic to manage off the ice.

UND vs. Michigan: A statistical analysis

Understandably, most North Dakota hockey fans don't have much interest in dwelling on the painful 2-0 loss to Michigan April 7 at the NCAA Frozen Four in St. Paul. It's still difficult for me to comprehend that the opportunity for the Fighting Sioux to win an eighth national championship has come and gone.

After watching the game again and reading some of the analysis that's been done, I decided to delve into the game statistics and shot charts provided by the NCAA. My apologies to those who aren't stats geeks, but I think the value of studying shot charts and statistics serves to debunk some of the statements made about how the Sioux performed and were coached against Michigan.

One area in which I was most interested was shots on goal by each team from the prime scoring area (PSA). I defined the PSA as the area from the goal line out to the top of the faceoff circles with the faceoff dots forming the left and right edges of the box. I was also interested in the shots from beyond the blue line because the chances of scoring on them is probably less than 1 percent.

Here are some interesting facts:

• 35% (7) of Michigan's 20 shots on goal were from the prime scoring area
• 50% (20) of UND's 40 shots on goal were from the prime scoring area
• Michigan blocked 23% (16) of UND's 70 shot attempts
• UND blocked 31% (15) of Michigan's 40 shot attempts
• 35% (7) of Michigan's 20 shots on goal were from outside UND's blue line
• 5% (2) of UND's 40 shots of goal were from outside Michigan's blue line
• 18 of UND's 20 shots on goal (90%) from the prime scoring area were taken by the team's top 10 scorers
• 4 of Michigan's 7 shots on goal (57%) from the prime scoring area were taken by the team's top 10 scorers
• In the third period, UND had 4 shots from the prime scoring area that missed the net (wide or high) and 3 that were blocked
• UND had 8 scoring opportunities from just outside the crease
• Michigan had 1 scoring opportunity from just outside the crease
• UND's top line had 10 shots on goal from the prime scoring area
• Michigan's top line had 2 shots on goal from the prime scoring area

Overall, UND had it's top-end players in prime scoring position throughout the game and was generating quality scoring opportunities. UND did an excellent job of shutting down Michigan's highest-scoring players, blocking shots and nearly eliminating any second chances on rebounds.

Based on these statistics, UND played an excellent defensive game against Michigan, effectively bottling up the Wolverines' top scorers. The Sioux were also very disciplined in giving Michigan just one power play. Much was made afterwards about Michigan's shot blocking, but UND's defense was better at not only limiting the Wolverines' shot attempts, but also at blocking a higher percentage of shots and limiting scoring opportunities from just outside the paint.

Offensively, with the exception of the power play, UND did everything well but put the puck in the net. Throughout the game, the top Sioux scorers had the puck on their sticks in prime scoring territory. But, as Michigan coach Red Berenson said, goalie Shawn Hunwick played the game of his life. If he hadn't, the Sioux would have lit up Michigan like a Christmas tree. Hunwick -- not Berenson's game plan or Michigan's defense -- deserves full credit for shutting down and shutting out UND.

There's no question in my mind that UND dominated the game. Without Hunwick's performance, Michigan would have been sunk.

First Period

UND shots on goal = 14 (1 from outside the blue line)
Michigan shots on goal = 10 (3 from outside the blue line)

UND prime scoring area shots = 7
Brad Malone 2; Matt Frattin 2; Danny Kristo 1; Brock Nelson 1; Derrick LaPoint 1

Michigan prime scoring area shots = 3 (30%)
Ben Winnett 1 (scored); Jeff Rohrkemper 1; Carl Hagelin 1

Second Period
UND shots on goal = 11 (1 outside the blue line)
Michigan shots on goal = 3 (1 from outside the blue line)

UND prime scoring area shots = 6
Evan Trupp 2; Jason Gregoire 1; Andrew MacWilliam 1; Danny Kristo 1; Chay Genoway 1

Michigan prime scoring area shots = 0

Third Period
UND shots on goal = 15
Michigan shots on goal = 7 (3 from outside the blue line)

UND prime scoring area shots = 7
Brad Malone 2; Evan Trupp 3; Matt Frattin 1; Danny Kristo 1

Michigan prime scoring area shots = 4
Scooter Vaughn 2 (scored empty net goal*); Luke Moffatt 1; Louie Caporusso 1

Game Totals
Michigan shot attempts = 48
42% shots on goal
31% blocked by UND

UND shot attempts = 70
57% shots on goal
23% blocked by Michigan

*Note: Vaughn's empty netter was actually from outside the prime scoring area, but with UND's goalie pulled, I decided the area should expanded.

The funny game

Last Thursday afternoon at the Xcel Energy Center, the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Roman Augustoviz asked me: "Do you see any way North Dakota loses this?"

It was an interesting question because after the Fighting Sioux beat the University of Denver to become the only No. 1 seed to make the Frozen Four, everything seemed to be lining up for UND to win its eighth national championship.

None of the teams that ousted the Sioux from the NCAA playoffs during the Dave Hakstol era – DU and Boston College in particular – were still playing. The location of the Frozen Four in St. Paul assured an atmosphere at the Xcel Energy Center that heavily favored UND.

Hakstol had a 2-0 record against Red Berenson’s teams the two times they’d met in the NCAA playoffs. Most believed that this year’s Wolverines weren’t as deep or as talented as some previous Michigan teams. Also, during the regular season, UND went 2-1 against Minnesota-Duluth and 1-0-1 against Notre Dame.

Going into the Frozen Four, UND appeared rested and relatively healthy, which meant that Hakstol would be able to play his best lineup and roll all four lines. And most importantly, the Sioux were peaking at exactly the right moment and playing their best hockey of the season. The players and coaches were more focused than any Sioux team I'd ever seen. Their goaltending was solid, every line was producing, the defensive corps was outstanding and the special teams were excellent. So there was every reason to be positive.

However, while driving to St. Paul the night before the Frozen Four started, I began thinking about the ways in which many great Sioux teams had fallen short since I began following UND hockey in 1996. Dean Blais’ teams of 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 2003-2004 were highly regarded, but never made it out of the NCAA regionals. The four previous times Hakstol’s teams had made it do the big dance, hopes for a national championship were high, but the expectations were never realized.

So when I pondered Roman’s question, the realist in me recalled what had happened the past 11 times UND had been in a position to win a national championship, only to fall short of the ultimate goal.

I remembered poor goaltending, untimely penalties, flat performances, unlucky bounces, badly executed line changes, leads that evaporated, last-second goals in regulation, costly turnovers, goals in overtime and – most of all – opposing goalies who play the best games of their lives. (Do the names Adam Berkhoel and Peter Mannino ring a bell?)

And nobody should forget that the other team always gets a vote in determining the outcome. Any team still playing in April has a great deal going for it. 

As much as I hoped UND would take advantage of the opportunity to win its eighth championship, if there’s one lesson I’ve learned from the past 15 years of following the Fighting Sioux, it’s that in hockey, there’s no such thing as a sure thing.

The 2-0 loss to Michigan reminded me of something former UND player Jason Notermann once said (which I’ll paraphrase because I can’t find the exact quote):  Hockey is a funny game. Sometimes you score five goals on 10 shots, and other times you can’t score one goal on 50 shots.

Against Michigan, UND fell victim to one of those funny games at the worst time of the season. There were so many times that the top Sioux scorers had the puck on their sticks in prime scoring territory, only to be denied by goalie Shawn Hunwick. As Corban Knight put it, "The plays we were looking for weren't there. When they were, the goalie stood on his head."

What's become apparent over the 10 seasons I've been covering Fighting Sioux hockey for US College Hockey Online is that the team that looks like the favorite to win a national championship often isn't the one that prevails.  And that's one reason college hockey fans return again and again to watch this funny game.

Evan Trupp's magic moment

On Inside College Hockey's latest podcast, Evan Trupp’s lacrosse-style carrying of the puck on his stick during North Dakota’s Friday game against Colorado College was compared to a move Denver University forward Ryan Dingle tried against the Tigers during the 2005 Frozen Four.



Other than the fact that both players did something similar, in terms of sportsmanship, there’s a great deal that sets them apart. Based on what I’ve read and remember about the Dingle incident, DU was leading 5-2 with about 2 minutes left in the game. Dingle had a chance to score on a breakaway. Rather than skating in on the CC goalie and shooting the puck, Dingle elected to show off by using a lacrosse-style move that didn’t come close to working.

Denver coach George Gwozdecky chewed out Dingle and benched him. After DU won 6-2, Pioneers' captain Matt Latsch apologized to CC coach Scott Owens and the Tigers’ captain.

There was good reason for Gwozdecky and Dingle’s teammates to be embarrassed by his actions. The Pioneers had the game won and Dingle was attempting to rub salt in the wound of his team’s biggest rival by showboating on national television. Nobody would have criticized him if he’d deked CC’s goalie and scored on the breakaway. But attempting to humiliate an already-beaten opponent went too far, and everyone knew it.

When Trupp did his bit of puck-toting wizardry, it was with more than 15 minutes remaining in the third period of a tie game. He used his incredible hockey skills in a novel manner with the objective of putting his team ahead. He wasn’t all alone on a breakaway in a game that had already been decided. There were three Tigers players between him and the CC goalie.

Had Trupp scored or even set up an opportunity that led to a goal, it would have been widely praised and celebrated by hockey fans, just as the goal scored by Michigan’s Mike Legg during the 1996 NCAA tournament today is considered one of the most famous goals in college hockey history.

The answer to INCH’s question of why Trupp did this is easy: It was to create confusion and gain the element of surprise for the purpose scoring -- just as Trupp did when me made a no-look, behind-the-back pass to set up Matt Frattin's game-winning goal. The lacrosse move nearly worked because not even Trupp’s own teammates, who’d seen him do similar things in practice, knew how to react.

If Trupp tried the same move again in one of UND’s remaining games, it likely wouldn’t work because the element of surprise is gone. However, at that moment in that game, it was worth a try. Although Trupp didn’t succeed in scoring, even INCH had to admit that “…his trick play with the puck re-ignited his team and the crowd in a tough third period when energy levels had begun to wane.”

Late in the season during the playoffs, players are expected use every arrow in their quiver (within the rules) to help their teams win. Just as nobody criticizes Frattin for shooting the puck too hard and too accurately, nobody should criticize Trupp for using the creative hockey skills he possesses when the outcome of a playoff game is in question. He would be shortchanging himself and doing his team a disservice if he didn’t.

While I'm at it, INCH's criticism of the Fighting Sioux players not wanting to touch either the MacNaughton Cup or Broadmoor Trophy is silly. This hockey superstition didn't begin with UND, nor will the Sioux be the last hockey team to practice it. Singling out UND makes about as much sense as complaining about the time-honored practice of growing playoff beards.