The Real Story [Archive] - Inline Hockey Central

MBurke

03-09-2003, 08:07 PM

From CRHLnet:

Second Quarter Notes: The second quarter consisted of Lindenwood University holding the puck behind their net for the last 9 minutes of the quarter.

Third Quarter Notes: After 11:30 of no shots, no penalties, and no clock stoppage, Lindenwood got two shots off in the last thirty seconds, but MSU's Mike Mackert got the goal with 0:1:6 on the clock to bring the Spartans to within one.

I know roller hockey is all about puck control, but I know personally that I would have hated to have been in the stands to watch nearly 20 minutes straight of no shots, no offensive flow, etc. Is this a misleading review of the game?

Mike Burke
Commissioner
Eastern Collegiate Roller Hockey Association
http://www.ecrha.net

TurtleMSU13

03-09-2003, 08:28 PM

Mike that is not a misleading review of the game although I wish it was. They spent the last 9 minutes of the 1st half behind their own net waiting for us to chase them but when we didn't they just stood there. The 3rd quarter was exactly like it said they didn't move the puck up at all they just waited, at first they tried to catch us off guard with Koz firing a shot from his own goal line, but that was the most action for most of that quarter. With 45 seconds left we pressed with Mackert and Hanley "Tweek" and got them to cough the puck up in the corner and that's how Mack got us to within one. With the score 3-2 we pressed with about 6:30 to go in the 4th to no luck they netted two more to close the game out. Just like last year we hit about 6 posts throughout the game.

rollerfan

03-09-2003, 10:16 PM

I really don't quite understand the thinking here. If you pressed them behind the net, got the puck and scored - why didn't you continue to do that? I wasn't there (not involved) but it seems that letting them stand there and control you when you are LOSING the championship game is not good strategy. When Lindenwood romps and runs up the score, everyone says they are showboating and disrespecting the other team. When they stand there and give you a chance to make it an exciting game, now you complain that they didn't play right. Would you have rathered a 15 to 2 game. I don't think so. I respect all the teams involved, but if you want to beat Lindenwood, you'd better come up with a great game plan and press it.

mackertm

03-09-2003, 10:23 PM

Lindenwood's players are not stupid. It's virtually impossible to catch someone behind the net, especially if the player behind the net is any good, which the Lindenwood players certainly are. When we got that goal, they came down on a 4-on-3 first. It was broken up, and the puck was dumped into their end - I managed to beat their goalie to the puck and ended up scoring. Hardly a recipe for success...

Rather than give Lindenwood an endless stream of 4-on-3s, which they were bound to score on a fair amount, it seemed like a better strategy to let them kill time, then try and take our shots with a few minutes left and see what we could do. Give them enough 4-on-3s and they're going to bury a bunch.

That said, NARCh has a rule that teams need to advance the puck to prevent just this sort of situation. It seems likely (to me) that this is something the CRHL would look at over the summer as a possible change in the rules.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

DannyG

03-09-2003, 11:55 PM

Holy enchiladas!

I am very obviously missing something here...

Does not the CRHL rule book address this?

I have my USAHIL book at my office in the rink, so I will have to wait til morning to check this,

-but-

USA Hockey Inline rule book notes that "the puck must be kept in motion..." doesn't it!?!? It is not like the ice rule book, which states that the motion must be "forward" in nature, but I have some vague certainty (an oxymoron?) that there is such a mandate regarding the motion of the puck.

Locally here, any player who holds the puck behind the net is cautioned by the referee to put the puck into motion. Failure to do so directly brings a delay-of-game minor penalty. This is so accepted around here that players do try to shave a few seconds off the clock, but then it's back to business. Nobody has been hit with the delay penalty in over three years running.

I am incredulous that an organization such as the CRHL rules committee has let this situation even exist...I suppose that sounds negative, but is the rules committee so unfamiliar with usual and normal basic hockey rules of play, that they have up to now, failed to place in their rules the restriction to prevent this decidely unsportsmanlike tactic?

I will say it one more time, I am incredulous.

Anybody shed some light on this one???

Edited by DannyG on 03/09/03 10:59 PM.

DannyG

03-09-2003, 11:58 PM

Mike & others:

I thought the CRHL used the USAHIL rule book...am I wrong about this???

also, please see reply above...

Still incredulous...

-Dan

cakeuneke

03-10-2003, 07:54 AM

So why didn't MSU go after the puck? Don't blame Lindenwood, it won them the game obviously.

cakeuneke

03-10-2003, 07:58 AM

To me, there are a ton of things in roller hockey that suck and make the game almost unwatchable. What's the difference between standing behind the net and passing it around for 10 minutes really. There's no difference. If I was winning, I'd be fine with standing back there if the other team was going to be lame enough not to come after me. You would have as much of a reason to call a penalty on MSU for not pursuing the puck as you would on Lindenwood. The same things that supposively make roller hockey "great" like no icing, no offsides, 4-on-4, and a lot of wide-open hockey are the same vices which can turn it into a game like the one yesterday. It's not fun to watch, but Lindenwood didn't have that duty to make it fun to watch, and for that matter, MSU is just as responsible.

mackertm

03-10-2003, 08:21 AM

The first time this happened was Saturday night, during our first game against Lindenwood. I asked the referee during the game if he was going to call a delay of game penalty for them refusing to move the puck. He told me there was no such rule in the books, so there was nothing he could do.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

mackertm

03-10-2003, 08:26 AM

It's not being "lame" to not chase behind the net in roller hockey. Any player who plays at an advanced level knows that it's a terrible play to chase a guy who's standing behind the net, since you're never going to catch him. You might as well just offer to take a guy off the floor, since you have a guaranteed 4-on-3 going the other direction. A lot of teams I play with set up a breakout sometimes with a defenseman behind the net, and we laugh abuot teams that chase, since they obviously have no clue what they're doing.

There is certainly a big difference between skating around and passing the puck for ten minutes and just standing there for ten minutes. Because when a team is actually passing the puck, there's always the possibility that they will miss a pass and turn it over.

To me, refusing to move the puck from behind the net when you have the lead is just refusing to play. I'm not saying Lindenwood owed it to the fans to move the puck and keep the game interesting. They had a strategy that was virtually guaranteed to win the game, and it worked. But it's hardly in the spirit of competition to stand behind the net for ten minute stretches without moving.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

nala

03-10-2003, 10:22 AM

THE TEAM WITH THE MOST GOALS WINS.
THE REAL STORY.

mackertm

03-10-2003, 12:34 PM

Yup, you're right, the team with the most goals most definitely does win. My complaint, and the complaint of most people that disagree with the way the game was played, is that this wasn't a real hockey game the way it played out.

Earlier that morning, Purdue had a 6-0 lead on us in the first quarter. They continued to play hockey, try to score goals, etc. In the end, it did cost them as we managed to stage a comeback and win the game. Purdue could have used the same tactics and just stood behind their net, but they wanted to keep playing.

Which game would you rather have played in? Watched?

The CRHL is trying to grow the college game and make it more entertaining. Yesterday's game was anything but entertaining, as I know a lot of fans who paid to get into the game asked for their money back. Lindenwood beat us four times in the regular season playing hockey for the full 48 minutes, and those games weren't as close as these two were - but they were infinitely more enjoyable to play in (and watch, I would assume) even on the losing side of the scoreboard.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

DannyG

03-10-2003, 12:36 PM

I must again state that I do not know what is the official rule book used in CRHL competition,

-but-

The 2001-2003 Official Rules of USA Hockey Inline, Rule 628(a)(page 93), "The puck must be kept in motion at all times."

"Golly,"

At this point I can think of a million things I would like to say: sportsmanship, spirit of the game, challenges of fair play, etc., etc., etc. All I can really come up with, however, is just, "Golly..."

DannyG

03-10-2003, 12:48 PM

Hey, Nala (and anybody else that thinks like this):

Let us make this very clear:

When you enter into an athletic competition, you have a responsibility to play the game as hard and as clean, and as fair as you can. You ask no quarter, you give none, but you demand of yourself that you play totally within the rules and the spirit of the game.

We all learned this in kindergarten.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the CRHL, the game officials (by Mike's report), and the Lindenwood coach all totally abdicated their responsibility to the game of hockey in this one...

and saying something like "Nya, nya, look at the scoreboard," is particularly stupid behavior as well.

I guess that was a trifle more than "golly..."

-Daniel T. Guard
Recreation Services Supervisor,
City of El Paso Parks & Recreation;
League Director,
Nations-Tobin Hockey League,
USA Hockey Inline sanction number TX10017;
Head Coach,
Polar Bear Hockey

(Yeah, I want you to know exactly who I am on this one, I am now really p.o.'d...)

Edited by DannyG on 03/10/03 11:56 AM.

cakeuneke

03-10-2003, 01:08 PM

So they could have stickhandled behind the net for an hour, it would have been kept in motion, would that have helped? I think that standing around waiting for the other team to move the puck is not playing the game and not participating in the spirit of the game. In fact, being the team behind, MSU should have wanted to go after that puck more than ever. Yes, it may cause a 4 on 3 the other way, but ANY forechecking could cause a 4 on 3 the other way. Too bad. That's like saying, we didn't want to go after them, because they would had a good strategy. Send two guys, one guy on each side of the net, run a trap, do something, don't just stand there.

STLHockey

03-10-2003, 01:21 PM

Danny,

By no means is this a showing a bad sportsmanship, it is simply a strategy. For instance the Minnesota Wild don't have to play the boring neutral zone trap style of hockey that makes the game boring for the fans, but they do because it helps them win games.

As a player you shouldn't have to worry about making the game entertaining for the fans, but only about winning the game for yourself and your teammates. This strategy used by Lindenwood is very good for creating odd-man rushes (if the opposing team chases), however if they don't chase I agree it makes for very boring hockey games.

If anyone is familiar with Todd Melton and the the old 99ers teams out of Jersey, you know that they did the same thing and were very successful in doing so.

Roller hockey is about puck control, and if you don't have the puck you can't win.

Cakeuneke,

Sending 2 men to the guy with the puck is exactly what Lindenwood was trying to get MSU to do, this creates an instant 3 on 2 if the guy behind the net passes the puck immediately to the open man. Therefore, sending 2 men in is not a very smart idea.

nala

03-10-2003, 01:28 PM

Mike

In those 4 games that Lindenwood beat Michigan State in the
regular season did you and Dante wave to the camera in the
stands?
As for as giving money back to the Michigan fans thats
your problem.Last year in St. Louis did they charge fans
for the finals?Lindenwood players are first class kids and
enjoy the game of hockey and receiving a great education.
So Mike, Richard, and Andrew next time in St. Louis take
exit 208 to the Lindenwood School Campus and meet the Lindenwood players whom your trying to tarnish their Season.
Just wondering if Michigan State would of won the game what
the reaction would be? Oh bye the way exit 208 thats where
National Champs are,that you can not tarnish.

mackertm

03-10-2003, 01:31 PM

For the record, I certainly don't think the game officials did anything wrong. There's no rule in the rulebook that prohibits the way Lindenwood was playing the game. Because of that, it wasn't an intrinsically bad idea for their coach to go with that strategy, as it virtually guaranteed victory once they were ahead.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

mackertm

03-10-2003, 01:37 PM

I certainly was not waving to the camera during those four games, because I was either busy playing hockey or taking a break on the bench while other guys on our team were playing hockey. I'm not sure what your point is here.

And it wasn't MSU that gave money back to the fans, it was the CRHL. Just wanted to clear that up.

By no means am I trying to tarnish Lindenwood's title. They're the best team in the country, in my opinion. I'm friends with some of the guys on their team (like Dave Kozlowski, who I've played both with and against), others I don't know well. I don't want to take away their perfect season, they earned it.

My complaint is that they didn't really PLAY this last game. Had they played the entire game, it's very likely they would have beaten us by more than they did in the end - that's what happened the other times we played them. And that's because they have the deepest, most talented team in the country. I honestly would have rather lost by 6-8 goals playing the whole time than losing by 3 the way this game was played. That's my opinion.

Again, I congratulate the Lindenwood program on their championship, they didn't lose a game all year. I just disagree with the way this season had to end.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

mackertm

03-10-2003, 01:42 PM

I agree, on all points. Chasing them would have been the worst plan possible for us, as it creates an odd-man rush every time down the floor. And with a talented team (which Lindenwood definitely is), they're going to score on the odd-man rush a hell of a lot more than they're going to screw up and turn the puck over.

I think this is something the CRHL definitely needs to address in the offseason, to prevent a repeat of this kind of game. Much like the NHL puts in rule changes to try and open up the game and improve scoring to make the game more fan-friendly (since the players would certainly never say, "I guess I won't clutch and grab this guy as he goes by me, I'm sure the fans will enjoy it more if he scores."), the CRHL needs to make changes to ensure that teams - playing within the rules, which Lindenwood did yesterday - will end up playing a game that is entertaining for the fans to watch.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

mackertm

03-10-2003, 01:55 PM

When leagues have rules in place to prevent this type of play, usually the spirit of the rule is the team needs to make forward progress with the puck. So stickhandling behind the net wouldn't do anything to meet that requirement. They'd just get a delay of game penalty.

You keep saying that chasing the puck is a good idea, but you clearly have never played this talented of a team. Let's say we chase them, and it creates a 4-on-3 down the floor. Lindenwood is going to score FAR more often than they're going to screw up and turn the puck over.

And to say that any forechecking can create a 4-on-3 is missing the point... Sure, any forechecking can create a 4-on-3 if you do it WRONG. To forecheck against Lindenwood in this situation is guaranteeing a 4-on-3 pretty much every time.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

paddymac

03-10-2003, 02:04 PM

"Lindenwood players are first class kids and
enjoy the game of hockey and receiving a great education."

nala,
next time before you boast of Lindenwood's "great education" check the facts. In the 2003 US News' college rankings they fall under Tier 4, which is the lowest tier. I also happened to check out their admissions guidelines on their homepage which I would call less then impressive. There is no GPA requirement and no SAT/ACT minimum score required. This school sounds more like a community college not a place to receive a "great education". I'm sure even the most primitive of men could get in.

cakeuneke

03-10-2003, 02:08 PM

I understand your point. I have played plenty of talented teams. I'm just saying it seems that at least making them move the puck would be better than standing around waiting for them to move the puck. It sounds stubborn more than anything. I wish I had a chalkboard to show you, it can be stopped. I think it sucks that they did that, I just think it's a poor argument that they're too good to go after. That doesn't really register with me, you were both in the national championship, you have to be able to adapt to the other team's play.

RichardGraham

03-10-2003, 02:09 PM

Hi Nala,

I'm not trying to tarnish the Lindenwood players. They did that to themselves. What is your definition of sportsmanship?

Sincerely,

Richard Graham
Editor
Inline Hockey Central

DannyG

03-10-2003, 02:16 PM

from your response,

1. I admire your objective, non-emotional attitude in all this...

2. may I now assume that the CRHL does not use the USAHIL rule book?

However, I remain confused on one point. I have personally been in possession of the NHL, USA Hockey ice, USACRS (yeah, the really old one) Puck, the USACRS Ball, the USACRS hard ball, the NIHA. and the NNHA rule books. All of them address this. Failure to keep the puck in motion is delay of game, and subject to a penalty after warning from the referee.

In fact, in my job as a professional recreation administrator, I have dealt with rule books from over a dozen sports. In every case, there is some restriction in the rules to prevent, or limit any method that one team might tactically employ to unfairly "stall" the game when it is ahead on the scoreboard.

Every rule book, in every sport, has these rules.

Mike, I am still not convinced that you are entirely correct when you, very objectively, assert that there is no prohibitive rule in whatever book the CRHL is using.

I guess it is back to my very original question on this thread, "What am I missing here?" Obviously there is some rule book, other than any other I have ever seen, that does not prohibit this situation from occurring.

Hey, what is it?!?

-Dan

paddymac

03-10-2003, 02:21 PM

Dan,
the crhl has its own rulebook. It has some shortcomings and is changed nearly every year during the summer. There is currently no rule that says you have to move the puck forward, but I'm sure this will change over the summer along with some other things.

mackertm

03-10-2003, 02:52 PM

Believe me, I'd love to see any kind of chalkboard diagram you could show that would result in us sending a player behind their net and them not coming out with an odd-man rush. Unless their guy stands there waiting for our forechecker, it's really not possible.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

MDE3

03-10-2003, 02:53 PM

I'm sorry but I will have to defend Lindewoods play as well. Just because they are good at executing a breakout does not mean that you do not have the responsibility to challenge them if you want to force a change of possession. By not challenging you are forfeiting your own responsibility to force a change of possession. They are only obliged to "keep the puck in motion"(per USA Inline and NHL rules) which can simply mean stickhandling while standing stationary - unless there is a specific rule to the league which further defines "motion". As long as they are not preventing you access to the puck by "freezing the puck" - it remains in play.

DannyG

03-10-2003, 02:56 PM

Hey, dude...

The "in motion" part of the rule refers to relative-to-the-rink, not "moving it back and forth on your stick in one little part of the floor."

I have just been appropriately informed that the CRHL doen't use the USAHIL rule book, and that, indeed this rule is not in the CRHL book.

That answers my question.

mackertm

03-10-2003, 02:58 PM

To the best of my knowledge, CRHL uses its own rulebook that's going to be incorporated into the USA Inline rulebook during the summer. At least, that's how I understand it.

The first time this happened, on Saturday night, I asked the head referee (who was in the corner nearest me, as I stood there) if he was going to call this. He explained there is no rule in the CRHL rulebook that prohibits this type of stalling tactic.

As for my objective outlook on things... Last night I was exceptionally pissed off, and I'm still not happy about it. But Lindenwood is a very talented team, it would be horridly stupid to try and argue otherwise. This came about because of a flaw in the CRHL rulebook that I would have to assume will be addressed in the offseason. Going too insane about it will just give me an ulcer, and I have many years of grad school left to do that for me. ;)

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

DannyG

03-10-2003, 03:07 PM

I accept your assertion.

My incredulity, as I am sure you recognize, stems from the lack of the appropriate rule in the (as I have now been informed) CRHL rule book.

I have no problem with the strategy employed as being against the rules. It wasn't (we now know).

If I assert in return that there is a difference between

1. using the rules and skill to your tactical advantage, and

2. abusing the rules, and taking the play totally outside the spirit of the fair play,

then I guess it would be fair for you to say that I have drawn the line between the two differently than others.

Fair enough.

cakeuneke

03-10-2003, 03:11 PM

I would send one guy behind the net whose responsibility would be to keep the LU player moving in the direction he is forcing the play. One man would be in front of the net, his objective would be to prevent a pass through the middle or a rush up the middle of the rink. That leaves one option for the puck carrier, up the boards with a pass. A "defenseman," or more appropriately a third forward would pounce on the player on the boards as soon as that player received the pass. The other defenseman would shift to the middle of the rink. LU is talented, they would adjust to the forecheck. Sometimes, they would breakout with a 2-on-1. Until they figured out exactly what you were doing, they would have to dump the puck up the boards or reverse the flow. Don't get me wrong, they would probably still win, but it's not impossible. I do understand all of your points though, and I'm sorry you had to play in such a pathetically boring game. It was not good for the league.

fryer98

03-10-2003, 03:16 PM

i don't think you understand this all. the player with the puck is behind his net, the other D is on the half boards, and the other two are on the FAR goal line. so the third forechecker is 150' away covering one of the "cherrypickers". wanna try again??

mackertm

03-10-2003, 03:18 PM

What you're suggesting is something that we kicked around. The main problem in this case is LU's players are good enough that they'll get a pass through cleanly to one of their forwards up the floor. I don't know that anyone here explained, but they were putting their two forwards in our defensive zone corners. If we put three players into their zone, we'd be switching from a 4-on-3 to a 2-on-1. Not a good trade.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

goalie32

03-10-2003, 03:21 PM

mackert,

I understand your frustration, and I'm surprised that CRHL has no such rule regarding forward movement. Every league I've ever played in (from youth rec leagues on up) has had some rule mandating forward movement. But...

You should have sent a forechecker. Does it create a 4-on-3 rush? YES!! A 4-on-3 rush: not a 3-2 rush, not a 2-1 or 1-on-none; and a rush, not a setup play in the offensive zone. You send one guy behind the net (if you're smart, make it your fastest player) and flush the puckcarrier out. Force him to make a pass to one of the other 3 guys who should still be covered. Or force him to try to skate the length of the rink through three other waiting defenders. If he slows up for even one second, the defender trailing him should be able to catch him. What will ususally happen is a shot that is either saved or misses the net, and the resulting rebound produces a rush for you in the opposite direction

If your team can't stop a 4-on-3 situation (not all the time, but most), you don't deserve to win. And if "it seemed like a better strategy to let them kill time, then try and take our shots with a few minutes left and see what we could do," then it sounds like you got exactly the game you wanted. You WANTED them to kill the time off in the hopes that it would work to your advantage later in the game. You gambled, it didn't pay off.

MDE3

03-10-2003, 03:38 PM

Even though they were probably technically within the rules, it is a very frustrating and embarrassing way for a team to play. Hey - if you have it flaunt it. I understand your complaint and if in your shoes I would probably be standing on the highest roof - making the most noise.

I do not think your complaint diminishes the accomplishments of the team. Their method of play, if accureately described, did that for themselves.

It IS an embarrassing way to treat your opponents(come and get it if you can) and certainly not in the spirit of creating awe and excitement. But if that's how they played it and that's how others saw it played then feel free to complain. Maybe next time they will come out and bury another 8 goals - so be it - at least the fans get the thrill of watching good talent do it's thing or the heart of an underdog fighting it's way back into a game. We all know how valuable that excitement is to the game, and I'm sure cherish it more than a "hohum" - "another notch in the holster" finish.

If the "premier league" is an attempt to move roller hockey closer to NCAA certification - never lose sight of the value of "fan excitement" in that process. A finish like this is no way to create the excitement necessary to fill stands. And believe me that will be one of the criteria - whether officially stated or not!

cakeuneke

03-10-2003, 03:39 PM

Nope, I didn't understand. I wasn't at the game. I would send one guy behind the net on the same side that the off D was on to prevent that pass, have a guy out in front to perform the same function mentioned earlier, and my other two guys covering theirs man to man. If they tried that long pass, I'll take the chance that one of my players will intercept it. That would be incredibly frustrating though, that's not real hockey. I think this is a major problem with not having offsides. It would be nice just to see a rule saying you can't pass across the red line, then it wouldn't be so tough.

mackertm

03-10-2003, 03:43 PM

Our strategy going into the game certainly wasn't to play the waiting game. But given how LU was playing the game, it was our best strategy overall. Because of the way they were situating their forwards, it wasn't just a 4-on-3 rush moving up the floor, with all seven remaining players moving in the same direction. We'd likely end up with a couple guys standing still with their guys in the corner, and probably a 2-on-1 coming down on our second forward. That's what happened most of the time when we did chase.

The problem (to look at it from our point of view) was that LU's players are good enough that they turn a 4-on-3 opportunity into a 2-on-1, isolating a single player on defense and likely getting off a nice one-timer. They're good, that's how they got their last couple goals.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

fryer98

03-10-2003, 03:46 PM

yea, it's tough to understand unless you see it. i would say get the video, but i could just send you a picture and it would show just as much action.

how about this one, the shots in the champ game were 17-8 in favor in LU. compare that to PU/MSU game where the shots were 16-7 in favor of PU........IN THE FIRST QUARTER!! and 48-43 in favor of PU for the game. which game would be more marketable?? why did i even ask??

pahcky9

03-10-2003, 03:58 PM

I played on Todd's 99'ers team for 4 years, and we won national championships (1 with a guy from Lindenwood) playing puck contral offense. We practiced like 3 hours a day on different ways to keep the puck away from the other team. I remember finishing a game on a delayed penalty call for an entire half. the difference was that refs in AIRHS, Narch, and USAC always made you move the puck from behind the net at some point. So I realy can't fault Lindenwood for doing this, but at the same time, I am amazed that the rule book doesn't focus on this at all. I am also amazed that michigan state didn't chase more. I can understand early in the game not wanting to get desperate, but after a while you have to. if they break out 4 on 3 your not in that bad of shape as long as your defenseman don;t stand in the corner the entire time watching the play (they can't score from the corner). whatever, it still sucks to lose that way.

mackertm

03-10-2003, 04:02 PM

I agree that in some ways it's hard to fault LU for the way they played, as it wasn't illegal. But I also think it wasn't exactly in the spirit of competition to play the game the way they ran it.

Mostly, though, it all comes down to a single deficiency in the CRHL rulebook - a deficiency that will likely be a point of change over the summer.

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

troymann

03-10-2003, 04:35 PM

I came to the championship game yesterday to see a game like last years finals between these two teams and what i saw instead was a joke. If I was playing for Lindenwood in that game I would have just skated to the bench and sat down because I would have been embarrassed to play in a game that went like that. I played for Lindenwood last year so i know and am friends with alot of guys on that team and guys that was an embarrassment to the sport yesterday. The thing that I dont understand about that strategy is that normally a lesser team uses it to keep the game close look a college basketball and the four corners for an example, Lindenwood is hardly a lesser team. They are the only team in the league that can run three lines that are all good. The point is that you didnt need to play the stall game to win. You guys could have broke out and still had your odd man rush just on pure speed that happened a few times in the game before and you ended up scoring. Just about everyone that has been watching this league knew that you guys would win the championship most just thought that you would have done it with alittle more respect for everyone that was involved.

MDE3

03-10-2003, 04:42 PM

Danny - all the rule book states is: "the puck must be kept in motion" - NHL and USA Inline - cant speak for the others. To define it any more than this would be an interpretation.
If a player with a good stick in non contact hockey can dangle someone with the puck for 30 seconds - would this be "too long"? Would this be a delay of game? Or was it only ok while on a penalty kill, but not otherwise? As you can see if you think it through there would have to be a whole body of rules regulating " the puck must be kept in motion"- Must it always be towards the defender;s net or can we stick handle up and down the floor. It does not say anywhere that the player "must keep in motion" just : "The puck must be kept in motion at all times".

For these reasons there is nothing but that rule. It does remain encumbant on the team without possession to regain possession - if they want to win - no matter how talented or effective is the opposition. There is no rule stating - "if you are a really good team, you are not allowed to force the other team to come and take the puck away from you"

All this being said - it is neither in the spirit of good sportsmanship, nor in the spirit of advancing the interest in the game to play this way. The only interest it benefits is the winning of the contest. If that is the only acceptable priority and everyone accepts this then there can be no foul.

nala

03-10-2003, 06:17 PM

Richard
I can call you Richard.Definition of sportsmanship.Not you
They Lindenwood Players did not tarnish themselves they won
the National Title Again.

RichardGraham

03-10-2003, 06:30 PM

Hello Nala,

Let's see if I understand your post correctly.

>>I can call you Richard.<<

Yes. We are in agreement here. Very good. You can call me a lot of things. Doesn't help your argument, though.

>>Definition of sportsmanship. Not you.<<

OK, and what do you base your evidence on? You may be right (grin), but I'd like to understand how you became all-knowing.

>>They Lindenwood Players did not tarnish themselves they won the National Title Again.<<

OK, you've repeated yourself for about the fourth time, and capitalized four words that didn't need capitalization.

Now tell me why you posted again?

Sincerely,

Richard Graham
Editor
Inline Hockey Central

bonesy21

03-10-2003, 08:01 PM

hey nala,

anyone can buy a national championship...just ask the GM of the detroit redwings, theyve done it...and it just so happens that while the entire game was being played, i did in fact get to talk to the players from LU and they are great kids, dont get me wrong and by all means have the best team in the country, but atleast they too admitted that it was BS for them to have waisted all that time behind the net. so instead of screaming exit 208 which is where the school actually is, why dont you first talk to the players yourself and ask them if in fact that was the way THEY wanted to win the game........

bones

DannyG

03-10-2003, 08:01 PM

Mike (is everybody named Mike on this one?):

Gotta go differently on this one...you state that the problem is that the rule itself is so general to not really define motion enough to have prevented the Lindenwood situation. (Oh, golly, are we back to labeling all these things with a "LIndenwood" tag???) That's even if the USAHIL or NHL rule were in the CRHL book, which it isn't, we now know.

Interpretation of the rule is not the issue. You correctly state that the rule (indeed, any rule) can only generally set parameters of fair play. Rules books can't possibly reach the level of specificity necessary to cover every possible play situation. It is indeed the job of the referee, together with officiating administration of the governing body, to "apply" the rules in a fair and impartial manner.

In the case of the puck-in-motion scenario, as noted in your post, the rule itself does not define distance/direction/time parameters of what constitutes "motion." As noted by others, however, every league we have ever played in (all of us), has their referees demanding players, let's say (loosely borrow from the NFL) "do something common to the game," when in possession of the puck, and standing there motionless behind the net is not acceptable.

I ask that you not let my allowance to referees to interpret the rules (as you say) or apply the rules (as I am asserting) to make you think the rules are suspect. They are not. As noted, every program that has this rule, also has, even if only by custom and tradition, a demand upon its referees to set the parameters of play under the rule. That's part of all sports, not only hockey, eh?

With the line between "use of the rules for your tactical advantage" vs. "abuse of the rules legally, but unfairly for your advantage" blurring more and more through this message thread, I assert:

What the Lindenwood team did was legal, okay?
But it was indeed contrary to the spirit of fair play, and denegrates the game of inline hockey.

-Dan

MDE3

03-10-2003, 09:30 PM

Apparently we agree - it was probably technically legal unless a more specific version is spelled out - the rest is simply almost taunting.

Based on previous threads, it may well have been the Lindewood coach's response to accusations of running the score up in a previous contest. IE: "Ok then would you like us do do it this way?"

mackertm

03-10-2003, 09:43 PM

I can't comment about teams complaining about running up the score. I know that's something I haven't complained about, but I can certainly see where some might. No one likes losing, especially by 10 or 20 goals. The CRHL Premier league games are extremely long, if the teams are not relatively evenly matched there is always a chance that a game could get extremely lopsided.

If this really was a response to complaints about running up the scores in games, it's hardly the most fan-friendly or sportsmanlike option (at least in my opinion). I know at MSU in the past we made decisions that players would have to pass X number of times before they could shoot, or players were instructed to miss the net on purpose.

Of course, I realize this was a championship game and such strategies are certainly more risky than sitting behind the net. Whatever the case might be, at this point I'm most interested in seeing what the fallout is in the CRHL in general. What (if any) rule changes will take place, etc...

Mike Mackert
Michigan State University

DannyG

03-10-2003, 09:44 PM

I worked for IBM Corporation in the late seventies, in the middle of the U.S. vs IBM federal anti-trust lawsuit, which took 14 years to prosecute...the federal government took all that time to present its case, with millions of documents of evidence, to prove IBM was a monopoly, which it got to be by engaging in unfair business practices.

At the end of this unbelievable length of process, when the judge turned to the IBM lawyers to begin their defense, IBM rested, saying that the U.S. government had not demonstrated that it was indeed a monoploy at all.

The judge then summarily dismissed the case, agreeing on every point with IBM, actually stating for the record, that IBM had gotten big because it had better products, and was more effective in its marketing strategies. "Bigness is not inherently a monopoly," was the judge's statement.

Someone who is better than everybody else at what they do is not inherently a bad person or group.

I agree that Lindenwood is not vile and evil. Heck, I haven't ever seen them play. Based upon all the reports on this event, however, I wish -for the good and betterment of our sport- that they would have chosen to play hard, clean, fair, within the true spirit of the game.

Ya know, there are teams out there that totally decimate their opposition, but they do it with such grace, dignity, respect and pure class, that their defeated opponents express appreciation for the opportunity to have played them.

It's a shame that the Lindenwood guys don't seem to fit this mold.

-Dan