HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Well all is well at Hill, but it seems WBL is better than expected this year not that we are worried, but White Bear beat Fargo 6-1 and Moorhead 6-5 both teams always field good teams down a few players this year but still good, they are getting strong play out of !5 Chris Fiala and Owen C, what do you think the bears chance will be agianst Hill and on the season overall and how significant the wins were

I dont think you have anything to worry bout hillfan, Joe flip will come to play, and play spectacular like he always does against the hated bears.

Bears look solid and they are getting good production out of their sophmores Pasma and Wolters (Hope I spelled that right)

hillmurray2010 wrote:Bears look solid and they are getting good production out of their sophmores Pasma and Wolters (Hope I spelled that right)

Almost, but no S at the end, just Wolter.

Wolter is fitting in just fine on the first line. Pasma is doing alright...two goals, but still playing 4th line I believe. I think he is also playing in the JV games before as well? Not sure. He might get moved up to full time varsity on 3rd line.

The Bears have looked pretty good and better than what was expected, atleast in my opinion. We'll see if the Moorhead game was just a fluke or not when they play East, another solid team.

i think this could be the year the bears beat hill in what seems like forever. White Bear was a little underrated this year and i think hill will be in for a surprise

Anyone hear any word on senior forward Andy Lennartson? He was injured in the 2nd period (i think?) against Moorhead and never returned.

chillout wrote:

hillmurray2010 wrote:Bears look solid and they are getting good production out of their sophmores Pasma and Wolters (Hope I spelled that right)

Almost, but no S at the end, just Wolter.

Wolter is fitting in just fine on the first line. Pasma is doing alright...two goals, but still playing 4th line I believe. I think he is also playing in the JV games before as well? Not sure. He might get moved up to full time varsity on 3rd line.

The Bears have looked pretty good and better than what was expected, atleast in my opinion. We'll see if the Moorhead game was just a fluke or not when they play East, another solid team.

Yes. Pasma is still on 4th line varsity...and still playin' JV. But i have not heard word on Lennartson...but my guess would be if he is injured Pasma would be the man to move up.

chillout wrote:

hillmurray2010 wrote:Bears look solid and they are getting good production out of their sophmores Pasma and Wolters (Hope I spelled that right)

Almost, but no S at the end, just Wolter.

Wolter is fitting in just fine on the first line. Pasma is doing alright...two goals, but still playing 4th line I believe. I think he is also playing in the JV games before as well? Not sure. He might get moved up to full time varsity on 3rd line.

The Bears have looked pretty good and better than what was expected, atleast in my opinion. We'll see if the Moorhead game was just a fluke or not when they play East, another solid team.

The Wolter, Villneauve line is going to be a fun one to watch this year. Villneauve was hitting everything in site on Saturday, but once again took dumb penaties. Colette was the difference I thought despite giving up 5 goals.

The Wolter, Villneauve line is going to be a fun one to watch this year. Villneauve was hitting everything in site on Saturday, but once again took dumb penaties. Colette was the difference I thought despite giving up 5 goals.[/quote]
Drugs or people? :D

ImissMYhockey wrote:The Wolter, Villneauve line is going to be a fun one to watch this year. Villneauve was hitting everything in site on Saturday, but once again took dumb penaties. Colette was the difference I thought despite giving up 5 goals.Drugs or people?

does anyone else think one goal in the crease souldnt have counted as well?

I heard Lenardson just hurt his knee and may miss one game but will be fine

jbhagel81 wrote: does anyone else think one goal in the crease souldnt have counted as well?

I don't think it matters. Except maybe to Owen's GAA.

sicknasty7722 wrote:

jbhagel81 wrote: does anyone else think one goal in the crease souldnt have counted as well?

I don't think it matters. Except maybe to Owen's GAA.

From MSHSL website:

Minnesota Goal Crease Rule

The NFHS Ice Hockey Rules Committee has approved for use in all games played in Minnesota an experimental rule relating to goals scored when a player is illegally in the goal crease. This rule will count those goals which are scored when an offensive player or player's stick is illegally in the goal crease but, in the opinion of the referee, the player or stick illegally in the goal crease had no impact on the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal when the puck entered the goal.

A player illegally in the goal crease impacts the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal when:

1. The player makes physical contact with the goalkeeper; or

2. The player prevents the goalkeeper from moving freely in the goal crease; or

3. The player screens the goalkeeper or otherwise interferes with the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal, even though no physical contact is made with the goalkeeper.

A goal may not be scored by a shot, deflection off, or tip-in by a player who is initially illegally in the goal crease.

This rule does not allow players to position themselves in the goal crease, skate through the goal crease, or otherwise interfere with the goalkeeper in the goal crease. In those situations, the referee should still blow the whistle to stop play and conduct a neutral zone face-off. This rule is NOT the same as similar NHL and NCAA rules, which do permit offensive players to position themselves in the goal crease.

This rule only addresses situations where a player is illegally in the goal crease. It is important to remember that the following are all situations where a player may legally be in the goal crease:

1. The puck is in the goal crease;

2. The goalkeeper is out of the goal crease;

3. The offensive team does not have possession of the puck; or

4. A defensive player has pushed the offensive player into the goal crease and the offensive player has not had sufficient time or ability to get out of the goal crease.

Clear as mud!

Neutron 14 wrote:

sicknasty7722 wrote:

jbhagel81 wrote: does anyone else think one goal in the crease souldnt have counted as well?

I don't think it matters. Except maybe to Owen's GAA.

From MSHSL website:

Minnesota Goal Crease Rule

The NFHS Ice Hockey Rules Committee has approved for use in all games played in Minnesota an experimental rule relating to goals scored when a player is illegally in the goal crease. This rule will count those goals which are scored when an offensive player or player's stick is illegally in the goal crease but, in the opinion of the referee, the player or stick illegally in the goal crease had no impact on the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal when the puck entered the goal.

A player illegally in the goal crease impacts the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal when:

1. The player makes physical contact with the goalkeeper; or

2. The player prevents the goalkeeper from moving freely in the goal crease; or

3. The player screens the goalkeeper or otherwise interferes with the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal, even though no physical contact is made with the goalkeeper.

A goal may not be scored by a shot, deflection off, or tip-in by a player who is initially illegally in the goal crease.

This rule does not allow players to position themselves in the goal crease, skate through the goal crease, or otherwise interfere with the goalkeeper in the goal crease. In those situations, the referee should still blow the whistle to stop play and conduct a neutral zone face-off. This rule is NOT the same as similar NHL and NCAA rules, which do permit offensive players to position themselves in the goal crease.

This rule only addresses situations where a player is illegally in the goal crease. It is important to remember that the following are all situations where a player may legally be in the goal crease:

1. The puck is in the goal crease;

2. The goalkeeper is out of the goal crease;

3. The offensive team does not have possession of the puck; or

4. A defensive player has pushed the offensive player into the goal crease and the offensive player has not had sufficient time or ability to get out of the goal crease.

Well in the case for White Bear Lakes goalie Owen Collette, numbers one and two would have been violated.

On another note, two of the paragraphs contradict one another. Bolded and italicized above.

sicknasty7722 wrote:

Neutron 14 wrote:

sicknasty7722 wrote: I don't think it matters. Except maybe to Owen's GAA.

From MSHSL website:

Minnesota Goal Crease Rule

The NFHS Ice Hockey Rules Committee has approved for use in all games played in Minnesota an experimental rule relating to goals scored when a player is illegally in the goal crease. This rule will count those goals which are scored when an offensive player or player's stick is illegally in the goal crease but, in the opinion of the referee, the player or stick illegally in the goal crease had no impact on the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal when the puck entered the goal.

A player illegally in the goal crease impacts the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal when:

1. The player makes physical contact with the goalkeeper; or

2. The player prevents the goalkeeper from moving freely in the goal crease; or

3. The player screens the goalkeeper or otherwise interferes with the goalkeeper's ability to defend the goal, even though no physical contact is made with the goalkeeper.

A goal may not be scored by a shot, deflection off, or tip-in by a player who is initially illegally in the goal crease.

This rule does not allow players to position themselves in the goal crease, skate through the goal crease, or otherwise interfere with the goalkeeper in the goal crease. In those situations, the referee should still blow the whistle to stop play and conduct a neutral zone face-off. This rule is NOT the same as similar NHL and NCAA rules, which do permit offensive players to position themselves in the goal crease.

This rule only addresses situations where a player is illegally in the goal crease. It is important to remember that the following are all situations where a player may legally be in the goal crease:

1. The puck is in the goal crease;

2. The goalkeeper is out of the goal crease;

3. The offensive team does not have possession of the puck; or

4. A defensive player has pushed the offensive player into the goal crease and the offensive player has not had sufficient time or ability to get out of the goal crease.

Well in the case for White Bear Lakes goalie Owen Collette, numbers one and two would have been violated.

On another note, two of the paragraphs contradict one another. Bolded and italicized above.

sicknasty....you didnt really answer my question. im ware aware of the rules. but what did anyone else think? count or not? i mean, there were at least 4 other players in or around the crease hacking at the puck. shouldnt the ref called it? it would have been a whole differnt game f that one didnt go in, really gave moorehead some momentum and made the game look closer than it was.

jbhagel81 wrote: sicknasty....you didnt really answer my question. im ware aware of the rules. but what did anyone else think? count or not? i mean, there were at least 4 other players in or around the crease hacking at the puck. shouldnt the ref called it? it would have been a whole differnt game f that one didnt go in, really gave moorehead some momentum and made the game look closer than it was.

I wasn't really trying to, I was just trying to fill Neutron in. But YES, the goal should have been disallowed, but the ref's don't always make the right decisions, they have to go on what they saw (the ref couldn't see the puck so he should've blown his whistle anyways), and sometimes it doesn't always turn out the right way. Fortunately for the Bears, it didn't mean the difference in the outcome of the game. I'm not sure you can say the game wasn't close though, as it was very close the whole game.

I wasn't really trying to, I was just trying to fill Neutron in. But YES, the goal should have been disallowed, but the ref's don't always make the right decisions, they have to go on what they saw (the ref couldn't see the puck so he should've blown his whistle anyways), and sometimes it doesn't always turn out the right way. Fortunately for the Bears, it didn't mean the difference in the outcome of the game. I'm not sure you can say the game wasn't close though, as it was very close the whole game.[/quote]

i disagree. i will say maybe it wasnt accurate to say it wasnt close. which it was. but when it was 4-2 white bear...again some penalties hurt and it looked like white bear was pulling away. then a powerplay goal, and another one where they pulled the goalie making it 6-4. good hockey on their part. your right. it ended up close. but looking at the overall picture i would say it wasnt close the entire game. in the end. white bear wins. good day.

Hagel = no hockey knowledge.

The WB/MHD game = Over. Done.

White Bear won, final answer. There is no need to go over whether it was a goal or not. That was the past...the Bears won and have moved on and are focusing on the big DE game on friday. It doesn't mean anything towards how WB compares to top teams either...because overall the Bears outplayed the Spuds and showed they can compete.

None of this matters anymore.

when and where is the WB and east game?

ImissMYhockey wrote:when and where is the WB and east game?

Friday, 7pm, Superior Arena

ImissMYhockey wrote:when and where is the WB and east game?

Friday, 7pm, Superior Arena

Is it 7pm, all of the current WBL schedules say 8pm.

I just called Superior Arena, they have JV at 6pm, Varsity at 8pm.

Does anybody know what line Wolter is on, and when will Lennartson be back in the line-up?