HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Can the Flyers finally beat Virginia?

The Foaters will be put in running time by the Blue Devils you can take that one to the bank.

northwoods oldtimer wrote:The Foaters will be put in running time by the Blue Devils you can take that one to the bank.

Hey oldtimer, the banks are closed

Only way the Blue Devils put this into running time is if Big Ben doesn't play

Look for a close competitive game

Syd Barrett wrote:

northwoods oldtimer wrote:The Foaters will be put in running time by the Blue Devils you can take that one to the bank.

Hey oldtimer, the banks are closed

Only way the Blue Devils put this into running time is if Big Ben doesn't play

Look for a close competitive game

Not if Virginia knows what everyone else should know....and I think they probably do since they have had success with LF before..

defense wrote:Not if Virginia knows what everyone else should know....and I think they probably do since they have had success with LF before..

Hey big D, you wouldn't be referin' to Da Floaters propensity for "Cheery Picken" would yah

Syd Barrett wrote:

defense wrote:Not if Virginia knows what everyone else should know....and I think they probably do since they have had success with LF before..

Hey big D, you wouldn't be referin' to Da Floaters propensity for "Cheery Picken" would yah

Who is big D.....and what is "cheery Picken"?????


Just looked at the Flyers' schedule, the first three will tell a lot.....and along those lines, who said Little Falls needs a better schedule?????

Im pickin the Floaters in this one, Big Ben didn't play last year and it was the difference in the game, but he's playing tomorrow night.


Floaters 6 Blue Devils 3

defense wrote:what is "cheery Picken"?????

Why do you think they call 'em the Floaters

Syd Barrett wrote:

defense wrote:what is "cheery Picken"?????

Why do you think they call 'em the Floaters

So you're saying that Little Falls' high school hockey team likes their green herbs?????

defense wrote:So you're saying that Little Falls' high school hockey team likes their green herbs?????

Hey defense, you must not of played hockey if you don't know what "Cheery Picken" and Floaters are

Syd, Just ribbing the Small Falls faithful. I expect a close one as well with Hanowski buzzing that nuetral ice waiting to put the biscuit in the basket.

Syd Barrett wrote:

defense wrote:So you're saying that Little Falls' high school hockey team likes their green herbs?????

Hey defense, you must not of played hockey if you don't know what "Cheery Picken" and Floaters are

Yup, ya see right through me....and I thought I could hide it.........
Actually it has a little to do with your "floater"... but more to do with how to manage a game against a team such as Little Falls who relys as heavily on one or two star players as Little Falls does. I would just as soon see Little Falls win, but I don't know if they can.

Any update?

Mite-dad wrote:Any update?

Yes Hanowski is standing on the opposing Blue Line waiting for the Puck.

Little Falls finally starts off a season with a win up at Virginia

LF - 1
VMB- 0

Tough opening stretch for the Blue Devils losing back to back one goal games to the Flyers and Cloquet to start the seaon.

This was one of the ugliest games I've seen in a while. Hanowski was not much of a factor. He had a couple of spots where he stood out, but Chris Westin of Virginia was probably the most noticeable player on the ice.

Most of this game was played on special teams. I'd venture to guess at least 40 of the 51 minutes had someone in the box. The one goal was scored shorthanded early in the first period by Riley Hirsch on a nice corner-picking shot on a 2-on-1.

Virginia had a goal waved off midway through the third. I have to see a replay to see for sure, but it looked to me like it went of a skate and then the blade of the same kid's stick; but it was ruled off as being intenionally directed in directly off of a skate. I will see the video tomorrow on local cable access.

Immediately after that, Virginia was given two penalties and LF went on its second 5 on 3 powerplay that killed Virginia's momentum and killed a good chunk of the remaining time.

All-in-all, neither team looked to me like a top 15 class A team. The officials need to learn to swallow the whistle; there was absolutley no flow to the game whatsoever... It was an awful game to watch... All those powerplays and only one goal in the entire game... And only 25 shots on goal apiece... It's impossible to say who the better team would be if they were able to play a 5-on-5 hockey game.

The bright spot had to be the goaltending. Both tenders made a couple of unbeleiveable saves.

Thanks for the summary Puck Ranger. Sounds like an ugly affair.

PuckRanger - Here are the rules to keep in mind as you watch the film:

A goal shall not be allowed if the puck has been kicked or directed into the goal off an attacking player's skate that is moving toward the goal line. When in doubt, the goal shall be disallowed. When administering this rule, the puck must initially be legally propelled by a stick.

If the puck deflects into the goal from the shot of an attacking player by striking any part of a player on the same team, the goal shall be allowed. The player who deflected the puck shall be credited with the goal. A goal shall be allowed if a puck deflects off an attacking player who is in the act of stopping, provided neither skate is used to direct the puck into the net.

c. A goal shall not be allowed in any of the following cases:

2. If the puck has been thrown or batted into the goal.

10. If an attacking player propels the puck illegally with the stick, and it deflects off any player into the net."

Rationale: This rule had much debate during the committee meetings. Ultimately, the committee is proposing this clarified language to remove all references to a "distinct kicking motion" which has been difficult to understand. The committee is defining the use of the skate to score a goal only when the puck deflects off of the skate and is not controlled, guided or kicked into the net. When in doubt, the goal will be disallowed in this proposal.

There shouldn't have been any doubt on this one. It was an obvious kick, and the stick wasn't even moved. (Even though it was about a foot from the puck and could've easily been handled).

4theloveofthegame wrote:There shouldn't have been any doubt on this one. It was an obvious kick, and the stick wasn't even moved. (Even though it was about a foot from the puck and could've easily been handled).

I haven't had a chance to watch it again because I missed the first replay... but, yes, the kick was obvious when it was seen live. The issue is whether he kicked it to his stick and then deflected it in with his stick - or - kicked it directly in. From where I was sitting it looked like he kicked it toward the goal, but deflected it in with his stick just before it crossed the goal line. Even the folks sitting in my section didn't agree on what they saw. Some were very adamant that it went off his stick, others said he missed it. Its really a moot point anyway, its not going to change the outcome of the game at this point in time.

Cory Arbogast, the player that the puck went off of said he tried to kick it to his stick and direct the puck into the net with his stick but he missed it. The kick motion was toward the stick and net but he did not touch the puck with his stick. No Goal.