skip navigation

U.S. Downs Canada, 3-2, in Shootout

By USAHockey.com, 12/28/13, 7:15PM MST

Share

ST. PAUL, Minn. – The U.S. Women’s National Team defeated Canada, 3-2, in a shootout this afternoon at the Xcel Energy Center. Hilary Knight (Sun Valley, Idaho) scored the decisive shootout goal and added a pair of assists to pace the team offensively. Goaltender Jessie Vetter (Cottage Grove, Wis.) made 37 saves and turned aside all three Canadian shootout attempts.

"We didn’t have the same intensity as before the break but we started getting our legs back and found a way to win,” said Katey Stone, head coach of the 2014 U.S. Olympic Women's Ice Hockey Team. “Fortunately, Jessie was a rock back there and she settled things down when we really needed it.”

Kelli Stack (Brooklyn Heights, Ohio) opened the scoring for Team USA at the 13:54 of the first period when Knight’s wrap-around attempt was stopped by Canadian goaltender Charline Labonte but the rebound came to Stack who was left alone in the slot with an open net.

With nine seconds remaining in the second period, Alex Carpenter (North Reading, Mass.) fought off a defender and picked up a rebound to score a power play goal and make it 2-0.

Canada would tie the score, 2-2, with a pair of goals in the third period but after a scoreless overtime, the U.S. would prevail in the shootout with Knight scoring the lone tally and Vetter denying three Canadian shooters in front of 9,012 fans in attendance.

For a complete box score, click here.

The win was Team USA’s third consecutive victory over Canada, knotting the rivals’ head-to-head pre-Olympic tour record at three wins apiece. The two teams will face each other at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto, Ontario, on Monday at 7 p.m. ET for the final time before the 2014 Olympic Winter Games.

Recent News

Most Popular Articles

2022-23 ATO | WEEK 7

By USA Hockey Officiating 10/14/2022, 6:45am MDT

QUESTIONPlay is stopped for premature substitution of the goalkeeper with play over the red line, so the face-off is at center ice. Is the offending team required to put the goalkeeper back in net in order to attempt to legally substitute their goalkeeper during the next play or can they pull their goalkeeper?

ANSWER: If a team violates the Premature Goalkeeper Substitution rule (Rule 205.a), they are not required to place the goalkeeper back on the ice before the face-off.

 

QUESTIONIs there a difference between "suspended" and "forfeited" in regards to lack of adult supervision? During a game, the coach got sick and had to leave. There were no other adults around, so was I supposed to just suspend the game and contact local authorities? Or is it considered a forfeit and written down as a loss?

ANSWERA game is considered suspended when the officials determine that due to whatever extenuating circumstances (rink defect, coach pulls his/her team, etc.) that it can no longer be played, but no playing rule determines a winner given the circumstances (e.g. Rule 201.a). The officials will report the suspended game to the proper authorities (league, association, etc.) who will decide on an outcome (re-schedule, declare a winner, etc.).

Rule 201.a is currently the only circumstance where an official can terminate a game and declare a winner.

 

QUESTIONWhat is the difference between the " Golden Triangle" and "Home Base"?

ANSWER: The “Golden Triangle” is outlined on page 19 of the USA Hockey Basic Officiating Manual, and “Home Base” is one of the three points of the triangle. “Home Base” is the point on the Goal Line closest to the goal where an imaginary line connecting the face-off spots on one side of the ice would intersect with the goal line. This is where the referee should spend as much time as possible unless play moves to his/her side of the ice, at which point they would move back into the corner.

 

QUESTIONAre youth players required to wear a strapped mouthpiece? I could not find anything in the rules pertaining to a strapped mouthpiece.

ANSWER: While mouthpieces are required (and recommended) at certain levels of the game, they are not required to be attached to the face-mask at any level.

 

QUESTIONIf NO injury occurs, can a major plus game misconduct for boarding be assessed under Rule 603.a anyway (based on degree of violence, at the official’s discretion, etc.)? I have been taught both 'yes' and 'no' at various seminars.

ANSWERRule 603.b in the USA Hockey Playing Rules states,

"A major plus game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any player who recklessly endangers an opponent as a result of boarding."

Therefore, the determining factor with assessing "minor plus misconduct" vs. "major plus game misconduct" penalties is the action of the infraction itself. If the player recklessly endangers the opponent with his/her actions, the game officials must assess major plus game misconduct penalties.

 

The USA Hockey Playing Rules are now available as a mobile device app! Check your Apple, Android, or Windows app store to download this playing rule app free of charge.

Check out the USA Hockey mobile-friendly online rulebook application! Enter usahockeyrulebook.com into your mobile device’s web browser to gain instant access to the USA Hockey Playing Rules (must have mobile or internet service).

The USA Hockey Playing Rules Casebook and other educational material can be found under the OFFICIALS tab at USAHockey.com.

A new emphasis on rules and the referee-coach relationship has been added to USA Hockey’s Coaching Education Program (CEP) curriculum. The goal is to better inform coaches about rule changes - and the reasons behind those changes - and help coaches understand how difficult officiating can be. That mutual understanding will help improve relations between coaches and referees, which would be a net positive for everyone in hockey.

For example, during the 2021-22 season, USA Hockey’s CEP curriculum included information on three significant rule changes: updating language to emphasize the principles outlined in the “Declaration of Safety, Fair Play and Respect”; the elimination of tag-up offsides; and not allowing for shorthanded icing. During coaching clinics, these rules were broken down and coaches were given the developmental reasons behind those rule changes.

“It was great to see because a lot of times you’d see coaches come in and they were not happy,” said Heather Mannix, USA Hockey ADM Manager of Female Hockey. “Once you have a conversation about the developmental reasons behind the rule changes, from a player development standpoint of what we were trying to accomplish, you started to see the tide change and their thoughts behind it change a little bit.”

Updates to this Year’s Curriculum
Mannix has the added responsibility as the manager of education with the intent of trying to bridge the gaps between the Coaching Education Program and the Officiating Education Program. This year, they have again updated the coaching curriculum, this time with the objectives to humanize officials and get coaches to recognize how difficult their job is.  

USA Hockey has taken 10 questions that officials have to take in their exams at various levels and placed them in the coaching curriculum.

“During the break, we have a QR code coaches will [scan] and take a 10-question survey and it’s all based on the rules,” Mannix said. They then put some of the questions on the Zoom call and ask coaches to anonymously respond to how well they felt they knew the rules.

“It’s not to get into the rules or discuss the rules, just to open up the coaches’ eyes to the fact that they may not know the rules as well as they think they do,” Mannix said. “By doing that, we humanize the officials and get coaches to think, ‘OK, maybe I should second guess myself before I yell at an official for not making a call that maybe I don’t know the rules as well as I thought I did.’”

Getting a Different Perspective
One of the biggest conflicts between coaches and officials comes from body contact – whether a penalty is called or not. However, a lot of times, it just depends on how you look at the hit.

USA Hockey is showing videos of different perspectives of the same body check. There is one view that looks like a major penalty, but slowed down and from a different perspective and you recognize that it wasn’t a major penalty at all.

“Again, get coaches to realize that at no point is their sightline going to be the exact same as a youth official,” Mannix said.

Communication is Key
Finally, this year the curriculum is also discussing different forms of communication – are you a hostile coach or a constructive coach?

Mannix wants coaches to think about how they conduct themselves when confronting a youth official.

“How do you communicate with officials? Is your foot on the dasher, have your finger in their face and yelling from above? Or have you jumped off the bench to have a conversation face-to-face? Just the little impacts of those communication strategies with officials,” Mannix said.

Setting Expectations
Mannix hopes these updates will set realistic expectations for coaches. Most coaches don’t realize that 60% of youth officials have less than three years of experience.

But then again, coaches often can use a refresher when it comes to the rules. For those coaches, USA Hockey has made the Mobile Rule Book free to download.

The new referee-centric segments have generated a ton of positive feedback.

“We’ve had several instances where a coach has said, ‘I’m going to sign up with my kid and we’re going to take a Level 1 course,’ which I thought was really cool,” Mannix said.

Is this official? Just want to get the title right.