Go back

SFU hockey lose in overtime

SFU played host to the visiting University of Victoria Vikes in a game that really didn’t mean anything in terms of the standings. SFU was locked into second place, and UVic in fourth. However, it was important to the Clan to head into the playoffs on the right foot, after a disappointing loss to Selkirk the week before.

It didn’t work out that way. With a 3–1 lead halfway through the third period, UVic scored two goals sending it into overtime, the tying goal coming with just 44 seconds left in regulation. They then scored just over 30 seconds into the extra frame to win it 4–3, stunning the home crowd and leaving SFU with a very bitter taste in their mouths.

Penalties were the main reason for the downfall of the Clan in this one.

The first period started with some solid hits from SFU’s fourth line, particularly from Matthew Luongo. However, it was UVic that held a 1–0 lead after one, with Bo Sigurdson finishing off a nice play from Shawn Mueller. In the second, SFU came roaring out, outshooting the visitors 14–4 and scoring three goals. Jaret Babych scored the third off of a redirect, which must have been a boost of confidence for him after a tough second half to the season with injury.

Penalties were one of the main reasons for the downfall of the Clan in this one. A total of 12 penalties were called against SFU for a total of 28 minutes, close to a period and a half’s worth. UVic was able to score on two of them, including the game winner in overtime. UVic was called for their fair share of penalties as well, with nine going against the Vikes.

“You never want to criticize any officials [. . .] but I would just say that it wasn’t the best officiating game that we’ve seen, and I think overall the league has addressed that throughout the season” remarked SFU Head Coach Mark Coletta afterwards. “They’re like us, they make mistakes, we make mistakes. Maybe he just had a bad night.”

Coletta also remarked on the game as a whole, stating, “We wanted to see if we could get off to a better start and we didn’t, so that’s on us. I thought we battled back in the second nicely, and I thought the third we were kind of vanilla. There was just a middle area there where I thought we rested on a 3–1 lead and again — not the referee’s fault there, either.”

Was this article helpful?
0
0

Leave a Reply

Block title

Less is more for future FIFA World Cup and the environment

By: Tomos Land, Staff Writer It has barely been a week since the 2026 FIFA World Cup final, yet the focus has already shifted to future iterations of the tournament. After enjoying a bountiful event, which is forecast to bring in record levels of revenue, FIFA — the sport’s world governing body — is reported to be considering plans to expand the number of nations taking part. More teams at future world cups means more matches, fans, and host cities. Each of these factors come with a higher cost to the environment. Governments need to step up and require FIFA to host the competition in a country that has better green infrastructure. By reverting to a single host nation, the governing body can meaningfully reduce...

Read Next

Block title

Less is more for future FIFA World Cup and the environment

By: Tomos Land, Staff Writer It has barely been a week since the 2026 FIFA World Cup final, yet the focus has already shifted to future iterations of the tournament. After enjoying a bountiful event, which is forecast to bring in record levels of revenue, FIFA — the sport’s world governing body — is reported to be considering plans to expand the number of nations taking part. More teams at future world cups means more matches, fans, and host cities. Each of these factors come with a higher cost to the environment. Governments need to step up and require FIFA to host the competition in a country that has better green infrastructure. By reverting to a single host nation, the governing body can meaningfully reduce...

Block title

Less is more for future FIFA World Cup and the environment

By: Tomos Land, Staff Writer It has barely been a week since the 2026 FIFA World Cup final, yet the focus has already shifted to future iterations of the tournament. After enjoying a bountiful event, which is forecast to bring in record levels of revenue, FIFA — the sport’s world governing body — is reported to be considering plans to expand the number of nations taking part. More teams at future world cups means more matches, fans, and host cities. Each of these factors come with a higher cost to the environment. Governments need to step up and require FIFA to host the competition in a country that has better green infrastructure. By reverting to a single host nation, the governing body can meaningfully reduce...