Not a goal?

Can someone please explain?

The camera guy standing by me told me during the review that the officials upstairs called it a goal. As for what the conversation was on the ice... I have no idea. My only theory is that BU guaranteed the refs to admit their kids to that second tier institution, and that's why 4 out of 5 calls on the ice were in favor of the Terriers. They do not deserve the win.

ajh258
The camera guy standing by me told me during the review that the officials upstairs called it a goal. As for what the conversation was on the ice... I have no idea. My only theory is that BU guaranteed the refs to admit their kids to that second tier institution, and that's why 4 out of 5 calls on the ice were in favor of the Terriers. They do not deserve the win.

Monday's front page for the Sun. RED GET ROBBED and just a picture of the puck sitting behind BU's sieve.

They showed a replay on MSG from the overhead camera in real time with sound. You can hear the whistle blow a split-second before the puck hits the goalie in the shoulder. So "no goal" was the right call on the replay, unfortunately.

I'm blind, I'm deaf, I wanna be a ref...

The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

On another note, Andy had some pretty impressive saves tonight, especially in the first period.

Jim Hyla
The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

Well, the jumbotron didn't have speakers and it's still the referees' human error to assume that it was a dead puck when it was not.

Jim Hyla
The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

Maybe, but I didn't hear it.

jtwcornell91
They showed a replay on MSG from the overhead camera in real time with sound. You can hear the whistle blow a split-second before the puck hits the goalie in the shoulder. So "no goal" was the right call on the replay, unfortunately.

Also, the explanation from the announcer was that it wasn't even relevant exactly when the whistle was heard, because the ref had already had "intent" to call it dead. Definitely one of the weirder and more amusing things i've seen in my time watching hockey. From the TV camera angles, it was impossible to determine whether the puck had gone into the netting. I'd be interested to see what fans at the game saw. I don't have any problem with the ref's call to blow it dead. The players had already relaxed as if the puck was dead, so it would have been a pretty lame goal if we got the call.

css228

Jim Hyla
The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

Maybe, but I didn't hear it.

Neither did the vast majority of us in attendance!

releck97

css228

Jim Hyla
The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

Maybe, but I didn't hear it.

Neither did the vast majority of us in attendance!

Yes, well the majority of us in attendance also didn't know it had gone in. Simply put, these kinds of games are the reason series records are disputed in media guides.

ajh258

Jim Hyla
The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

Well, the jumbotron didn't have speakers and it's still the referees' human error to assume that it was a dead puck when it was not.

The ref is supposed to blow the play dead when he loses sight of the puck. Nobody knew where it was. He blew it dead like he is supposed to. There are plenty of decisions from the officials to bitch about tonight. This isn't one.
Cornell had a ton of chances amd couldn't convert. It's a tough loss. Would love to see BU again in March or April.

[/quote]Neither did the vast majority of us in attendance![/quote]
Yes, well the majority of us in attendance also didn't know it had gone in. Simply put, these kinds of games are the reason series records are disputed in media guides.[/quote]
Fair enough. BU still sucks!

Yea we lost (was it expected? Honestly, yes). I took a lot of positives from this game. We dominated at times, as in most of the game. We are a very young team. I was there tonite with a party of 8 and I told all of them we will be playing in the frozen four within 2 years. We are that good. I have no doubt about it. I await the hecklng

toddlose
Yea we lost (was it expected? Honestly, yes). I took a lot of positives from this game. We dominated at times, as in most of the game. We are a very young team. I was there tonite with a party of 8 and I told all of them we will be playing in the frozen four within 2 years. We are that good. I have no doubt about it. I await the hecklng

Still, if we miss the NCAAs because some incompetent HEA refs handed BU this games, I'm gonna be pretty pissed.

What about the first one that was waved off? What did the people watching at home see?

ugarte
What about the first one that was waved off? What did the people watching at home see?

According to ELynah twitter net came up.

quote=css228]

ugarte
What about the first one that was waved off? What did the people watching at home see?

According to ELynah twitter net came up.[/quote]

Never went in. It managed to hit the post after going over Millan's head.

Chris '03

ajh258

Jim Hyla
The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

Well, the jumbotron didn't have speakers and it's still the referees' human error to assume that it was a dead puck when it was not.

The ref is supposed to blow the play dead when he loses sight of the puck. Nobody knew where it was. He blew it dead like he is supposed to. There are plenty of decisions from the officials to bitch about tonight. This isn't one.
Cornell had a ton of chances amd couldn't convert. It's a tough loss. Would love to see BU again in March or April.

I understand there is no point in debating this right now, but I remain unconviced. Just because the official lost sight of the puck and blew it dead, does not mean it can't be overturned as a goal. The question here is not whether the official blew it dead or not, the question is when did he do it.
Now, if there is conclusive evidence for those of you watching at home that the whistle blew before the puck crossed the goal line, then this wouldn't matter. However, I doubt the review video had sound and I'm pretty sure most of us at MSG heard the whistle well after BU's goalie reacted to the puck, which means it would've been in by that point. What the refs "intended" shouldn't matter in this instance unless they actually blew the whistle beforehand.

ajh258

Chris '03

ajh258

Jim Hyla
The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

Well, the jumbotron didn't have speakers and it's still the referees' human error to assume that it was a dead puck when it was not.

The ref is supposed to blow the play dead when he loses sight of the puck. Nobody knew where it was. He blew it dead like he is supposed to. There are plenty of decisions from the officials to bitch about tonight. This isn't one.
Cornell had a ton of chances amd couldn't convert. It's a tough loss. Would love to see BU again in March or April.

I understand there is no point in debating this right now, but I remain unconviced. Just because the official lost sight of the puck and blew it dead, does not mean it can't be overturned as a goal. The question here is not whether the official blew it dead or not, the question is when did he do it.
Now, if there is conclusive evidence for those of you watching at home that the whistle blew before the puck crossed the goal line, then this wouldn't matter. However, I doubt the review video had sound and I'm pretty sure most of us at MSG heard the whistle well after BU's goalie reacted to the puck, which means it would've been in by that point. What the refs "intended" shouldn't matter in this instance unless they actually blew the whistle beforehand.

Your ears at MSG may have been deceiving. The time for the sound to reach your ear probably would have been long enough to be heard (from your seat) after the puck went in.

At the game, we had a great vantage for the first no goal. Net came off the far mooring. It looked to us however that the puck landed on the goal line and bounced immediately out then a real quick whistle with the puck still in loose in the crease. But, perhaps that was with our Cornell tinted glasses.
Cornell owned that second period (especially the 4x4) and should have scored 3-4 times. But the Red missed the net, didn't bury the puck or get the right bounce onto an open stick.
Hats off the BU defenders who seem to knock down at least a dozen or shots in front of the net.
FWIW, the Birch penalty off the faceoff leading to the 5x3 was right in front of us as well and was a poor call. You make your own luck but the refs did us no favors tonight.

imafrshmn

ajh258

Chris '03

ajh258

Jim Hyla
The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

Well, the jumbotron didn't have speakers and it's still the referees' human error to assume that it was a dead puck when it was not.

The ref is supposed to blow the play dead when he loses sight of the puck. Nobody knew where it was. He blew it dead like he is supposed to. There are plenty of decisions from the officials to bitch about tonight. This isn't one.
Cornell had a ton of chances amd couldn't convert. It's a tough loss. Would love to see BU again in March or April.

I understand there is no point in debating this right now, but I remain unconviced. Just because the official lost sight of the puck and blew it dead, does not mean it can't be overturned as a goal. The question here is not whether the official blew it dead or not, the question is when did he do it.
Now, if there is conclusive evidence for those of you watching at home that the whistle blew before the puck crossed the goal line, then this wouldn't matter. However, I doubt the review video had sound and I'm pretty sure most of us at MSG heard the whistle well after BU's goalie reacted to the puck, which means it would've been in by that point. What the refs "intended" shouldn't matter in this instance unless they actually blew the whistle beforehand.

Your ears at MSG may have been deceiving. The time for the sound to reach your ear probably would have been long enough to be heard (from your seat) after the puck went in.

That's true. I was on the other end. Damn the laws of physics.

ajh258

imafrshmn

ajh258

Chris '03

ajh258

Jim Hyla
The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

Well, the jumbotron didn't have speakers and it's still the referees' human error to assume that it was a dead puck when it was not.

The ref is supposed to blow the play dead when he loses sight of the puck. Nobody knew where it was. He blew it dead like he is supposed to. There are plenty of decisions from the officials to bitch about tonight. This isn't one.
Cornell had a ton of chances amd couldn't convert. It's a tough loss. Would love to see BU again in March or April.

I understand there is no point in debating this right now, but I remain unconviced. Just because the official lost sight of the puck and blew it dead, does not mean it can't be overturned as a goal. The question here is not whether the official blew it dead or not, the question is when did he do it.
Now, if there is conclusive evidence for those of you watching at home that the whistle blew before the puck crossed the goal line, then this wouldn't matter. However, I doubt the review video had sound and I'm pretty sure most of us at MSG heard the whistle well after BU's goalie reacted to the puck, which means it would've been in by that point. What the refs "intended" shouldn't matter in this instance unless they actually blew the whistle beforehand.

Your ears at MSG may have been deceiving. The time for the sound to reach your ear probably would have been long enough to be heard (from your seat) after the puck went in.

That's true. I was on the other end. Damn the laws of physics.

Schafer in the post game interview "There was no whistle. Everyone in the arena could hear the no whistle."

Just got back from the game. The officiating was horrendous. Yes, Cornell did its own part in the loss by failing to capitalize on scoring chances in the second and third periods. But it just seemed like every time there was a legitimate BU penalty, CU was called for some nonsense matching minor. The obstruction/interference call leading to the 5x3 and the first goal was ridiculous; it occurred two seconds from the faceoff after the first penalty, no less.

My seats were directly behind the goal Cornell defended for two periods. The first no goal -- net was coming out of one mooring, and as CU collapsed towards the crease the BU goaltender upended the net in exaggerated fashion.

Real shame we weren't able to capitalize on the power play when the BU goalie was stickless for a good 45 seconds.

The second no-goal was way down the ice from our vantage point. Unless the puck hit the safety net (I haven't heard that it did), the ref made a horrific call blowing the play dead. Replay shows the puck flip in the air and hit Millan on either the head of back/shoulder, bouncing directly into the net. When the ref started looking for the puck and it was in the back of the net the building erupted.

Iles made some excellent saves, to include the stop on the breakaway in the first period. The fanbase was also excellent. We seemed to comprise 75% or more of the fans in attendance.

It's a shame to see the shoddy officiating play an important role in a game like this.

This was a weird game in a lot of respects. BU outhit us pretty solidly, which I wasn't expecting. Jillison (who I recall was pretty good, been a while since I've seen more than a game or two a season) looked awful all night, and yet wound up with our goal. D'Agostino had a lot of trouble handling the puck behind the net, and Ross was a little slow around some bouncing pucks in front of the net. We took about 40,000 shots at BU's ankles and sticks.

Still, we looked good for the most part, outplayed them most of the game, and had chances and some pretty plays. Millan made one AMAZING save in the 2nd period, and we lost on an absolutely ridiculous deflection. Oh well.

The game was incredibly exciting, but the refs ruined it. It takes a lot for me to blame the refs, but they earned it tonight.

Dafatone
Still, we looked good for the most part, outplayed them most of the game, and had chances and some pretty plays. Millan made one AMAZING save in the 2nd period, and we lost on an absolutely ridiculous deflection. Oh well.

There's no doubt we had better puck control during periods 2 and 3. However, like you said, Millan was great and Terriers' D outplayed us on numerous occasions. Additionally, we weren't winning the small battles, and whenever we did, we simply set up an overload or umbrella. This is great in theory, but it doesn't work well if we can't catch our opponent out of position, which was often the case. Schafer needs to start changing things up a bit mid-period instead of just waiting for the puck to eventually bounce in. We, as fans, have been waiting long enough, and a team as talented as this is fully capable of beating the BU team that skated against us tonight.

From my vantage point in 209 (CU zone), the whistle blew before the puck came down. I guess I was one of the only people to see that it was in the air. At the time I was screaming that the puck was in, but no one seemed to agree until Millan moved away. The whole time they were reviewing it I had the sickening feeling that it would come down to the whistle blowing while the puck was in the air.

Haven't been able to see a game in almost a year, and I won't even pretend to know the line combinations, but tonight we absolutely dominated play for the last 43 minutes of regulation. At no point was I worried about a second BU goal. It was as though the team realized they could skate and hit with BU (after 17 minutes of getting outskated and outhit), and once they turned it on, there was almost constant offensive pressure. Unfortunately, this team suffers from the same sickness as the Rangers I've watched many times at the Garden this year: the need for the extra pass. I have no doubt that with some more SOGs, a rebound would have been there for the tying or go ahead goal on a number of occasions.

The refs were abysmal. I can only remember one or two games I have ever blamed the refs for a loss, and this has to be one of them. The obstruction/interference call was ridiculous. It was strictly a call so that the refs could maintain control. I understand needing to take charge and not let the game get out of hand, I've been in that position as an official before. But there is no excuse for calling a penalty on first player contact when it's already a power play. The fact that it ended up being the difference in the game just makes it worse. The embellishment, a classic case of an unsure ref evening things out. The fact that they missed two hookings, a contact to the head/roughing (does forcing a mask off not count all of a sudden?), a holding the stick, and a tripping penalty didn't help. Maybe the Red should have embellished the infractions more to help them out...

Frankly, having not seen a game this year before tonight, I was impressed. This team, with better passing (geez, I know the Garden ice sucks, but how many times can you lose possession of the puck with no pressure) and more shots on goal, can certainly make some noise in the NCAAs if given the chance. Can't wait to catch them at Princeton in a couple of months.

If the whistle was blown before the puck was in the net, even a fraction, it's no goal. As far as we know, Millan moved because he heard a whistle, and would have been better positioned for that split second if the play wasn't dead. Unfortunate, but far from unfair. The penalty calls were the bizarre part for me. Calling an extra minor off a faceoff, resulting in a 5 on 3 that leads to the opening goal, is gutsy at the least. The 'embellishment' call later on was just dumb.

Nevertheless, CU had their chances. We had no PPGs on plenty of chances, and were barely able to maintain possession in BU's zone, much less create good chances. Saying that the refs stole this one discredits Boston's solid defense and cheapens what was an entertaining game all around. I'm definitely looking forward to the next time these two teams meet, whether it's two years from now or sooner.

ajh258

Chris '03

ajh258

Jim Hyla
The simple fact is that the ref blew his whistle when the puck was on the goalies shoulder, a fraction of a sec. before it crossed the goal line. It was clear on the overhead replay.

Edit: Slowposting on my iPhone.

Well, the jumbotron didn't have speakers and it's still the referees' human error to assume that it was a dead puck when it was not.

The ref is supposed to blow the play dead when he loses sight of the puck. Nobody knew where it was. He blew it dead like he is supposed to. There are plenty of decisions from the officials to bitch about tonight. This isn't one.
Cornell had a ton of chances amd couldn't convert. It's a tough loss. Would love to see BU again in March or April.

I understand there is no point in debating this right now, but I remain unconviced. Just because the official lost sight of the puck and blew it dead, does not mean it can't be overturned as a goal. The question here is not whether the official blew it dead or not, the question is when did he do it.
Now, if there is conclusive evidence for those of you watching at home that the whistle blew before the puck crossed the goal line, then this wouldn't matter. However, I doubt the review video had sound and I'm pretty sure most of us at MSG heard the whistle well after BU's goalie reacted to the puck, which means it would've been in by that point. What the refs "intended" shouldn't matter in this instance unless they actually blew the whistle beforehand.

Look to all who continue to say if the whistle blew before the puck went in, the overhead camera, which does have sound associated with it, conclusively showed that the whistle blew as the puck hit his shoulder and before it crossed the line. Unless there was something wrong with the replay, it happened that way, end of story, no further debate on that point needed.

Now whether he should have blown it (the whistle) or did blow it (the call) can be discussed, but not when it happened.

The other non-goal was also shown to be correct, it never crossed.

Check channel Martytoo. I am having trouble renaming it while uploading. You can look for VTS_01_1.VOB if I can't rename it. I am on my way to church and thus won't get to this again until this afternoon.

I was sitting in section 203 which was in the corner by the net where the play occurred. We clearly heard the whistle well before the puck ended up in the net, but would also say that there was no way the puck hit the netting either. Sucks that it didn't count but all things considered we shouldn't be relying on a fluke (non)goal that took a one in a million deflection off the boards to end up in the net to win games.

For those who aren't clear about the "intent" thing, this is from the NCAA rulebook:

"As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the referee may intend for the play to be stopped slightly before the whistle actually being blown. For example, the fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line before the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the referee determined that the play had stopped."

Weder
For those who aren't clear about the "intent" thing, this is from the NCAA rulebook:

"As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the referee may intend for the play to be stopped slightly before the whistle actually being blown. For example, the fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line before the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the referee determined that the play had stopped."

Thanks for the clarification

Watched the game on TV. I was very impressed with the quality of the broadcast. I guess I'm just used to watching lousy internet feeds of away games.

The quality of the broadcast made it very clear, as others have said, that neither of the reviewed goals were actually goals. The first hit the post and never crossed the goal line. The second was whistled dead a fraction of a second before it hit Milan. One point that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that the ref who blew the second one dead immediately pointed up, seeming to indicate that he thought the puck had hit the netting. Whether it did or not is a bit of a moot point: if the ref thought it did, then it did. He blew the whistle, and that's that.

And considering that our goal was also at least a bit of a fluke--it went in off a BU skate, and would have passed harmlessly through the crease otherwise--we probably can't complain too much.

As for the calls and non-calls, the three I thought were the worst were the call on Birch that led to the 5-3 and the first BU goal, the embellishment call which was just ridiculous, and a no-call on a pretty obvious trip on, I believe, Jillson mid-way through the third.

We didn't lose the game because of the refs, but it's still frustrating. Like many of us, I am very optimistic about this team's future. They've lost three games this year, all by a goal, and easily could have won all three. That's impressive.

andyw2100
Watched the game on TV. I was very impressed with the quality of the broadcast. I guess I'm just used to watching lousy internet feeds of away games.

The quality of the broadcast made it very clear, as others have said, that neither of the reviewed goals were actually goals. The first hit the post and never crossed the goal line. The second was whistled dead a fraction of a second before it hit Milan. One point that I haven't seen anyone mention yet is that the ref who blew the second one dead immediately pointed up, seeming to indicate that he thought the puck had hit the netting. Whether it did or not is a bit of a moot point: if the ref thought it did, then it did. He blew the whistle, and that's that.

And considering that our goal was also at least a bit of a fluke--it went in off a BU skate, and would have passed harmlessly through the crease otherwise--we probably can't complain too much.

As for the calls and non-calls, the three I thought were the worst were the call on Birch that led to the 5-3 and the first BU goal, the embellishment call which was just ridiculous, and a no-call on a pretty obvious trip on, I believe, Jillson mid-way through the third.

We didn't lose the game because of the refs, but it's still frustrating. Like many of us, I am very optimistic about this team's future. They've lost three games this year, all by a goal, and easily could have won all three. That's impressive.

I agree with everything. I thought the pointing also meant he thought it hit the netting. However, if that were true, there would not have been any review. If he saw it do that, the play was over, regardless of where the puck went afterwards. Suffice it to say the refs had no clue what happened on that play. The only thing that hasn't been mentioned was what about the up ice official. Did he ever see the puck? We'll probably never know.

I also yelled at the TV when Jillson was tripped.

And yes, I agree this team is impressive, so far.

Jim Hyla
I agree with everything. I thought the pointing also meant he thought it hit the netting. However, if that were true, there would not have been any review. If he saw it do that, the play was over, regardless of where the puck went afterwards. Suffice it to say the refs had no clue what happened on that play. The only thing that hasn't been mentioned was what about the up ice official. Did he ever see the puck? We'll probably never know.

I think the goal-line official pointed up because he originally thought or assumed the puck hit the netting. I'm almost certain that he pointed up, waved no goal, then pointed outside the zone (will check my DVR later), as if to say that since Cornell was the last team to touch the puck, the faceoff was to come outside.

After all the discussion, the faceoff was moved back inside the zone (Jack Parker was shown arguing this). The consensus must have been that the puck never touched the netting. Maybe someone saw it, or maybe they figured that the puck wouldn't have bounced outward 11+ feet from the netting to hit Millan's shoulder.

There are two ways to interpret this: The referee lost sight of the puck, blew the play dead, and correctly placed the faceoff inside the zone, OR the referee blew the play dead because he thought the puck hit the netting, was found to be wrong following review, then placed the faceoff inside the zone because that was closest to where the play ended. Very minor distinction, but if the latter is true, you can KINDA blame the ref for being wrong about the netting and blowing the whistle prematurely. I think it's a combination of the two... he blew the whistle because he lost sight of it, then pointed upward because he assumed it must have hit the netting. Damn, I've been thinking about this too much. Bottom line is that the officials followed the rulebook perfectly on this one.

And yeah, watching the replays on TV, the whistle definitely preceded the puck crossing the line. Even if the goal was otherwise legit (which I think it was), there's no way they could have allowed it.

imafrshmn
Also, the explanation from the announcer was that it wasn't even relevant exactly when the whistle was heard, because the ref had already had "intent" to call it dead.

QFT. This is the way the rule works. Sucks for us this time, but the refs are a human part of the game: if they intend to blow the play dead early, that's simply not reviewable. Oh, well.

Short Version




The long version

marty



Short Version




The long version

So I guess that was the proper call, but the refs still clearly blew the call by losing sight of a live puck.

Hockey should have a rule more like the new rule on fumbles in the NFL. If the whistle blows, incorrectly ruling a fumble "down by contact," if it is clear that the defense jumped on the ball first in the natural flow of the game, they will call it a fumble, change of possession. There is no way that the BU goalie "reacted" to the whistle so the freak bounce should (by rule, not yesterday) count as a goal.

ugarte
Hockey should have a rule more like the new rule on fumbles in the NFL. If the whistle blows, incorrectly ruling a fumble "down by contact," if it is clear that the defense jumped on the ball first in the natural flow of the game, they will call it a fumble, change of possession. There is no way that the BU goalie "reacted" to the whistle so the freak bounce should (by rule, not yesterday) count as a goal.

Except here the whistle doesn't incorrectly denote anything. It correctly denotes that the referee has lost sight of the puck.

Jordan 04

ugarte
Hockey should have a rule more like the new rule on fumbles in the NFL. If the whistle blows, incorrectly ruling a fumble "down by contact," if it is clear that the defense jumped on the ball first in the natural flow of the game, they will call it a fumble, change of possession. There is no way that the BU goalie "reacted" to the whistle so the freak bounce should (by rule, not yesterday) count as a goal.

Except here the whistle doesn't incorrectly denote anything. It correctly denotes that the referee has lost sight of the puck.

Well, sure, but "I lost sight of the puck" is supposed to be a proxy for something other than "WHOOPS! MY BAD!!!"

...and that was so not a high stick in the UNH FF game back in 2003.

My complaint is why it took so long to blow the whistle. The ref's pointing at the netting implies he saw it hit the netting so why didn't he blow the whistle immediately?

ugarte

Jordan 04

ugarte
Hockey should have a rule more like the new rule on fumbles in the NFL. If the whistle blows, incorrectly ruling a fumble "down by contact," if it is clear that the defense jumped on the ball first in the natural flow of the game, they will call it a fumble, change of possession. There is no way that the BU goalie "reacted" to the whistle so the freak bounce should (by rule, not yesterday) count as a goal.

Except here the whistle doesn't incorrectly denote anything. It correctly denotes that the referee has lost sight of the puck.

Well, sure, but "I lost sight of the puck" is supposed to be a proxy for something other than "WHOOPS! MY BAD!!!"

I can see getting upset in a scramble situation, where there's 6 guys in the crease, and the puck may be loose but the ref blows a whistle because he's in a poor position or is a little too quick. In this situation, EVERYONE on the ice lost sight of the puck. (I'm also not convinced that it didn't hit the net -- there was never a replay good enough to see what happened after it went up in the air. But that's an unrelated, and irrelevant, matter).

After seeing the replays back at home, like many of the above posters, I find it a lot more understandable to be riled up over calls like the 5x3, or the handful of non-calls, than it is over a crazy fluke play that damn nearly worked in our favor, but not quite.

ugarte
Hockey should have a rule more like the new rule on fumbles in the NFL. If the whistle blows, incorrectly ruling a fumble "down by contact," if it is clear that the defense jumped on the ball first in the natural flow of the game, they will call it a fumble, change of possession. There is no way that the BU goalie "reacted" to the whistle so the freak bounce should (by rule, not yesterday) count as a goal.

My dad thought the rule worked somewhat differently (he's not exactly a hockey expert) and his belief would make a pretty decent rule change.

He thought that the puck being blown dead meant that no further playing of the puck could happen, and if another player made a play on the puck, it wouldn't count. He thought that further puck bouncing should still count. Not how the rule works, but not a bad idea for reviewing things like this.

I'm mostly amazed that the puck got in at all. Wow. And the first review was on the same sort of play, where the puck almost/may have gone in (I was sitting right on the goal line. The puck at least got to the goal line and partially over. I couldn't tell if it was all the way over or not, but it could have been.)

I was watching MSG. During the replay I would swear I heard the puck "plink" against the glass. The next thing I knew, it was dropping from above. I would guess that the puck came in high enough to hit the top of the glass, a clip holding the netting, etc. and ricoche back at a weird angle. The ref probably heard the same sound and was expecting the puck to drop into play along the boards and blew the whistle when he couldn't locate it by looking in the more logical locations.

Referees are not perfect. However, unless and until you have actually done it, it may be very hard to understand how difficult it is to make these calls. There were 10 skaters swinging sticks, yelling and crashing into each other. Besides watching the puck, the referee has to watch those 10 skaters, or at least those in the area of the ice where s/he is responsible for calling the penaties. S/he also has to be in a position to avoid interfering with the play but at the same time be in position to see the play. I actually think that official deserves some credit for waiting a second or two before blowing his whistle in case the puck was clearly still properly in play but out of his line of vision.

dag14
I was watching MSG. During the replay I would swear I heard the puck "plink" against the glass. The next thing I knew, it was dropping from above. I would guess that the puck came in high enough to hit the top of the glass, a clip holding the netting, etc. and ricoche back at a weird angle. The ref probably heard the same sound and was expecting the puck to drop into play along the boards and blew the whistle when he couldn't locate it by looking in the more logical locations.

Referees are not perfect. However, unless and until you have actually done it, it may be very hard to understand how difficult it is to make these calls. There were 10 skaters swinging sticks, yelling and crashing into each other. Besides watching the puck, the referee has to watch those 10 skaters, or at least those in the area of the ice where s/he is responsible for calling the penaties. S/he also has to be in a position to avoid interfering with the play but at the same time be in position to see the play. I actually think that official deserves some credit for waiting a second or two before blowing his whistle in case the puck was clearly still properly in play but out of his line of vision.

Great post.

The old MSG is notorious for odd bounces off the boards and not infrequently would a team score from some ricochet off the stantions, which is what would appear to be the case here. Too bad it didn't work in our favor this time.

Geez Louise, if the ref blows his whistle 0.2 seconds later, it's a goal ... Anyway

apologies to everyone that in our CHN story on the game, Schafer's name was spelled without the 'C' throughout ... Can't believe we all missed that. In case anyone read the story and was ridiculing us outside of eLynah - then consider this to be me beating you all to the punch in justly ridiculing

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

In any event - what I really wanted to say here was that, in the post-game, Jack Parker indicated that there would be more MSG games between these teams. I know there was a rumor going around that this was it - but basically he said, it sells out and makes a lot of money, why the heck wouldn't we do it again.

css228

toddlose
Yea we lost (was it expected? Honestly, yes). I took a lot of positives from this game. We dominated at times, as in most of the game. We are a very young team. I was there tonite with a party of 8 and I told all of them we will be playing in the frozen four within 2 years. We are that good. I have no doubt about it. I await the hecklng

Still, if we miss the NCAAs because some incompetent HEA refs handed BU this games, I'm gonna be pretty pissed.

As will we all. But if we take care of business for the rest of the season, we won't miss the NCAAs. If we don't take care, we won't deserve to go.

In the long run, this loss may help us. We now know how good we already are. And, as several have mentioned, we're going to get only better, lots better.

Swampy

css228

toddlose
Yea we lost (was it expected? Honestly, yes). I took a lot of positives from this game. We dominated at times, as in most of the game. We are a very young team. I was there tonite with a party of 8 and I told all of them we will be playing in the frozen four within 2 years. We are that good. I have no doubt about it. I await the hecklng

Still, if we miss the NCAAs because some incompetent HEA refs handed BU this games, I'm gonna be pretty pissed.

As will we all. But if we take care of business for the rest of the season, we won't miss the NCAAs. If we don't take care, we won't deserve to go.

In the long run, this loss may help us. We now know how good we already are. And, as several have mentioned, we're going to get only better, lots better.

Well said. Kick ass rest of the season and we'll get another chance to beat the crap out of B.U.

adamw

In any event - what I really wanted to say here was that, in the post-game, Jack Parker indicated that there would be more MSG games between these teams. I know there was a rumor going around that this was it - but basically he said, it sells out and makes a lot of money, why the heck wouldn't we do it again.

Why wouldn't Parker wants to do it again -- he's 2-0-1 in RHH, the last two games getting a boost from his friends in pinstripes

adamw
In any event - what I really wanted to say here was that, in the post-game, Jack Parker indicated that there would be more MSG games between these teams. I know there was a rumor going around that this was it - but basically he said, it sells out and makes a lot of money, why the heck wouldn't we do it again.

That's good news, Adam. Thank you.

Weder
For those who aren't clear about the "intent" thing, this is from the NCAA rulebook:

"As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the referee may intend for the play to be stopped slightly before the whistle actually being blown. For example, the fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line before the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the referee determined that the play had stopped."

If a ref ever watches a replay in which the puck goes in before the whistle but rules "well, i meant to call it before the puck crossed the line and I have to stick with my CLEARLY ERRONEOUS BELIEF THAT HAD NO IMPACT ON THE WAY THE PLAY TURNED OUT," he should be fired.

ugarte

Weder
For those who aren't clear about the "intent" thing, this is from the NCAA rulebook:

"As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the referee may intend for the play to be stopped slightly before the whistle actually being blown. For example, the fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line before the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the referee determined that the play had stopped."

If a ref ever watches a replay in which the puck goes in before the whistle but rules "well, i meant to call it before the puck crossed the line and I have to stick with my CLEARLY ERRONEOUS BELIEF THAT HAD NO IMPACT ON THE WAY THE PLAY TURNED OUT," he should be fired.

Like this


Brad May goal?

Swampy

css228

toddlose
Yea we lost (was it expected? Honestly, yes). I took a lot of positives from this game. We dominated at times, as in most of the game. We are a very young team. I was there tonite with a party of 8 and I told all of them we will be playing in the frozen four within 2 years. We are that good. I have no doubt about it. I await the hecklng

Still, if we miss the NCAAs because some incompetent HEA refs handed BU this games, I'm gonna be pretty pissed.

As will we all. But if we take care of business for the rest of the season, we won't miss the NCAAs. If we don't take care, we won't deserve to go.

In the long run, this loss may help us. We now know how good we already are. And, as several have mentioned, we're going to get only better, lots better.

But if we miss because of this loss, then we do deserve to go...

Aside from that, I agree--despite the excruciating outcome, the Red showed they can skate with one of the most talented teams in the country.

css228

ugarte

Weder
For those who aren't clear about the "intent" thing, this is from the NCAA rulebook:

"As there is a human factor involved in blowing the whistle to stop play, the referee may intend for the play to be stopped slightly before the whistle actually being blown. For example, the fact that the puck may come loose or cross the goal line before the sound of the whistle has no bearing if the referee determined that the play had stopped."

If a ref ever watches a replay in which the puck goes in before the whistle but rules "well, i meant to call it before the puck crossed the line and I have to stick with my CLEARLY ERRONEOUS BELIEF THAT HAD NO IMPACT ON THE WAY THE PLAY TURNED OUT," he should be fired.

Like this


Brad May goal?

Exactly like that. And since it was against the Red Wings the ref should be fired AND thrown in the stocks. What is particularly egregious there is that at the time the ref formed the intent to blow the whistle - in the most generous-to-the-ref assumption - the puck was already in the net. The ref lost sight of the puck because it was in the net. Horrible.

It is unfortunate, but I heard the whistle in the arena as well. It was pretty clear from the reactions of all on the ice that nobody had any clue where the puck was, and it was as the players began to let up that the ref came out blowing the whistle and pointing up, assuming the puck must have ended up in the net. You could also see the surprise as the puck then ended up in the net, which prompted the review. My first thought was that they were checking to see if it hit the netting, and once the replay flashed on the MSG monitor I realized it was more likely going to come down to when the play was dead. Again unfortunate, but correct call by the books.

More importantly for me, it was my first chance to see the team live a couple years. This version can certainly skate, and at worst appeared even with BU. BU blocked a ton of shots, some were due to a slow release, but many others were excellent defensive plays. It was nice to see the creativity on the rush (not just by forwards either, Ryan had a great rush down the left side of the BU zone at one point). Ferlin, for a big kid, can really handle the puck, and his curl and drag on the 1 on 1 early in the game was a good example. This team left me feeling that they can make something out of nothing, and don't have to rely on odd man rushes, PPGs and wearing teams down to capitalize late in games.

Probably fitting the game went to OT. BU first goal was a blocked shot on a 5 on 3 that caromed right to a wide open wing and Cornell's goal was another favorable bounce.

oceanst41
It was nice to see the creativity on the rush (not just by forwards either, Ryan had a great rush down the left side of the BU zone at one point). Ferlin, for a big kid, can really handle the puck, and his curl and drag on the 1 on 1 early in the game was a good example.

They can rush but they can't pass or get juicy rebounds... Still not good enough for the big times.

ajh258

oceanst41
It was nice to see the creativity on the rush (not just by forwards either, Ryan had a great rush down the left side of the BU zone at one point). Ferlin, for a big kid, can really handle the puck, and his curl and drag on the 1 on 1 early in the game was a good example.

They can rush but they can't pass or get juicy rebounds... Still not good enough for the big times.

Did you really just write that Ferlin "can`t pass?" Are you serious?

Al DeFlorio

ajh258

oceanst41
It was nice to see the creativity on the rush (not just by forwards either, Ryan had a great rush down the left side of the BU zone at one point). Ferlin, for a big kid, can really handle the puck, and his curl and drag on the 1 on 1 early in the game was a good example.

They can rush but they can't pass or get juicy rebounds... Still not good enough for the big times.

Did you really just write that Ferlin "can`t pass?" Are you serious?

He can't pass or somebody else doesn't know how to receive them... more likely the latter.

ajh258

oceanst41
It was nice to see the creativity on the rush (not just by forwards either, Ryan had a great rush down the left side of the BU zone at one point). Ferlin, for a big kid, can really handle the puck, and his curl and drag on the 1 on 1 early in the game was a good example.

They can rush but they can't pass or get juicy rebounds... Still not good enough for the big times.

I get that you have a NCAA title or bust mentality but the expectation that a team that suits a ton of underclassmen is going to do everything right is ridiculous. They didn't hand 5 on BU. So what? I appreciate that for once Cornell has players (and freshmen no less) who can generate off the rush and I think that's what oceanst was getting at. Ten years ago, Cornell could dominate teams for 60 minutes and play a 1-1 tie because they had no elite playmakers, would go 1-8 on the PP, and need shutouts to win.

The '02, '03, and '05 teams arguably had no one as impressive as Ferlin and Ryan (including passing skills...) on the ice as far as offensive potential (I don't recall Moulson, Greening, or Murray looking nearly this good in their first semesters). Those less talented teams of slow clutch and grabbers came a goal away from beating the #1 seed, a "high stick" and/or facemask away from the title game, and an overtime loss on the road away from the FF respectively, which I think is "big time" by any standard that isn't NCAA title or failure. They also won two ECAC titles and three Ivy titles.

It shouldn't be sky is falling time around here after an overtime loss to BU in November. Does it hurt Cornell's PWR come March? Sure. But had Cornell won on a cheap ricochet, it wouldn't be time to punch FF tickets either. In the long run getting a taste of defeat in a game where they kept with a very solid team but didn't execute very well and were outhustled throughout will make for good teaching moments for a (very) young team. Hopefully the memory of the disappointment sticks when the postseason comes around.

It will be interesting to see how the team comes out Friday night. It will also be fun to watch this team gel in the second half as they get more games under their belt and get more comfortable in the system. Plenty to look forward to.

I don't know, I guess I didn't mind the passes I saw. A lot creativity than past seasons, and a lot of nice, short passes in the neutral zone to keep players moving with speed. BU did a nice job on the forecheck, but the majority of breakouts were pretty clean because of the short passing. I noticed a lot less in the way of haphazard firing of the puck into the neutral zone or into marked skaters' feet.

As for the rebounds, some credit might have to go to BU for tying up loose (not lose) sticks in front of the net.

I just saw a lot of quality chances and quality movement from the team. I'm more encouraged than not coming out of that game.

I just watched the highlights again. Millan had a great night, and a lot of credit goes to him for the outcome. Ferlin, Ryan and Lowry all had quality chances and shots, but they were mostly saved by the BU goaltender.

ajh258
I just watched the highlights again. Millan had a great night, and a lot of credit goes to him for the outcome. Ferlin, Ryan and Lowry all had quality chances and shots, but they were mostly saved by the BU goaltender.

Highlights for anyone who wishes to watch them. The one glove hand swat Millan makes on a Ferlin backhand is incredible. Also Ferlin has a sick deke and shot around the 1:20 mark of the highlight video. Can't imagine playing like that and only scoring one goal very often A lot of positives to take out of this, especially if we can get some good wins in Estero and Colorado.

Chris '03

ajh258

oceanst41
It was nice to see the creativity on the rush (not just by forwards either, Ryan had a great rush down the left side of the BU zone at one point). Ferlin, for a big kid, can really handle the puck, and his curl and drag on the 1 on 1 early in the game was a good example.

They can rush but they can't pass or get juicy rebounds... Still not good enough for the big times.

I get that you have a NCAA title or bust mentality but the expectation that a team that suits a ton of underclassmen is going to do everything right is ridiculous. They didn't hand 5 on BU. So what? I appreciate that for once Cornell has players (and freshmen no less) who can generate off the rush and I think that's what oceanst was getting at. Ten years ago, Cornell could dominate teams for 60 minutes and play a 1-1 tie because they had no elite playmakers, would go 1-8 on the PP, and need shutouts to win.

The '02, '03, and '05 teams arguably had no one as impressive as Ferlin and Ryan (including passing skills...) on the ice as far as offensive potential (I don't recall Moulson, Greening, or Murray looking nearly this good in their first semesters). Those less talented teams of slow clutch and grabbers came a goal away from beating the #1 seed, a "high stick" and/or facemask away from the title game, and an overtime loss on the road away from the FF respectively, which I think is "big time" by any standard that isn't NCAA title or failure. They also won two ECAC titles and three Ivy titles.

It shouldn't be sky is falling time around here after an overtime loss to BU in November. Does it hurt Cornell's PWR come March? Sure. But had Cornell won on a cheap ricochet, it wouldn't be time to punch FF tickets either. In the long run getting a taste of defeat in a game where they kept with a very solid team but didn't execute very well and were outhustled throughout will make for good teaching moments for a (very) young team. Hopefully the memory of the disappointment sticks when the postseason comes around.

It will be interesting to see how the team comes out Friday night. It will also be fun to watch this team gel in the second half as they get more games under their belt and get more comfortable in the system. Plenty to look forward to.

I also noticed quite a few turnovers because the player on the receiving end of a pass didn't control the puck. I'm inclined to chalk this up to lack of time playing together. By the end of this season and in a year or two, we can reasonably expect to see many more sequences of made, almost instinctive passes.

Swampy

Chris '03

ajh258

oceanst41
It was nice to see the creativity on the rush (not just by forwards either, Ryan had a great rush down the left side of the BU zone at one point). Ferlin, for a big kid, can really handle the puck, and his curl and drag on the 1 on 1 early in the game was a good example.

They can rush but they can't pass or get juicy rebounds... Still not good enough for the big times.

I get that you have a NCAA title or bust mentality but the expectation that a team that suits a ton of underclassmen is going to do everything right is ridiculous. They didn't hand 5 on BU. So what? I appreciate that for once Cornell has players (and freshmen no less) who can generate off the rush and I think that's what oceanst was getting at. Ten years ago, Cornell could dominate teams for 60 minutes and play a 1-1 tie because they had no elite playmakers, would go 1-8 on the PP, and need shutouts to win.

The '02, '03, and '05 teams arguably had no one as impressive as Ferlin and Ryan (including passing skills...) on the ice as far as offensive potential (I don't recall Moulson, Greening, or Murray looking nearly this good in their first semesters). Those less talented teams of slow clutch and grabbers came a goal away from beating the #1 seed, a "high stick" and/or facemask away from the title game, and an overtime loss on the road away from the FF respectively, which I think is "big time" by any standard that isn't NCAA title or failure. They also won two ECAC titles and three Ivy titles.

It shouldn't be sky is falling time around here after an overtime loss to BU in November. Does it hurt Cornell's PWR come March? Sure. But had Cornell won on a cheap ricochet, it wouldn't be time to punch FF tickets either. In the long run getting a taste of defeat in a game where they kept with a very solid team but didn't execute very well and were outhustled throughout will make for good teaching moments for a (very) young team. Hopefully the memory of the disappointment sticks when the postseason comes around.

It will be interesting to see how the team comes out Friday night. It will also be fun to watch this team gel in the second half as they get more games under their belt and get more comfortable in the system. Plenty to look forward to.

I also noticed quite a few turnovers because the player on the receiving end of a pass didn't control the puck. I'm inclined to chalk this up to lack of time playing together. By the end of this season and in a year or two, we can reasonably expect to see many more sequences of made, almost instinctive passes.

I think a lot of that due was to the poor condition of the ice, which is always a problem at MSG. As a Rangers fan, I've been observing that problem forever.

scoop85
I think a lot of that due was to the poor condition of the ice, which is always a problem at MSG. As a Rangers fan, I've been observing that problem forever.

It sure looked that way to me, as well. I didn't realize it was a persistent problem at MSG.

scoop85
I think a lot of that due was to the poor condition of the ice, which is always a problem at MSG. As a Rangers fan, I've been observing that problem forever.

Then Agganis must have bad ice, too, because BU wasn't having nearly as much of a problem. (IMO, complaining about something that impacts both teams equally is the sort of thing the winners roll their eyes at. If the entire Cornell team had the flu OTOH you would have a legitimate argument.)

Kyle Rose

scoop85
I think a lot of that due was to the poor condition of the ice, which is always a problem at MSG. As a Rangers fan, I've been observing that problem forever.

Then Agganis must have bad ice, too, because BU wasn't having nearly as much of a problem. (IMO, complaining about something that impacts both teams equally is the sort of thing the winners roll their eyes at. If the entire Cornell team had the flu OTOH you would have a legitimate argument.)

This. If we keep agreeing with each other we're going to end up hugging without the support structure of the Hadron Collider to protect the rest of the universe.

The complaint about Cornell's poor job receiving passes was made by a brilliant analyst in the Screw BU thread.

ugarte

Kyle Rose

scoop85
I think a lot of that due was to the poor condition of the ice, which is always a problem at MSG. As a Rangers fan, I've been observing that problem forever.

Then Agganis must have bad ice, too, because BU wasn't having nearly as much of a problem. (IMO, complaining about something that impacts both teams equally is the sort of thing the winners roll their eyes at. If the entire Cornell team had the flu OTOH you would have a legitimate argument.)

This. If we keep agreeing with each other we're going to end up hugging without the support structure of the Hadron Collider to protect the rest of the universe.

The complaint about Cornell's poor job receiving passes was made by a brilliant analyst in the Screw BU thread.

The ice is a legitimate point, because while BU was better, I still wouldn't call their passing good. The point being, if the ice was bad enough to get mentioned in the Flyers-Rangers broadcast, then there's no doubt that it was even more of an issue during the second game of the day.Two high scoring teams combined for 3 goals, in part because of great goaltending, but also in part due to missed opportunities, poor passing, and weirdly bouncing pucks. That said, bad ice or not, obviously we all want to see improved passing.

css228
The ice is a legitimate point, because while BU was better—

Full stop. Unless you're arguing that the ice was crappier in one direction than the other, and that this crappiness magically reversed for the second period, my point was that both teams had to deal with the same conditions. BU handled the level playing field better. As a result, I think any bitching and moaning about it amounts to making excuses for Cornell not playing as well as BU.

What is so difficult to admit about this? BU played better. Period. Learn from it, practice more effectively, and get better. That's what I hope the coaching staff is doing, rather than complaining about the uphill ice, the unseasonably warm weather wreaking havoc with players' psyches, or invisible vampires with a love of Canadian blood.

Kyle Rose

css228
The ice is a legitimate point, because while BU was better, I still wouldn't say their passing was good.

Full stop. Unless you're arguing that the ice was crappier in one direction than the other, and that this crappiness magically reversed for the second period, my point was that both teams had to deal with the same conditions. BU handled the level playing field better. As a result, I think any bitching and moaning about it amounts to making excuses for Cornell not playing as well as BU.

What is so difficult to admit about this? BU played better. Period. Learn from it, practice more effectively, and get better. That's what I hope the coaching staff is doing, rather than complaining about the uphill ice, the unseasonably warm weather wreaking havoc with players' psyches, or invisible vampires with a love of Canadian blood.

I think that was the exact point I was making. The their refers to BU's passing, as in "Yes, BU's passing was better, but BU's passing still wasn't good". The ice was bad, but it affected both teams, and even if we were coming out of this saying the Red's passing was good, there's no reason to not want it to get even better anyway. However. I will disagree that BU outplayed Cornell. I think that the two teams were evenly matched (BU dominating the 1st and the OT, Cornell dominating the second, and having a slight edge in the 3rd) and the game turned on some absolutely incredible saves by Millan and a nice redirect of a shot that wasn't going to go on net. We'll have to get better if we want to consistently beat BU, but an effort like that in ten games against BU would probably end up close to a .500 record.

css228

Kyle Rose

css228
The ice is a legitimate point, because while BU was better, I still wouldn't say their passing was good.

Full stop. Unless you're arguing that the ice was crappier in one direction than the other, and that this crappiness magically reversed for the second period, my point was that both teams had to deal with the same conditions. BU handled the level playing field better. As a result, I think any bitching and moaning about it amounts to making excuses for Cornell not playing as well as BU.

What is so difficult to admit about this? BU played better. Period. Learn from it, practice more effectively, and get better. That's what I hope the coaching staff is doing, rather than complaining about the uphill ice, the unseasonably warm weather wreaking havoc with players' psyches, or invisible vampires with a love of Canadian blood.

I think that was the exact point I was making. The their refers to BU's passing, as in "Yes, BU's passing was better, but BU's passing still wasn't good". The ice was bad, but it affected both teams, and even if we were coming out of this saying the Red's passing was good, there's no reason to not want it to get even better anyway. However. I will disagree that BU outplayed Cornell. I think that the two teams were evenly matched (BU dominating the 1st and the OT, Cornell dominating the second, and having a slight edge in the 3rd) and the game turned on some absolutely incredible saves by Millan and a nice redirect of a shot that wasn't going to go on net. We'll have to get better if we want to consistently beat BU, but an effort like that in ten games against BU would probably end up close to a .500 record.

For once I agree with you.

Jim Hyla

css228

Kyle Rose

css228
The ice is a legitimate point, because while BU was better, I still wouldn't say their passing was good.

Full stop. Unless you're arguing that the ice was crappier in one direction than the other, and that this crappiness magically reversed for the second period, my point was that both teams had to deal with the same conditions. BU handled the level playing field better. As a result, I think any bitching and moaning about it amounts to making excuses for Cornell not playing as well as BU.

What is so difficult to admit about this? BU played better. Period. Learn from it, practice more effectively, and get better. That's what I hope the coaching staff is doing, rather than complaining about the uphill ice, the unseasonably warm weather wreaking havoc with players' psyches, or invisible vampires with a love of Canadian blood.

I think that was the exact point I was making. The their refers to BU's passing, as in "Yes, BU's passing was better, but BU's passing still wasn't good". The ice was bad, but it affected both teams, and even if we were coming out of this saying the Red's passing was good, there's no reason to not want it to get even better anyway. However. I will disagree that BU outplayed Cornell. I think that the two teams were evenly matched (BU dominating the 1st and the OT, Cornell dominating the second, and having a slight edge in the 3rd) and the game turned on some absolutely incredible saves by Millan and a nice redirect of a shot that wasn't going to go on net. We'll have to get better if we want to consistently beat BU, but an effort like that in ten games against BU would probably end up close to a .500 record.

For once I agree with you.

And I, you.

Kyle Rose

css228
The ice is a legitimate point, because while BU was better—

Full stop.

Kyle, while I mostly agree with the rest of your post, it's the use of rhetorical devices like this that inhibit getting invited to parties...

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

css228
The ice is a legitimate point, because while BU was better—

Full stop.

Kyle, while I mostly agree with the rest of your post, it's the use of rhetorical devices like this that inhibit getting invited to parties...

Don't worry. Kyle thinks all parties are equally corrupt.

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

css228
The ice is a legitimate point, because while BU was better—

Full stop.

Kyle, while I mostly agree with the rest of your post, it's the use of rhetorical devices like this that inhibit getting invited to parties...

I don't believe my social life in any way sucks (dick).