Harvard 2 @ Cornell 3 postgame thread (11/10/06)

Whew! Cornell dodged the bullet against what seemed like a better team. I kept waiting for Cornell's four strong lines to wear down Harvard. Didn't happen. Cornell lost too many faceoffs. Took some dumb offensive zone penalties. Got outshot 29-18.

After Cornell had the weak PP with 5 minutes to play, then Cornell drawing a penalty (goaltender interference, which should have been whistled as Gross Stupidity when it's with 5 minutes to play in a game Cornell is losing against the Cantabs), a 2-2 tie would have been a very positive outcome.

Decent goaltending by Davenport. The man needs to stay closer to home.

So we're off to a 5-0 start ... but we still don't feel like a top ten team. Need more defense. Need offense that can carry the game against good and great defenses, not just mediocre defenses. Hey, the season is young. So is half the team.


This is a game for the ages. Actually, half a notch below (it was early in the season):
- Quick start by Cornell made you think it was going to be a blowout.
- Cornell outplayed much of the game. Made you think Cornell'd be lucky to tie.
- Amazing comeback to tie.
- Amazing comeback to win in the final 2 minutes on a breakaway. (Goalies are said to stop half of all breakaways. It seems like Cornell's luck on breakaways has been worse than that.)
- Unlikely heros.
- Against Harvard.

One other off note: The women's team got blown out 7-1 by Dartmouth. Doesn't seem right having just one national caliber hockey team. Should be both or none. I'd vote for both.

But Harvard still sucks (it has to be said, even in post-game)

Struggling against a superior defense is new.

As stated elsewhere, Davenport needs to stay in the net when play is coming in his direction. Is it really worth it to get in those three-second puck sweeps?

wow, what a game. the trap dominated cornell for 2 full periods (middle of the 1st to middle of the third). what an end to a game. wish i could have been there!

That kennedy goal was iggulden-esque.

Thanks to Tom for pointing me to Max-TV. It was more than choppy out here in the Far East, it finally started coming in just as Du did his little one-timer that suckered Davenport, AND I didn't get to see the full results of Kennedy's breakaway, but we won and that's what matters, w00t!!!!!! LGR!!!!!

Did it seem to anyone else like Greening didn't play after the 1st period and that carefoot didn't log many mintues either?

Strange, I feel like I disagree with all the comments. I thought Davenport was great in goal, both goals he had no chance on. Greening and Carefoot both played a lot and played well.

Our new fast-paced offense just wasn't getting the job done, so we went to a bit of a dump and chase and that worked better toward the end.

Davenport does have some trouble handling the puck, but at least he didn't pay for any of his mistakes.

Dafatone
Strange, I feel like I disagree with all the comments. I thought Davenport was great in goal, both goals he had no chance on.

Agree. Looked solid to me.

I'm so sick of hearing the bullshit about Davenport playing the puck. He played great. He didn't have a chance on either goal. Everyone needs to turn their brains off and enjoy the moment.

Cornell is 5-0 for the first time in more than 30 years!!

davenport was the only thing keeping in the red in the game from midway through the first untill the last 5 minutes.

Dafatone
Strange, I feel like I disagree with all the comments. I thought Davenport was great in goal, both goals he had no chance on. Greening and Carefoot both played a lot and played well.

Our new fast-paced offense just wasn't getting the job done, so we went to a bit of a dump and chase and that worked better toward the end.

Davenport does have some trouble handling the puck, but at least he didn't pay for any of his mistakes.

Yes on the first goal and for sure on the second: Yes, you're right, there wasn't much Davenport could do on the two goals. On the second goal, Harvard overloaded near side (camera side / press box side / Cornell bench side) but not Du all by his lonesome on the far side five or eight feet out and when the puck slid across the crease, it would have been a miracle if Davenport could have slid as quickly as the puck to cover the open far side. There was just one Cornell defender trying to cover Du and one other Harvard player who was in the slot. So maybe in hindsight too much of the defense attacked the puck where it was and microseconds later wasn't.

One of the worst games Cornell has played at home in the Schafer-era. They were badly outworked for the majority of the game but found a way to win which is obviously the most important thing. No doubt that Harvard is the real deal. I think Cornell had five shots on goal in the second and third periods combined. It was ugly. Thought Troy Davenport was spectacular. Taylor wasn't so bad himself.

billhoward
On the second goal, Harvard overloaded near side (camera side / press box side / Cornell bench side) but not Du all by his lonesome on the far side five or eight feet out and when the puck slid across the crease, it would have been a miracle if Davenport could have slid as quickly as the puck to cover the open far side. There was just one Cornell defender trying to cover Du and one other Harvard player who was in the slot. So maybe in hindsight too much of the defense attacked the puck where it was and microseconds later wasn't.

Morin made a wonderful play there. A lesser player would have shot it, but he had the poise to wait till he picked up DU on the doorstep. It killed me that Morin made it (Auburn, NY native former Cornell recruiting target).

Just came back from the game...

Before the game, somebody passed around quarter cards that said if you're on the aisles, hold your newspapers up when people toss their fish. It even had a drawing or something of people doing it. It was smart, but nobody did it. On to the fish: I was a bit disappointed by the lack of fish, and saw a sardine can and Swedish fish candies go over, which didn't make me too happy.

The start by Cornell was amazing. Both the crowd and the team was absolutely psyched for this one. The Cornell players got to the puck before the SUCKS goalie did every play for a few minutes, which let us have that first goal. They were out-hustling everyone. If they ever get to the point where they can keep that intensity up, they will be unstoppable.

We had many quality chances that just didn't go. The team looked great until sometime in the second period, when we became stagnant. Harvard SUCKS!) was shutting down every guy that was driving to the goal and intercepting most passes. Their D was actually great all game.

When the puck was on the other side of the ice, Davenport was the star. I was absolutely sure that at least two of the saves he made were going to be goals. People cheered his name many times during the game, with good reason. He waved to the crowd again as the team was stepping off the ice.

I also thought that the refs were missing some obvious calls against Harvard, but calling everything we were doing and more. It was frustrating.

The third period, we went down 2-1. The change in intensity was very palpable. Everybody stepped up their game. Also, there was a "townies up" chant that got the whole place going. The players really fed off of the crowd, and The Goal by Kennedy was everything anyone could have asked for. I can't imagine what it must have felt like to have Lynah at its loudest, scoring one on one. Unbelievable ending.

I almost had a heart attack when the crowd got very loud after SUCKS pulled its sieve. I thought we got scored on, and so did everyone else in section A. There were too many people in front of the net to let us see. Instead, it was an amazing save by Davenport.

I'm very happy right now...LGR!

I'm in the camp that says Troy Davenport was outstanding. I had no palpitations about Davenport's playing the puck around the net. He had absolutely no shot on either goal.

Agreed with Ari's comment that Harvard is very good. They seem to have their best defensive team of the recent era, and their freshman (especially on D) are strong.

After waxing poetic on the game thread about our crisp breakout during the first period, we had a lot of trouble the rest of the way. I thought our young defense played quite well.

We have a lot of work to do on the powerplay. Harvard played a disciplined box, and we looked indecisive. The last powerplay with about 6:00 left was especially weak.

Not a work of art, but sometimes you need to win these games. It's nice to know we're going to have plenty of time to improve, and 5-0 is a good place to do that from.

billhoward

Dafatone
Strange, I feel like I disagree with all the comments. I thought Davenport was great in goal, both goals he had no chance on. Greening and Carefoot both played a lot and played well.

Our new fast-paced offense just wasn't getting the job done, so we went to a bit of a dump and chase and that worked better toward the end.

Davenport does have some trouble handling the puck, but at least he didn't pay for any of his mistakes.

Yes on the first goal and for sure on the second: Yes, you're right, there wasn't much Davenport could do on the two goals. On the second goal, Harvard overloaded near side (camera side / press box side / Cornell bench side) but not Du all by his lonesome on the far side five or eight feet out and when the puck slid across the crease, it would have been a miracle if Davenport could have slid as quickly as the puck to cover the open far side. There was just one Cornell defender trying to cover Du and one other Harvard player who was in the slot. So maybe in hindsight too much of the defense attacked the puck where it was and microseconds later wasn't.

It's playing armchair goalie and having wishful thinking to imagine that Davenport might have been able to sense (a) the discrepancy in defense that essentially created a wall on the near side and (b) the wide-open Du camped for the kill on the other, then adjusting accordingly. Hindsight is certainly much easier to go by...

More great CU sports news ... the men's basketball team just beat Northwestern in Evanston, 64-61. Gore with 20 points, Freshman Ryan Wittman with 18.

scoop85
More great CU sports news ... the men's basketball team just beat Northwestern in Evanston, 64-61. Gore with 20 points, Freshman Ryan Wittman with 18.

Very nice. Volleyball beat Penn and is 11-2 Ivy. Princeton tomorrow.

scoop85
I thought our young defense played quite well.

Considering we've replaced four (Gleed, O'Byrne, Pokulok, and Glover) of six d-men plus the goaltender, the D has been quite amazing so far.

When Kennedy took the pass for the game winning goal, I immediately thought about his breakaway against Harvard last year in Albany. Same result on the breakaway, better result for the game

The game tonite was a "Lynah Mystic" win and showed why Cornell has won over 70% of its games at home over the years. Cornell did not play well and Harvard's defense was particularly strong. Only 8 shots on goal in two periods...of course two went in! Once Krantz scored the tying goal, Lynah came alive.

I don't know if those watching/listening could hear it, but on Kennedy's breakaway, the rink was about as loud as I've ever heard it...and Kennedy managed to keep his head, made a great move and scored!!

While this isn't quite the same as the 1979 Providence comeback win in the ECAC Quarters,the crowd definitely worked its magic tonite. It's a great win for a young team. Lots of work to do, but things look bright!!!

LGR

Larry '72

Larry72
...and Kennedy managed to keep his head, made a great move and scored!!

He looked cool and confident skating in. No wasted moves.

Parts of this game were slow and ugly, but a great job by The Big Red in getting the win, especially tying and winning the game in the last 5 minutes. A good team needs to be able to win games in which they have been outplayed. A very good win for us.

Kennedy's goal was beautiful and I like how we can score some "pretty" goals as well the usual tips and rebounds. I was also impressed with Krantz's shot from the point and how he got the shots on net.

I thought Davenport played very well. I didn't notice him wandering out of the net too much, but I'll check again on the replay.

redhair34
Cornell is 5-0 for the first time in more than 30 years!!

Really? I could swear there were a few 6-0 seasons in the last 8 years or so, as well as a string of Cornell being the last undefeated team in the country (although at least one or two of those may have included ties).

2007: 5 (at least) -0
2006: 1-0
2005: 4-0
2004: 0-0
2003: 1-0
2002: 4-0
2001: 0-0
2000: 0-0
1999: 4-0
1998: 4-0
1997: 4-0
1996: 0-0
1995: 0-0
1994: 1-0
1993: 1-0
1992: 1-0
1991: 3-0
1990: 0-0
1989: 3-0
1988: 2-0
1987: 0-0
1986: 1-0
1985: 2-0
1984: 2-0
1983: 2-0
1982: 0-0
1981: 2-0
1980: 0-0
1979: 1-0
1978: 2-0
1977: 2-0
1976: 1-0
1975: 1-0
1974: 2-0
1973: 5-0
1972: 8-0
1971: 1-0
1970: 29-0 (had to be said!)

Does anyone know who the radio said were the three stars of the game?

A few bones to pick:

1) We were playing so bad before 5 min before the end that on a bunch of Harvard shots on Davenport (2nd period) a few of our guys had to resort to diving. Literally, sprawling on purpose to roadblock precisely when they're making the breaks. I mean, it worked, but can't refs make calls against that?


2) For the entire game, the only thing that was truly consistent was our HORRIBLE passing. And Davenport's pretty good performance.


3) Where was our defense? Definately left back in New Hampshire.


4) Be glad Dartmouth won, and that we won while having played mediocre till 5 min till the end. This makes a win tomorro alot more possible than if Dartmouth was coming back for redemption and we had an easy win.

LGR TOMORRO NIGHT

Also, hockey fans-- SUPPORT OUR AMAZING WOMENS VOLLEYBALL TEAM 4 PM at Bartels before the Dartmouth game. Not only is it Senior Night, but we're honoring one of the best teams we've had in a while, with 6 seniors graduating. With a win tomorro we'll have the Ivy title and a berth in the NCAA tournament. Lets make it double victories tomorro night!

My thoughts:

We. Got. Lucky.

Coming out of the gate, there was a lot of excitement, both in the stands and on the ice. After the first quick goal, I was hoping we could race out to an early lead, but Harvard's D clamped down pretty well.

Harvard looked like the Cornell of the past couple years. Big, strong, skillful D. This wasn't the kind of York team our forwards could skate around. Romano and Gallagher, etc. brought speed and some fancy moves that just weren't working against the Sucks D. I got really worried during our flat stretches in the 2nd and 3rd that we were getting worn down by Sucks' physical play. I remember the '05 ECAC final, in which our big guys slowly wore down Harvard and weakened them to the point where we could pull ahead and maintain the lead. We just got a couple of huge goals at the end.

I believe Ari said after Yale that part of Yale's physical play might be explained by the fact that this Cornell team is a lot smaller, and therefore easier to push around, than the Cornell teams of the past few years. It seemed to me that Harvard might also have been thinking along those lines. Whether it was smothering our forwards on rushes or Richter kicking our guys when they were in the slot, it just seemed like Harvard had the phyiscal edge. Paradoxically, though we were outplayed physically, we spent a hell of a lot more time killing penalties than Harvard had to.

The goal to make it 2-2 seemed very similar to Mark McRae's '03 goal against Sucks in the final. Win the faceoff, get it to the point, and let it fly.

I had never been to a Sucks@Lynah game before, so I don't have much basis for comparison. However, I was a little disappointed in the amount of fish. (Full disclosure: I was too wimpy to bring one myself.) The fan intensity was really there at the beginning and the end, but it was easy to tell who the facetimers were in the middle stretches. They were the ones yelling "shoot" just for the sake of getting a SOG, or complaining that the hockey was boring when there was no scoring in the 2nd. (How did they make it through the past few years?)

All in all, Cornell clearly deserved to lose this game. I don't really know if it was as much a bad night for the team as it was that we are just not as experienced as at this point in some other years. Yes, we had sloppy passes, trouble clearing, etc. But I think the truth might be that this team just isn't that good. Sucks was the better team tonight.

Finally, you can't give enough credit to Davenport. Maybe he won't put up the numbers of Leneveu or McKee, but he made the big stops when he had to, and without him, we might not have been in the position to come back at the end.

A win against Harvard is always a cause for celebration, so I'll definitely take it. I just hope there's no letdown tomorrow against Dartmouth (like on the road last year).

marry_me_topher
1) We were playing so bad before 5 min before the end that on a bunch of Harvard shots on Davenport (2nd period) a few of our guys had to resort to diving. Literally, sprawling on purpose to roadblock precisely when they're making the breaks. I mean, it worked, but can't refs make calls against that?

You mean when a defenseman lies down on the ice to block a pass or a shot? That's a completely legitimate defensive tactic, and I think we did it rather well tonight, though it's nicer when we don't have to. Or are you talking about something else? 'cause I can't imagine what call a ref would or should make on lying down to block a pass or a shot.

scoop85
When Kennedy took the pass for the game winning goal, I immediately thought about his breakaway against Harvard last year in Albany. Same result on the breakaway, better result for the game

Kennedy family definitely gets a lot of love after Patrick's committment and Michael's game tonight.

Beeeej

marry_me_topher
1) We were playing so bad before 5 min before the end that on a bunch of Harvard shots on Davenport (2nd period) a few of our guys had to resort to diving. Literally, sprawling on purpose to roadblock precisely when they're making the breaks. I mean, it worked, but can't refs make calls against that?

You mean when a defenseman lies down on the ice to block a pass or a shot? That's a completely legitimate defensive tactic, and I think we did it rather well tonight, though it's nicer when we don't have to. Or are you talking about something else? 'cause I can't imagine what call a ref would or should make on lying down to block a pass or a shot.

Yeah, Seminoff made a couple of great desperation dives, especially on the 2-on-1.

ebilmes
The goal to make it 2-2 seemed very similar to Paolini's '03 OT goal against Sucks in the final. Win the faceoff, get it to the point, and let it fly.

Paolini's '03 OT goal against Sucks in the final was a breakaway off a cross-ice pass from Mark McRae in the Cornell end. I think you're thinking of Mark McRae's tying goal from a 6-on-5 faceoff a few minutes earlier.

Beeeej

ebilmes
The goal to make it 2-2 seemed very similar to Paolini's '03 OT goal against Sucks in the final. Win the faceoff, get it to the point, and let it fly.

Paolini's '03 OT goal against Sucks in the final was a breakaway off a cross-ice pass from Mark McRae in the Cornell end. I think you're thinking of Mark McRae's tying goal from a 6-on-5 faceoff a few minutes earlier.

Yeah, whoops, that's the one I meant. I'll edit.

ebilmes
The goal to make it 2-2 seemed very similar to Mark McRae's '03 OT goal against Sucks in the final. Win the faceoff, get it to the point, and let it fly.

Heh... sorry to be a pain, but our tying goal in '03 was, of course, late in the 3rd period, not in OT.

Larry72
and Kennedy managed to keep his head, made a great move and scored!!

One of the guys on CSTV's version of sportscenter pointed out that Kennedy made a nifty fake with his right leg to get the goalie to commit three strides before he took his shot. I'm just thinking that takes balls to try something like that in a tie game against Harvard. Kudos to him.

After Kennedy broke out of the zone all that was between him and the goal was Harvard's McCafferty who was caught completely flat footed as Kennedy blew by him. Wonder what he was thinking.

ebilmes

Beeeej

ebilmes
The goal to make it 2-2 seemed very similar to Paolini's '03 OT goal against Sucks in the final. Win the faceoff, get it to the point, and let it fly.

Paolini's '03 OT goal against Sucks in the final was a breakaway off a cross-ice pass from Mark McRae in the Cornell end. I think you're thinking of Mark McRae's tying goal from a 6-on-5 faceoff a few minutes earlier.

Yeah, whoops, that's the one I meant. I'll edit.

I call it our standard Harvard play. If anyone remembers, Krantz scored the game tying goal at lynah east last year on that play. Ryan O'Byrne last year in the ECAC championship. And of course, Mark McRae.

schoaff
After Kennedy broke out of the zone all that was between him and the goal was Harvard's McCafferty who was caught completely flat footed as Kennedy blew by him. Wonder what he was thinking.

I've just watched that goal a few more times (okay, a few dozen more times), and I noted with amusement that if Kennedy had actually stickhandled "properly," and the pass had stuck to his stick as intended, McCafferty would still have been behind him. It's almost certainly only because the pass ricocheted off Kennedy's stick and kept its momentum that he was able to chase it past McCafferty and use the breakaway. But once he did, man, what a beautiful move. From every camera angle.

Yum!

Beeeej

ebilmes
The goal to make it 2-2 seemed very similar to Mark McRae's '03 OT goal against Sucks in the final. Win the faceoff, get it to the point, and let it fly.

Heh... sorry to be a pain, but our tying goal in '03 was, of course, late in the 3rd period, not in OT.

Picky, picky. Whatever the specifics, it was a good memory.

We didnt play to hot, definitely a young team, but hey, a win's a win, they won't all be pretty so I'll take it, especially against Sucks.

Also, I hope someone strangled the idiots with the car keys when we had a 1 goal lead.

French Rage
Also, I hope someone strangled the idiots with the car keys when we had a 1 goal lead.

Moreover, a 1 goal lead with a faceoff in our zone and facing an extra attacker.

I tried to strangle all of them, but there were just too many. Sorry.

Beeeej

French Rage
Also, I hope someone strangled the idiots with the car keys when we had a 1 goal lead.

Moreover, a 1 goal lead with a faceoff in our zone and facing an extra attacker.

I tried to strangle all of them, but there were just too many. Sorry.

I lost my voice screaming at them. And then of course I got the "does that kid have rabies?" look from a couple of clueless girls in front of me.

ebilmes
My thoughts:

We. Got. Lucky.

Harvard looked like the Cornell of the past couple years. Big, strong, skillful D. /quote]

100% agree. Harvard was limiting Cornell's chances in a dominating fashion the way Cornell has the last few years. Plain and simple, Cornell could not get to the middle of the ice - not in the neutral zone or the offensive zone. They were really really impressive and are far and away the best team Cornell has played.

I'm glad Dartmouth won tonight as they won't be playing nearly as desperate Saturday. Cornell is going to have to play 1000 times better if they are going to beat Dartmouth who will not be nearly as good defensively but a whole lot better offensively.

Thought both Morin and Biega were studs on the backline. Very impressive.

Cornell's kill on the 5-on-3 was enormous and one of the best two-men down kills I've seen.

Cornell's first powerplay unit is still horrendous and it was ridiculous that Schafer was starting them on the third period powerplays. They didn't even attempt a shot. Time to blow that whole thing up and start from scratch. Bitz needs to pick up his play.

Cornell didn't play badly defensively - just had a handful of lapses. Davenport was spectacular though.

Officiating was average.

Crowd was awesome in the beginning and the end.

There is no way Cornell plays that badly tomorrow night. I'm expecting a big performance.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2006 02:06AM by calgARI '07.

Davenport impressed me again tonight - kept us in the game during a looong second period - a couple of stops on his chest that the team was able to clear almost have me a heart attack.
Sure I'm scared when he leaves the net, especially if he doesn't know where the forecheck is, but sometimes he's been great at it. In the last 30 seconds, leaving to stop one coming around the top of the boards kept us in possession. I hear there were problems last weekend, but he seems to get back quickly enough...

Few guys stood out tonight, but the D by Tay Davenport and Seminoff was great, even if Nash didn't seem so hot tonight. Tony Romano had the moves, when he was given the puck, but the passes just never got to their targets. I give him a lot of credit for trying - he riled up the crowd and really set up some great opportunities. McCutch, too, was great early on, fighting deep on the power play too.
I'd have loved to see Sawada pick up his game last night - felt like he never touched the puck. Him and Barlow are two guys I expected to see a lot from tonight...

ebilmes
it was easy to tell who the facetimers were in the middle stretches. They were the ones yelling "shoot" just for the sake of getting a SOG

If you ask me, Krantz showed us that once in a while you've gotta send the puck to the net, whether it goes in or its a chance for a rebound or something. If Richter doesn't see anything all game, if we don't start fazing him, it makes it harder to score. I'm used to sending the puck in circles on the power play, and I'm fine with it, but when every pass to the wings gets denied, "just shoot" may work.

LGR!

For the record, Taylor Davenport has been the team's best defensemen for the last three games. Seminoff and Krantz have also played very well. Salmela has been good. Krueger has been getting better though he isn't playing a ton still. Nash has struggled badly since the first game.

w00t!

Sorry. That's the kind of comment you get when the writer gets his info from the game thread.

Completely agree about the fact that those (ALOT in Section E) got out the keys when the game was NOT over yet.

Although I was looking forward to the "Go Staht the Cahr" chant. Ohwell, next time.

1) Maybe I'm spoiled, but our faceoffs were horrible.
2) The box shows that Cornell was 0-6 on the PP, but doesn't scoring on a delayed penalty count as a PPG?

I had the exact same thought - very similar to the OT game winner his senior year at Union that was on this board's video list. Probably this one should be there too. Interesting that the media guide says Kennedy "brought to mind memories of Mike Iggulden."

AND Iggulden also wore number 18.

redhair34
Cornell is 5-0 for the first time in more than 30 years!!

Thanks to Robert Morris, and RIT, and Brom...

Was an exact duplicate of an early power play score in last year's ECACHL Championship. The D has to sharpen up on Back-door alertness and crease-clogging. Better yet, I'd like to see us get more motion down low on OUR PP.

Larry72
I don't know if those watching/listening could hear it, but on Kennedy's breakaway, the rink was about as loud as I've ever heard it...and Kennedy managed to keep his head, made a great move and scored!!

LGR

Larry '72

I couldn't hear the crowd because I was yelling too loud at home! It was a great comeback and both late goals were impressive.

Until those goals, none of the scoring was 5 x 5. Of course, Troy Davenport had a lot to do with Cornell's not giving up even strength goals, but my point is that with improvement, Cornell may be able to outwit Harvard on their power play, too.

Quinnipiac has a similar traping style defense. Those matchups versus the Red should be interesting. We'll see if Cornell can learn from Friday's near disaster.

Well, too hoarse to call my brother and tell him about the game; so I'll just have to post a few thoughts and observations here and tell him to read eLynah forum

Give some credit on the final goal to Carefoot who made a heads up play as he was getting tied up by a Harvard D in neutral ice to hit Kennedy's stick with a great pass. I echo the comments about Davenport in net, a very solid game and kept us in it.

I saw at least 3 offensive zone penalties that I did not understand:
1.) Tony got a GT Interf. but looked like he was chasing puck from in front to corner and Richter made the contact (admittedly inside crease by about a foot+ ), but puck was out in corner of rink and he was diverted into crease a bit by Harvard D'men, seemed a weak call -
2.) Davenport (I think) on forecheck deep in Harvard zone, inadvertantly got his stick slightly between Harvard players legs (missed poke check). There was no trip - or real advantage as he backed off and gave Harvard player the puck control and the opening to pass puck away which is what happened - but whistled any way ???
3.) Bitz is hacked / slash interferred with coming around behind net fighting for control of puck winds up getting take to ice and then while lying flat on his face a Harvard skater in essence falls over him and Bitz is called for tripping ??

If anyone can enlighten me on these 3 I'd love to understand them - Admittedly I sit in N at that end of ice and probably had a better view of plays than the official at that point !

Kudo's to the Team for pulling out a win when we were outplayed somewhat for the middle 50 mins of the game! LGR

The real diffeerence was the Harvard powerplay had crisp passes - on sticks and when moving it back and forth on the point they also walked it forward a bit each time. Our power play passing was anything but crisp - and we did not seem to attack the Harvard box even though they were out a bit higher than our PK box was!!

I also loved the one where Scott got called for interference when Romano's stick was solidly being held by a Sucks player 10 feet in front of the ref.

McCutcheon had a few nice moves too, making a nice strip and getting a few good looks.

Edit: Jack Christian is a goon. I don't even know why he had a stick, he never seemed to even try to play the puck.

RedAR
2) The box shows that Cornell was 0-6 on the PP, but doesn't scoring on a delayed penalty count as a PPG?

No; it's credited as an EAG, or "extra attacker goal." For us to score a PPG, the other team has to be a man down, not just have one fewer non-goalie on the ice than we do.

TimV

redhair34
Cornell is 5-0 for the first time in more than 30 years!!

Thanks to Robert Morris, and RIT, and Brom...

You know you're right. Our start isn't that impressive. I'm sorry for bringing it up.

RedAR
1) Maybe I'm spoiled, but our faceoffs were horrible.

Over the last two years, Du has been among the best if not the best in the ECAC on the draw. He gave Pegoraro and Abbott fits last year. Doug Rogers was also very good last night. I think the faceoff disparity was something like 35-25, which wasn't as bad as I thought it was.

Watching on CSTV, Davenport looked really solid in goal. I was really impressed by his positioning and the way he repositioned himself after making the initial save. Never out of position, never really scrambling, just smooth and composed. He didn't look particularly strong handling the puck out of net, but not particularly awful either. Neither goal was his fault, and to me it looked like he almost got over in time to stop the first Harvard goal. Du's goal was pretty, I wish we had managed to land Morin so he could be making feeds like that to our guys.

Harvard has a great D. They were a nightmare in the neutral zone, and prevented Cornell from cycling the puck successfully once they got it in the offensive zone. Richter looked solid in goal as well.

A win is a win. This is a young team (and very young defense)- for them to be finding ways to win games like this at this point in the season is a very good sign. I'm excited to see how this season plays out.

I didnt see the play so I cant comment on it specifically but the key to that situation is that the prone player has to make a clear attempt to play the puck. If not, in the ref's judgement, the call will be for either tripping or interference.

Not that it really matters, but in terms of stats, does scoring an EAG hurts your PP conversion percentage? That just doesn't seem right.

RedAR
Not that it really matters, but in terms of stats, does scoring an EAG hurts your PP conversion percentage? That just doesn't seem right.

No, since there is no PP recorded.

Ah, thanks.

As pointed out, the disparity in faceoffs is pretty much solely because of Kevin Du. In three games I've seen, I think I've only seen him lose one faceoff.

Oh, and the officiating was beyond awful. I'm the sort that complains about refs a lot, but still. There was one play toward the end of the 1st period where a guy pretty much jumped on Sawada's back and dragged him down in front of the net. The puck was in the corner, and Sawada hadn't been involved in the play for a good 10 seconds. Clear interference.

A comment on the CSTV production: on a number of occasions CSTV adopted FOX's awful habit of showing crowd or coach shots while the action is ongoing. If they had missed any of the scoring because they were showing Donato, we'd be rather annoyed today.

From our side (sec A), the Bitz trip was pretty blatant... While on the ground he extended his stick (trying for the puck?) and caught the Harvard guy's skate. It was a bad penalty to take with less than 4 min left in the game.

Agreed... the PP was horrible (esp. first unit). I can never figure out why we refuse to set a big forward right in front of the net. College hockey goalies just don't appear to have the experience to stop much of anything through an effective screen. Also with the tight officiating, if they try to push us out, there's a good chance they'll take an additional interference or crosscheck call or w/e.

schoaff
After Kennedy broke out of the zone all that was between him and the goal was Harvard's McCafferty who was caught completely flat footed as Kennedy blew by him. Wonder what he was thinking.

Kennedy wasn't breaking out of the zone. He was coming from the bench replacing Bitz who had just gotten out of the box. It's possible that McCafferty didn't see Kennedy (or at least not quickly enough to react) so he started for the puck and was caught flat footed.

KeithK
Kennedy wasn't breaking out of the zone. He was coming from the bench replacing Bitz who had just gotten out of the box. It's possible that McCafferty didn't see Kennedy (or at least not quickly enough to react) so he started for the puck and was caught flat footed.

McCafferty was also at the end of his shift.

Beeeej
I've just watched that goal a few more times (okay, a few dozen more times), and I noted with amusement that if Kennedy had actually stickhandled "properly," and the pass had stuck to his stick as intended, McCafferty would still have been behind him. It's almost certainly only because the pass ricocheted off Kennedy's stick and kept its momentum that he was able to chase it past McCafferty and use the breakaway.

I'm not sure that was amishandled pass. In that situation if the puck ends up on Kennedy's stick then McCafferty has a chance to play the puck. Chipping it by him allowed Kennedy to blow by the defender. I can see that having been intentional (though I haven't seen the play since the replays last night).

For the record, I thought that the referee was calling some pretty ticky-tack stuff penalties. In particular there was one hooking call on Cornell in the offensive zone that seemed very weak in my mind. I understand that the league is trying to crack down on hooking, but I think this is overboard. Hopefully this lightens up some as the season goes on. I think John Murphy called a pretty good game but it would've been better without the decree from on high.

(BTW I'm not saying Murphy was biased against or screwed Cornell.)

Great, lucky win. In the USCHO recap, Donato said the Red played a "bend but don't break" style for most of the game. That seems accurate if not a bit generous. I credit the win in large part to Troy Davenport. He looked great to me. I also thought the CSTV guys were giving Richter too much credit -- "playing like an upperclassman" blah blah blah. He didn't face many tough chances and when he did, they went in, especially the first and third goals. The second one he probably never saw. I wonder if this game will stick with him mentally -- he's got to be blaming himself for the loss since it's pretty clear the rest of his team outplayed Cornell thoroughly. Harvard looked very good but I am happy to say I think we have the better goaltender. Unless Richter or Tobe play better, the Crimson's impressive play may continue to be wasted. Need a better performance all around tonight from the Red. Could we see FOntas or Scali for Milo, Romano, or Gallagher?

KeithK
For the record, I thought that the referee was calling some pretty ticky-tack stuff penalties. In particular there was one hooking call on Cornell in the offensive zone that seemed very weak in my mind. I understand that the league is trying to crack down on hooking, but I think this is overboard. Hopefully this lightens up some as the season goes on. I think John Murphy called a pretty good game but it would've been better without the decree from on high.

(BTW I'm not saying Murphy was biased against or screwed Cornell.)

I have no problem with the ECAC enforcing NHL style obstruction rules, what I don't get is why they called hooking and Holding so tightly and let so much blatent interferance go.

The holding and hooking calls where pretty consistent: if you took a hand off your stick and placed it on an opponent you where going to be called. If you put a stick in the midsection of an opposing layer you got called, no matter how lightly you did it.

These calls where consistent and even handed.

However, how many forays into Harvard's zone where stopped when a Cornell player was blatently tied up? I saw this all game, and I don't get why you would call certain obstruction penalties (hooking, holding) and let so much interferance go. (I'm also not stating that Cornell didn't engage in it's fair share of this sort of thing, but the moments that stand out in my moind are the harvard noncalls.)

Rich S
I didnt see the play so I cant comment on it specifically but the key to that situation is that the prone player has to make a clear attempt to play the puck. If not, in the ref's judgement, the call will be for either tripping or interference.

Tripping and interference calls both require playing the other player's body in some way - which has nothing to do with lying down to block a pass or a shot.

redredux
Could we see FOntas or Scali for Milo, Romano, or Gallagher?

why? Have they made freshman mistakes? of course, but for the most part all three have played well, and they bring a helping of speed and skill that this team hasn't seen in years. If you sit them now because they havn't been perfect players (and did anyone expect them to be 5 games into they're NCAA carreers?) your going to stunt they're growth.

However, I would like to see Scali at some point, I really liked the brief glimpse of him that we got in the York game (yes I know it was only York.) Do we know if he's still injured, or if he just hasn't managed to crack the lineup since he went down?

KeithK

schoaff
After Kennedy broke out of the zone all that was between him and the goal was Harvard's McCafferty who was caught completely flat footed as Kennedy blew by him. Wonder what he was thinking.

Kennedy wasn't breaking out of the zone. He was coming from the bench replacing Bitz who had just gotten out of the box. It's possible that McCafferty didn't see Kennedy (or at least not quickly enough to react) so he started for the puck and was caught flat footed.

Actually you both are somewhat right. He was coming on, but was inside the zone, about circle height, and was breaking out. As soon as he saw Carefoot was going to get the puck he turned up ice. When he was taking the pass he also had to contend with the stick left on the ice. I don't know if that stopped him from picking up the puck or whether it was intentionally directed forward. Only he could tell us. And yes, McCafferty was at the end of his shift. He was hardly moving when Kennedy got the puck.

evilnaturedrobot

redredux
Could we see FOntas or Scali for Milo, Romano, or Gallagher?

why? Have they made freshman mistakes? of course, but for the most part all three have played well, and they bring a helping of speed and skill that this team hasn't seen in years. If you sit them now because they havn't been perfect players (and did anyone expect them to be 5 games into they're NCAA carreers?) your going to stunt they're growth.

I agree. The only way they'll get better and work through those mistakes is with more game time. Also, I doubt anyone who was at the Brown-Yale games would be in favor of taking Romano out of the lineup after seeing how good that 2nd pp unit can be when they get the ice time.

KeithK
Kennedy wasn't breaking out of the zone. He was coming from the bench replacing Bitz who had just gotten out of the box. It's possible that McCafferty didn't see Kennedy (or at least not quickly enough to react) so he started for the puck and was caught flat footed.

I think I have an unfair advantage as I Tivo'd the game and have watched that play again and again and again and again

Kennedy did come from the bench but he had skated in far enough that he was just about even with Carefoot before making a U turn. He started skating hard while gesturing for the pass. He had two Harvard players chasing him as he shot past McCafferty.

If McCafferty weren't tired because it was the end of his shift I suspect he would have turned around and skated back on defense instead of watching the play go by him. He was also probably pinching in a bit because his team had just given up the lead and then were stymied on the power play. And isn't it crazy the way we can talk for almost an entire day about a play that took roughly 2 seconds to play out.

If Fontas and Scali aren't close to Milo, Gallagher, and Romano, then fine but if they are then I'd favor giving at least one of them some game time. I thought last night, the Red could have used some more gritty players and from what I gather that's what Fontas and Scali would bring to the table. Also, maybe Fontas could win some faceoffs. I don't think sitting one of the other guys for a game or two is going to stunt their growth. It might spur their growth by making them hungrier and more focused.

redhair34

evilnaturedrobot

redredux
Could we see FOntas or Scali for Milo, Romano, or Gallagher?

why? Have they made freshman mistakes? of course, but for the most part all three have played well, and they bring a helping of speed and skill that this team hasn't seen in years. If you sit them now because they havn't been perfect players (and did anyone expect them to be 5 games into they're NCAA carreers?) your going to stunt they're growth.

I agree. The only way they'll get better and work through those mistakes is with more game time. Also, I doubt anyone who was at the Brown-Yale games would be in favor of taking Romano out of the lineup after seeing how good that 2nd pp unit can be when they get the ice time.

Don't underestimate Harvard's ability to make other teams look bad in the neutral zone. They are a good team that just shut out BC.

It looked to me like all the Freshmen had great potential and were simply seeing the first really good defense of their college careers. Passes they got away with in the past weren't going through. I'm sure they'll adjust and we'll see great things from them over the next few years.

Last night left me with the feeling that we'll have to beat up on the weak teams during the regular season and hope for some luck in the playoffs because teams like Harvard and Clarkson are simply better than us right now. However, it's not uncommon for Cornell teams to look completely different after the Christmas tournaments. Once they've had more practice time together we may see some 5+ goal games against good competition out of this squad.

I'm not terribly concerned about how we do against Dartmouth tonight (other than the usual win every game to lock up an at large NCAA bid), but I'm really looking forward to seeing how they play New Hampshire.

evilnaturedrobot
I have no problem with the ECAC enforcing NHL style obstruction rules, what I don't get is why they called hooking and Holding so tightly and let so much blatent interferance go.

I do have a problem with them enforcing new-NHL style rules (I think they're too tight). But more importantly hooking and holding are the points of emphasis in the NCAA right now so they get called. The other stuff are not being emphasized so the refs can let them go to a greater extent. Especially a guy like John Murphy who tends to let them play.

evilnaturedrobot
The holding and hooking calls where pretty consistent: if you took a hand off your stick and placed it on an opponent you where going to be called. If you put a stick in the midsection of an opposing layer you got called, no matter how lightly you did it.

This is what I don't like. Just placing your stick in the opposing players midsection isn't ghooking in my mind. You should have to hook him (pull on him) to get a call. BTW - I don't need someone to cite chapter and verse here - I'm talking subjectively.

I do agree that the calls were consistent though.

evilnaturedrobot

redredux
Could we see FOntas or Scali for Milo, Romano, or Gallagher?

However, I would like to see Scali at some point, I really liked the brief glimpse of him that we got in the York game (yes I know it was only York.) Do we know if he's still injured, or if he just hasn't managed to crack the lineup since he went down?

"Falling through the cracks, Cornell frosh forward Joe Scali has been "dinged up and unable to play" so far this season, according to Schafer. The nature of his dinged-up-ed-ness and his expected return date are unknown."
From www.uscho.com

I think in order for college hockey to remain a factor in producing future pro-level players, the NCAA rules need to reflect the NHL rules (including the soft hooking, intereference, etc.). It will be very hard for schools to recruit high quality talent if the pro-teams don't think college players can make the transition, and therefore don't draft/sign them.

Leebob

"Falling through the cracks, Cornell frosh forward Joe Scali has been "dinged up and unable to play" so far this season, according to Schafer. The nature of his dinged-up-ed-ness and his expected return date are unknown."
From www.uscho.com

Where does it say that?

calgARI '07

Leebob

"Falling through the cracks, Cornell frosh forward Joe Scali has been "dinged up and unable to play" so far this season, according to Schafer. The nature of his dinged-up-ed-ness and his expected return date are unknown."
From www.uscho.com

Where does it say that?

It says it near the bottom of the "This Week in the ECACHL" column, in the snapshots section; I would give the link, but my browser's being stupid and won't show me the address....

KeithK
blem with them enforcing new-NHL style rules (I think they're too tight). But more importantly hooking and holding are the points of emphasis in the NCAA right now so they get called. The other stuff are not being emphasized so the refs can let them go to a greater extent. Especially a guy like John Murphy who tends to let them play.

I understand this, I just don't see the point of calling holding and hooking but not interferance, all three or obstruction penalties, why emphasize only 2?

KeithK
This is what I don't like. Just placing your stick in the opposing players midsection isn't ghooking in my mind. You should have to hook him (pull on him) to get a call. BTW - I don't need someone to cite chapter and verse here - I'm talking subjectively.

I was a proponent of changing the rules at the NHL level (where the problem was worse) so I'd be a hypocrit I've didn't suport they're enforcment in college.
Is placing your stick on another player a hook? no, but the policy is premptive. The idea is that, eventually, players won't even think about hooking another player because they know it's an automatic call.

Now I personally think that mindset is alittle optimistic, but this policy atleast leads to consistent and clear officiating on the matter. When you call hooking based on whether or not a hooking motion was made it gets very subjective and tends to lead to alot of hooking going uncalled. It is much less subjective when it's called automatically upon contact of stick and player.

does it lead to some weak calls? yes, but I'd rather see hooking and holding called too harshly rather than not harshly enough, because we've seen the type of hockey that produces over the last decade.

Cactus12
I think in order for college hockey to remain a factor in producing future pro-level players, the NCAA rules need to reflect the NHL rules (including the soft hooking, intereference, etc.). It will be very hard for schools to recruit high quality talent if the pro-teams don't think college players can make the transition, and therefore don't draft/sign them.

I agree whole heartedly with this. The influx of top end talent that we've seen recently will slow if NHL hopefuls feel that the college game won't prepair them for the pros.

redredux
If Fontas and Scali aren't close to Milo, Gallagher, and Romano, then fine but if they are then I'd favor giving at least one of them some game time. I thought last night, the Red could have used some more gritty players and from what I gather that's what Fontas and Scali would bring to the table. Also, maybe Fontas could win some faceoffs. I don't think sitting one of the other guys for a game or two is going to stunt their growth. It might spur their growth by making them hungrier and more focused.

this would be fine where it not for the fact that Romano, Gallagher and Milo have all been important players. Romano's scoring at a point per game pace and has been an essential cog on that second PP unit. Gallagher and Milo, while less productive, have played well and have earned the right to keep playing. I'm not adverse to seeing either Fontas or Scali (as I've already said, I'm very much for scali getting icetime) but I can't think of a foward that I"m ready to sit for them.

Cactus12
From our side (sec A), the Bitz trip was pretty blatant... While on the ground he extended his stick (trying for the puck?) and caught the Harvard guy's skate. It was a bad penalty to take with less than 4 min left in the game.

I watched this several times on my TiVo. I am of the definite opinion that he fell, was trying to pick his stick back up when the Harvard guy just fell over it. I don't even think he had a hand on the stick at the time (view was from A so hard to say for sure). Even if he did have a hand on it, he was just trying to pick it up. I am quite convinced it was a bad call - although I understanding that it kinda looked bad in real time.

That said, I thought we picked up a couple penalties just for falling.

I thought Scali looked fantastic in the York game. Would love to see him in the lineup once he's healthy

Yeah I could buy that. In real time though, it looked pretty bad (with Bitz being on the ground and the timing of him lifting the stick/ the other guy falling), so I'm not at all suprised that the call was made.

Cactus12
Yeah I could buy that. In real time though, it looked pretty bad (with Bitz being on the ground and the timing of him lifting the stick/ the other guy falling), so I'm not at all suprised that the call was made.

Watched it a few times on the tape and I can't imagine the ref not calling it, whether intentional or not.

Thanks Rich, but I was watching Bitz and he was facing our section of the stands he was looking for the puck and trying to swat it - I guess from opposite side of rink this was not as obvious to the ref

Al DeFlorio

Larry72
...and Kennedy managed to keep his head, made a great move and scored!!

He looked cool and confident skating in. No wasted moves.

Watching the TV replay you can see his expression after the goal. No smile, no celebration other than raising his stick. He looked like he knew it was going in.

Also, it was great to hear the announcers gushing over the experience at Lynah every 5 mintues.

That's not exactly true.

I said IF the ref judges that the player lying in a prone position, does not make a clear attempot to play the puck, but rather attempts to impede an opponent's progress with his body (interference) or extends or swings the stick at his legs or skates (tripping), a penalty call is warranted.

I repeat, I did not see the particular play but am simply explaining the rule. I've seen it called both in USA hockey and in college play.

Here's another way of viewing it.

Anyway, it will be, when I update it for this weekend.

ebilmes
I had never been to a Sucks@Lynah game before, so I don't have much basis for comparison.

This was my twenty-somethingth. The final five minutes were the second-loudest I have heard Lynah (after the '90 QF victory over Harvard). It may be the extra 500 people and/or the effect of having double-walls throwing the crowd noise back into the building. It was not nearly as loud the next night, except for the Brief and Shining Minute in which Cornell crammed 60 minutes of effort into 60 seconds and nearly stole a point.

The amount of fish has dropped significantly since the glory days of the 80's -- only natural, since every year the AD sends out notices that a minnow on the ice will be the deathknell of Cornell hockey.

I was just happy to see people show up early. Maybe that was the late start, but it makes all the difference in the world to have everybody in place and screaming when Harvard takes the ice, rather than filing in.

redredux
If Fontas and Scali aren't close to Milo, Gallagher, and Romano, then fine but if they are then I'd favor giving at least one of them some game time. I thought last night, the Red could have used some more gritty players and from what I gather that's what Fontas and Scali would bring to the table. Also, maybe Fontas could win some faceoffs. I don't think sitting one of the other guys for a game or two is going to stunt their growth. It might spur their growth by making them hungrier and more focused.

FWIW, I think you're crazy to have any complaint this early about Milo or Gallagher or Romano. They're all over the ice, they bust a nut every minute, and they've each shown great skills. They're raw as hell and they're going to take some time getting up to fighting weight, but I'd much rather have their energy on the ice. This is nothing against Fontas or Scali, who are reportedly very solid. I just don't have a bad word to say about the three mites right now.

Dafatone
As pointed out, the disparity in faceoffs is pretty much solely because of Kevin Du. In three games I've seen, I think I've only seen him lose one faceoff.

Oh, and the officiating was beyond awful.

Agreed on Du. I still have nightmares about what he did to us last year.

Could not disagree more on officiating. No problem with it at all. A typical John Murphy Special -- letter of the law, no quarter. As long as it's consistent, fine by me.

Trotsky
FWIW, I think you're crazy to have any complaint this early about Milo or Gallagher or Romano. They're all over the ice, they bust a nut every minute, and they've each shown great skills. They're raw as hell and they're going to take some time getting up to fighting weight, but I'd much rather have their energy on the ice. This is nothing against Fontas or Scali, who are reportedly very solid. I just don't have a bad word to say about the three mites right now.

Amen. If Scali and Fontas are as good (or better) than M, G, and R, then we are in fantastic offensive shape for at least the next 2-3 (maybe 4, ifthey all stay) years.

I think Trotsky hit the nail on the head - they are raw, as evidenced by the lack of goal production this weekend, while the D didn't give up a 5x5 goal. However, the talent, energy, and spark are there - add a little seasoning, our offense is going to be a force to be reckoned with.