Cornell 2 Yale 2 (ot, final)

1-0 1 09:04 Cor Romano 7 (Mugford 4)
1-1 2 08:15 Yal Cohen (Burns, LeClerc)
2-1 2 15:24 Cor pp Bitz 4 (McCutcheon 6, Seminoff 13)
2-2 3 18:38 Yal pp Dignard (unassisted)




Romano failed on penalty shot at 15:12 of period 2.

Video feed's up almost a half hour early. Athletics must be negotiating a new contract with CSTV.

pfibiger
Video feed's up almost a half hour early. Athletics must be negotiating a new contract with CSTV.

Hold out until Spring, Andy.

Gametracker: "Stay tuned for kickoff!"

Glover, Milo, and Scali not showing in the line chart.

Romano's goal sounded pretty -- it was out of frame. Tony was in on a bunch of good chances for an interval +/- a couple minutes around the goal. Other than that, Bitzy had one good one-timer from the right circle, Carefoot had a couple good rushes, and that was about it.

Davenport wasn't tested. Or rather, the couple times he was, he lucked out. Once the puck slid agonizingly through him and just wide of the right post. During Yale's brief (and only) period of protracted pressure, Davenport didn't appear to be well-positioned but Yale just never got control to get a shot.

Gametracker has shots at just 5-3, Yale. Sounds about right. Cornell had 2.5 powerplays and still looked horrible.

GOAL BITZ on the PP

Big goal to erase any Yale momentum after the saved penalty shot

Come on Greg, quit pulling my leg. There's no way we scored a powerplay goal, let alone off of Bitz's stick with an assist by McCutcheon!

BigRedBrouhaha
GOAL BITZ on the PP

Big goal to erase any Yale momentum after the saved penalty shot

It was my lame joke on the chat, but I think the goal was credited to Leadership, assisted by Chemistry and Authority.

Did anyone notice that gametracker put up a goal for Romano to make it 2-1? Must be a mistake with his penalty shot. Was he close to scoring?

Cornell didn't do very much for the first 13 or 14 minutes of the second period, but they made up for it with a splendid final 5. Yale's tying goal was, again, missed by the CSTV cameras -- sounds like it was from the high slot or outside the circle and just happened to find net.

Topher nearly stuffed one in on a scrum, which led directly to the penalty shot. Romano put it right into Richards as Cornell preserves its 20 year streak of not only not having a penalty shot goal, but not even being close.

But seconds later, Bitz shoveled in the rebound of a McCutcheon shot. Topher nearly had the insurance goal a few seconds later, but grazed the outside of the post.

Yale did very little in the period, although the two freshmen Arcobella and Backman did distinguish themselves -- they'll help the Eli improve.

Shots in the second were 12-6, Cornell. The Red took a lot of periphery shots, but hey, something will eventually go in. Krueger had a tremendous chance with tons of room and plenty of time but he couldn't get a good shot off; Gallagher also had nice chance.

Boneheaded penalty.

Leads to an awful goal.

Davenport fell down behind the net and the puck deflected off of Seminoff's skate with no Yale players within 10 feet.

Too bad, Cornell had played an excellent defensive third period, holding Yale to just 2 shots. But Davenport falls down and Seminoff (?) puts it in our own net, and we go to overtime.

How much time is left?

0:27.4. Timeout, Cornell

Decent play but what a crappy way to lose a point.

Bad night for Cornell sports. Give away a hockey win and wrestlers lose to Lehigh. Charging penalty with two minutes and change to go and up by one. Unbelievable.

More and more, it's looking like this just isn't our year. We also had a key goal scored against us earlier this year which deflected off the back of Davenport's skate.

To be fair, we also had two gift goals against Maine (which didn't matter).

I'm taking the positive spin. It was a great defensive effort, and a second great night for the penalty kill. Things to build on.

Trotsky
I'm taking the positive spin.

I'm trying to, but can't. A tougher team would have bounced back from the adversity after the very unfortunate own goal with a good effort in the overtime period. But we didn't. Yale pretty much dominated overtime. The one bright spot in the extra frame was when Krantz stood up for Davenport after Boucher (goon *cough, cough*) slashed him. They knocked us around all night and Krantz was pretty much the first guy to answer back. Someone should have taken a run at Boucher in the first period after he headhunted Romano.

dbilmes
More and more, it's looking like this just isn't our year. We also had a key goal scored against us earlier this year which deflected off the back of Davenport's skate.

Well, coming into October no one thought this was our year. So no surprise there id it turns out that way.

Cornell is now 102-1-6 when leading after two periods (since the start of the 00-01 season).

Avash '05
Cornell is now 102-1-6 when leading after two periods (since the start of the 00-01 season).

and Yale has contributed two ties to that record the last two seasons.

This team has completely lost its focus. They aren't playing with any sense of urgency or hunger. They just don't look like they are having much fun. This Yale team played the same way they did when Cornell played there the second weekend of the season yet this was a pretty even game. It just shows had badly Cornell is playing now to the level to which they have played. Some guys are contributing nothing.

The team did not attack at all in the third period and probably should have still won 2-1. Doesn't matter. They had plenty of time and a couple powerplays to deliver the knockout punch and they didn't. This team is not generating anywhere near the amount of chances or shots that they need to to win consistently. It comes back to the lack of energy and hunger coming from this team.

I wonder what has happened to Topher Scott. He has not been the same player since before the Finals break. Very little enthusiasm and he is not winning the battles that he usually has been. The last six games has been the worst stretch of his career at Cornell IMO.

No sure what Schafer is doing putting Fontas on a line with Romano. Romano is far and away the team's best offensive player and Fontas is not exactly anywhere near him. I actually liked Fontas's game tonight in terms of his PKing and defensive play but he isn't going to help Romano.

I defend Troy Davenport a lot but he was a difference in the game tonight. Didn't like the first goal and second was just fucking unacceptable.

The powerplay is still predictable and pathetic. The two players high just play paddy-cake with the puck in hope of a shooting lane opening up. Surprisingly never happens considering every coach in the country knows what Cornell does on their powerplay. What is so preposterous about the two units is the complete unwillingness to use the low options. When you have guys like Scott and Romano, that is just plain stupid.

Thought Carefoot was very good again tonight and he's been the team's best player over this brutal stretch. A couple other guys were good as well like Romano, Krantz, Seminoff, McLeod but in general, not many guys are playing any better than average. McLeod deserves a lot of credit for how steady he has been considering the fact that he has never played defense before and that he hadn't played in real game in two years.

Again, the overall team dynamic is weak right now, lacking most if not all of the intangibles you need to have success. This team will not go anywhere unless they can find that hunger and enthusiasm that really signified the team early in the season. And I will continue to blame the leaders of this team for the struggles in this area.

redhair34

Trotsky
I'm taking the positive spin.

I'm trying to, but can't. A tougher team would have bounced back from the adversity after the very unfortunate own goal with a good effort in the overtime period. But we didn't. Yale pretty much dominated overtime. The one bright spot in the extra frame was when Krantz stood up for Davenport after Boucher (goon *cough, cough*) slashed him. They knocked us around all night and Krantz was pretty much the first guy to answer back. Someone should have taken a run at Boucher in the first period after he headhunted Romano.

Also, it's Yale and at home, it's hard to put anything short of a win in a positive light.

calgARI '07
focus...urgency or hunger. ...energy and hunger....enthusiasm.

dynamic...intangibles...hunger...enthusiasm...leaders.

This totally isn't fair of me, Ari, since the meat of your post had a lot of real substantial content and analysis. But it's the bits I snipped out here that really starts making you sound like the hundreds of hack sportswriters all over the country who use the whole "intangibles" angle to fill their crappy little fluff-heavy pieces for the Topeka Dispatch. This phony type of "analysis" is starting to leak into this forum more and more. The rest of your post (as do the majority of your other game-analyses) did a fine job discussing the good and the bad performances that we can observe as spectators. But I don't buy this "leadership" and "desire" as observable quantities mumbo-jumbo. That's just trying to make someone seem smarter or more "in-the-know" than others. Cornell didn't win tonight not because our skaters weren't led properly to the appropriate hunger-level. We didn't win because we didn't put the puck in the back of the net enough and didn't take care of the puck at a crucial point in the game.

I agree there might be a leadership problem, but there's more evidence in that with the fact that nearly the entire freshmen class was left home last week for a critical league weekend than any bounce of the puck could reveal.

At least nobody has used the phrase "knows how to win" yet. Leave that to the idiot writers who need to fill inches on their 18th editorial about Tom Brady and Derek Jeter.

RichH

calgARI '07
focus...urgency or hunger. ...energy and hunger....enthusiasm.

dynamic...intangibles...hunger...enthusiasm...leaders.

This totally isn't fair of me, Ari, since the meat of your post had a lot of real substantial content and analysis. But it's the bits I snipped out here that really starts making you sound like the hundreds of hack sportswriters all over the country who use the whole "intangibles" angle to fill their crappy little fluff-heavy pieces for the Topeka Dispatch. This phony type of "analysis" is starting to leak into this forum more and more. The rest of your post (as do the majority of your other game-analyses) did a fine job discussing the good and the bad performances that we can observe as spectators. But I don't buy this "leadership" and "desire" as observable quantities mumbo-jumbo. That's just trying to make someone seem smarter or more "in-the-know" than others. Cornell didn't win tonight not because our skaters weren't led properly to the appropriate hunger-level. We didn't win because we didn't put the puck in the back of the net enough and didn't take care of the puck at a crucial point in the game.

I agree there might be a leadership problem, but there's more evidence in that with the fact that nearly the entire freshmen class was left home last week for a critical league weekend than any bounce of the puck could reveal.

At least nobody has used the phrase "knows how to win" yet. Leave that to the idiot writers who need to fill inches on their 18th editorial about Tom Brady and Derek Jeter.

I understand where you're coming from (particularly about Jeter and the Patriots) but I find it very difficult to underestimate these intangibles. The team isn't playing with the same enthusiasm as they did against Yale earlier in the year or against UNH. Meaning they weren't finishing every checks, they weren't busting their asses consistently and they weren't driving to the net. Sportswriters may talk about these things too much but coaches and players talk about them as well. Schafer has ripped on the leadership a good amount lately.

Having a swagger and edge to your game makes a difference and I think this is a particularly evident with Cornell the past few years. Yeah, there was a lot of talent, but those teams played with a lot of emotion and consistently went that extra mile to make things happen.

I think the hunger, leadership, etc. correlate directly to the big things, notably scoring goals and winning games. Hockey is little things including intangibles IMO and all that together produces the bigger things. Just my opinion though again, I certainly see where you're coming from.

Some unstructured comments after getting home from the game:

This was definitely a heart-breaking tie, and a win we desperately needed.

No matter how you want to see the waved-off goal that led to Romano's missed penalty shot (it was difficult to see how the goal actually went in from my vantage-point in D), Feola definitely didn't seem to have control of the situation after the play, and never made it clear that a penalty shot was coming up until practically when Romano started skating.

Besides Bitz's goal, (and I'm not sure what surprised me more, a Cornell PPG, or Bitz doing something useful) he seemed to still greatly disappoint for most of the game, lacking aggression and puck control.

Speaking of greatly disappointing...nothing new can be said about the PP which still looks abysmal. Perhaps slightly better from last weekend in terms of # of shots taken, and time taken to set up plays...but still absolutely pathetic.

Other under-performers in my opinion were Barlow, Krueger, and Sawada, who after playing excellent in the last few games, just really didn't seem to make his presence felt tonight.

Great to see Nash, Gallagher and Romano back in the lineup, as they all played strong tonight, particularly Romano and Nash. If only Romano can get better with his aggression and control of the puck on the boards...the kid's got such amazing moves and is a deadly scoring weapon, but seems to lose the puck everytime he's even slightly challenged. Seminoff and Krantz again were excellent on D, as was Davenport. The PK seems back on track...but for how long? Fontas and McLeod also contributed nicely, and didn't seem to cause any nervous situations...both also took shots I believe. I think keeping at least one of them in the lineup might be useful, in place of maybe Barlow or Salmela, but I'd love to see Scali and Milo back on the ice as well...and rumor has it that Glover was unhappy about being a healthy scratch tonight, and will play against Brown.

We seemed to play the traditional Cornell-style "score and then hang on for dear life" strategy after each goal, instead of aggressively forechecking and trying to put the puck in the net for extra insurance. Several times I noticed during the game that during periods of 5x5 play, we seemed like we playing a PK.

After reviewing the archived game on CSTV game to see Davenport's fuck-up own goal, I can find no reason to excuse him for trying to play that puck. Seminoff and Mugford were all over it, and no matter why he fell on his ass, he shouldn't have been in the position he was, and it was no fault of Seminoff's that the puck went off his skate. Davenport had been doing his usual make-everyone-nervous-by-coming-out-of-the-crease-to-play-every-puck routine all night, but also seemed to be solid and had some good saves...not challenged too intensely though.

The last few minutes of regulation and the entirety of OT were hard to watch. It just seemed like we had given our all, and then simply gave up. Yale absolutely dominated us in OT, and there were multiple scoring situations for them, that just barely got cleared or deflected by our seemingly lost defense. The Davenport screw-up just seemed to take all the air out of our tires, when it should have motivated us to put one more in.

calgARI '07
I think the hunger, leadership, etc. correlate directly to the big things, notably scoring goals and winning games. Hockey is little things including intangibles IMO and all that together produces the bigger things.

This is the difference between the '96 team, which on paper probably shouldn't have gotten to Lake Placid, and the '91 team, which on paper probably should have been in the Frozen Four.

Even one or two leaders can make a difference well beyond what a dispassionate analysis of statistics would dictate.

sah67
Davenport had been doing his usual make-everyone-nervous-by-coming-out-of-the-crease-to-play-every-puck routine all night, but also seemed to be solid and had some good saves...not challenged too intensely though.

I really didn't think this was a good Davenport performance. There were too many times when it looked like he was flailing or at any rate not tracking the puck, and I got the impression way too many times that the only reason Yale didn't score was they simply couldn't get a stick on the puck. Troy's had good games (although, worryingly, mostly in November), but this wasn't one of em.

I'll take tonight's D any time, though. If the forwards can just step up this team will win some games.

Trotsky

sah67
Davenport had been doing his usual make-everyone-nervous-by-coming-out-of-the-crease-to-play-every-puck routine all night, but also seemed to be solid and had some good saves...not challenged too intensely though.

I really didn't think this was a good Davenport performance. There were too many times when it looked like he was flailing or at any rate not tracking the puck, and I got the impression way too many times that the only reason Yale didn't score was they simply couldn't get a stick on the puck. Troy's had good games (although, worryingly, mostly in November), but this wasn't one of em.

I'll take tonight's D any time, though. If the forwards can just step up this team will win some games.

I'm not sure what the numbers say, but I think that for the most part Davenport has looked a lot more comfortable on the road. The guy who played last week was excellent and that was not who we saw tonight.

I would venture to say the same thing about the team as a whole. They seem to be a lot more tentative at home which is definitely weird.

It's almost as if we were a young team that is more prone to make mistakes and doesn't quite know how to play together.

ryeguy
Did anyone notice that gametracker put up a goal for Romano to make it 2-1? Must be a mistake with his penalty shot. Was he close to scoring?

Explanation of the penalty shot sequence from CornellBigRed.com:

"A shot by Romano snuck through the traffic in front of the goal and was loose in the crease when Matt Nelson covered the puck with his glove. Nelson's hand then went into the goal with the puck underneath, but he quickly pulled it back out of the goal. Nelson was whistled for a delay of game penalty, giving Cornell the option of a power play or a penalty shot. Cornell elected the penalty shot, with Romano lining up against Richards as the officials sorted out the penalty. The freshman forward skated in and tried to fire a shot between the legs of Richards, but the Yale goalie was able to get down quickly enough to block the shot."

Al DeFlorio
"A shot by Romano snuck through the traffic in front of the goal and was loose in the crease when Matt Nelson covered the puck with his glove. Nelson's hand then went into the goal with the puck underneath, but he quickly pulled it back out of the goal.

How is that not a goal for Cornell?

I disagree. We scored 3 goals tonight, and Yale scored 1. We should have scored hands down. I am not saying that Cornell played great, or even that I think they deserved to play with their effort, but, they did play a great 30 or so minutes in the middle of the game.

Beeeej

Al DeFlorio
"A shot by Romano snuck through the traffic in front of the goal and was loose in the crease when Matt Nelson covered the puck with his glove. Nelson's hand then went into the goal with the puck underneath, but he quickly pulled it back out of the goal.

How is that not a goal for Cornell?

An interesting question, because one could say that the puck is dead as soon as he gloves it and thereby delays the game - the rule book might have a specific clause concerning this.

But I imagined that the Feola didn't see it clearly enough to award the goal.

marty

Beeeej

Al DeFlorio
"A shot by Romano snuck through the traffic in front of the goal and was loose in the crease when Matt Nelson covered the puck with his glove. Nelson's hand then went into the goal with the puck underneath, but he quickly pulled it back out of the goal.

How is that not a goal for Cornell?

An interesting question, because one could say that the puck is dead as soon as he gloves it and thereby delays the game - the rule book might have a specific clause concerning this.

But I imagined that the Feola didn't see it clearly enough to award the goal.

It seems clear that Feola didn't see it. The goal judge put the red light on, after a long delay, with the red light still on, Feola finally went to the goal judge. I could see him making a hand motion that would support him seeing the puck going in under a Yale player's hand.


I don't know the rule, but I'm just guessing that once he touches the puck in the crease the play stops, much like even if you score when your team has a delyed penalty against it, it doesn't count since the play stops as soon as you touch it. Unfortunately that helps the team who is to get the man advantage while in our case it hurt the team getting the advantage.

If Feola saw the puck go over the line then it is a goal. I guess he just didn't see that happen and just saw Nelson cover it with his hand.

calgARI '07
If Feola saw the puck go over the line then it is a goal. I guess he just didn't see that happen and just saw Nelson cover it with his hand.

Only the most sinister of us would think he would not call a goal if he saw it over. He looked confused as to what happened and I think did the right thing and talked to all officials, including the goal judge. He then determined the puck was covered before going over the line, thus a penalty.

Jim Hyla

calgARI '07
If Feola saw the puck go over the line then it is a goal. I guess he just didn't see that happen and just saw Nelson cover it with his hand.

Only the most sinister of us would think he would not call a goal if he saw it over. He looked confused as to what happened and I think did the right thing and talked to all officials, including the goal judge. He then determined the puck was covered before going over the line, thus a penalty.

i was half puzzled as to why he was talkign to the goal judge. I thought those guys were just window dressing and about as useful as tits on a fish. The goal judges decisions have never seemed to matter, last night included. I seem to recall the light went on prior to any whistle, yet no goal. I am all in favor of the ref discussing it, but I have to wonder if the goal judges input mattered last night or has ever mattered. Does it matter?

WillR

Jim Hyla

calgARI '07
If Feola saw the puck go over the line then it is a goal. I guess he just didn't see that happen and just saw Nelson cover it with his hand.

Only the most sinister of us would think he would not call a goal if he saw it over. He looked confused as to what happened and I think did the right thing and talked to all officials, including the goal judge. He then determined the puck was covered before going over the line, thus a penalty.

i was half puzzled as to why he was talkign to the goal judge. I thought those guys were just window dressing and about as useful as tits on a fish. The goal judges decisions have never seemed to matter, last night included. I seem to recall the light went on prior to any whistle, yet no goal. I am all in favor of the ref discussing it, but I have to wonder if the goal judges input mattered last night or has ever mattered. Does it matter?

If the puck went over the line, even if while being covered by a glove, you put the light on. It's up to the ref to allow or disallow, which I think is what he did, correctly, if all that has been written is true.

WillR
I seem to recall the light went on prior to any whistle, yet no goal.

this happens frequently. as soon as a play occurs that would stop play, the play is over... refs can;t blow the whistle instantly, unless they skate with it in there mouth, which makes skating very clumsy and dangerous (you fall with it in your mouth you are losing teeth).

think of it on a delayed penalty. if cornell committs an infraction, and then a cornell player blasts a shot past the goalie, the play was dead when the cornell player touched the puck.