Other Friday night scores 11/10

Quinnipiac 6 Clarkson 4 F
St Lawrence 5 Princeton 4 F
Dartmouth 6 Colgate 3 F

Wayne State 5 at Brown 3 F

Final scores

Q-Pac has some great firepower. To win at Clarkson is impressive.

Q is for real... and our passing ability was accidently left in Hanover... it should be here for tommorrow night.

Hanson still sucks... so many BAD calls

Wayne State has showed some glimmers of offense. 8 goals at Huntsville and 5 at Brown. They play Brown again tomorrow night.

I think Brown's loss to WSU nicely undermines Harvard's W against BC in the whole strength-of-conference thing. Thanks, jerks.

An impressive 67 PIMs for Clarkson tonight. They may have a good team that can score goals but they appear to be just as undisciplined as ever.

Ari, if you had seen the abomination that was tonight, you would probably have a considerably different opinion. We deserved maybe one of the majors and two of the misconducts -- one to go with the major penalty, and one for a player complaining about the horrendous referee. It was absolutely the worst officiating I've seen in my three and a half (almost) years at Clarkson, home or away games. I'm not one to blame losses on officials, but it was incredible that we were able to keep it as close as we did while Q had 8 skaters on the ice. 10 minutes to 67? Sorry, but Q aren't the saints that those stats infer, and we're not the devils that they proclaim either. Two of Q's goals were total crap. The penalty shot was 100% undeserved, and Hansen allowed a goal after he blew the whistle for a covered puck. Take away those two and the empty netter and it's 4-3 Clarkson. Even out the calls even slightly and it could've been a complete blowout in the other direction.

My two sents on the officiating last night.
we deserved both majors, and the 10-minute misconduct. the vast majority of those minors were crap. and Q was hacking and clutching all over the place with no calls. The penalty shot... it's hard to say, from where I was (right next to daredevil) it looked like a good call, but I was at ice level and at the other end of the rink.

Hansen sucks, but that's not the reason we lost. Slow start, bad passing and missed opputunities are why we lost the game.

Yeah, it seemed from the box score your guys took a lot of penalties. Tell me about what happened? Edit: (Never mind, the answer's lower in the thread... Thanks anyway)

daredevilcu
Ari, if you had seen the abomination that was tonight, you would probably have a considerably different opinion. We deserved maybe one of the majors and two of the misconducts -- one to go with the major penalty, and one for a player complaining about the horrendous referee. It was absolutely the worst officiating I've seen in my three and a half (almost) years at Clarkson, home or away games. I'm not one to blame losses on officials, but it was incredible that we were able to keep it as close as we did while Q had 8 skaters on the ice. 10 minutes to 67? Sorry, but Q aren't the saints that those stats infer, and we're not the devils that they proclaim either. Two of Q's goals were total crap. The penalty shot was 100% undeserved, and Hansen allowed a goal after he blew the whistle for a covered puck. Take away those two and the empty netter and it's 4-3 Clarkson. Even out the calls even slightly and it could've been a complete blowout in the other direction.

Ouch.
[www.goldenknightshockey.com]

Eh, I figured hate was too strong of a word. I like coming to Lynah, even if I disagree with you guys frequently.

That 20/20 vision from almost 200 miles away is very impressive.

Rich S
[Q]calgARI'07
An impressive 67 PIMs for Clarkson tonight. They may have a good team that can score goals but they appear to be just as undisciplined as ever.[/Q]That 20/20 vision from almost 200 miles away is very impressive.

Rich, over the years I've tried to keep my/our focus on the games and not personalities. I've also advocated not responding to your inflammatory posts, and at times defended you. However, I have to respond to this and ask you to think about whether this response was intended to do anything other than start another flamefest. If you had meant it in a good natured way, to poke fun at not being able to really understand a game from just the box score, you could have put in a smiley.


I enjoy when other fans come an post comments here. It actually helps to understand their teams and fans, but purely inflammatory comments are hurtful and do not lead to an enlightened discussion.

I obviously cannot know your intent, but can only surmise from your post. In person it's much easier to communicate and also understand feelings. The written word is much harder, which is why we cannot all be good novelists. Please try and preview and reread your posts and make sure that we will not misconstrue them.

Please other CU fans let's not let this become another flamefest.

Jim,

Thanks for the comment. Mine was not at all intended to start a flame fest. I just find Ari's comment as unnecessary and rather uniformed since as you mentioned, drawing strong conclusions from a box score can be dangerous.

I'm only to happy to add a smilie pertaining to my earlier post.

I hasten to point out however, that last year some of your colleagues here took issue with my usage of smilies. Go figure.
c
This just undersores the point that I have previously made about the reaction to many posters here, yourself largely excluded, that demonstrates a thin skin reacting to an opinion that disagrees with the majority's opinion on this board.

Rich S
I hasten to point out however, that last year some of your colleagues here took issue with my usage of smilies. Go figure.

Maybe it's because eyes rolling (online and in person) is not considered to be a sign of good natured ribbing?

I don't have to be at a game to know that getting 57 more minutes in penalties is not just a result of bad officiating. Spoke with a couple buddies who were at the game and they thought the game was pretty well-called. Fact of the matter is, as a Clarkson fan, your vision from 20 feet away is pretty far from 20/20.

And several other folks have labelled a number of those calls as questionnable at best, or awful, or just "crap."

Suggest you examine your vision of cornell from how ever far way from the ice you sit at Lynah before you chastise me for my view of Clarkson's play.

Rich S
And several other folks have labelled a number of those calls as questionnable at best, or awful, or just "crap."

Suggest you examine your vision of cornell from how ever far way from the ice you sit at Lynah before you chastise me for my view of Clarkson's play.

If you can find me a quote where Ari is blatantly pro-Cornell in his analysis, then I've got a bridge to sell ya'.

It's not true just because you wish it so.

calgARI '07
An impressive 67 PIMs for Clarkson tonight. They may have a good team that can score goals but they appear to be just as undisciplined as ever.

No argument here.

I am not saying that we were a group of choir boys, but with the officiating the way it was... most teams in the country would have put up some impressive penalty minutes...

redhair34
Ouch.
[www.goldenknightshockey.com]

What I want to know is did a Cornell Athletics chartered bus run over Goldie Knight's puppy? That person has a near maniacal hatred of all things Cornell hockey. Yipes! Rich S, perhaps you could spend some of your high horse time getting Goldie in line.

JasonN95

redhair34
Ouch.
[www.goldenknightshockey.com]

What I want to know is did a Cornell Athletics chartered bus run over Goldie Knight's puppy? That person has a near maniacal hatred of all things Cornell hockey. Yipes! Rich S, perhaps you could spend some of your high horse time getting Goldie in line.

I just think it's her menopause acting up.

Rich S
Jim,

Thanks for the comment. Mine was not at all intended to start a flame fest. I just find Ari's comment as unnecessary and rather uniformed since as you mentioned, drawing strong conclusions from a box score can be dangerous.

I'm only to happy to add a smilie pertaining to my earlier post.

I hasten to point out however, that last year some of your colleagues here took issue with my usage of smilies. Go figure.
c
This just undersores the point that I have previously made about the reaction to many posters here, yourself largely excluded, that demonstrates a thin skin reacting to an opinion that disagrees with the majority's opinion on this board.

::Shakes newspaper:: "BOOOOORRING BOOOOORRING"

Seriously, while one can argue whether any of what we do on here is a good use of one's time, this garbage back and forth certainly is not. Let's get back to hockey (or John Spencer).