Cornell-Yale ECAC championship postgame

Coming off that five-period late game Friday, Cornell had enough fumes in the tank to provide an energetic start Saturday. That lasted for 10 to 15 minutes of the first period and then, when none of Cornell's decent scoring chances went in, you started to get a bad feeling about the outcome. It started to feel worse with 6 minutes left in the second when Yale went up 2-0 but -- hey! -- we came back from 2 goals down Friday. The crusher was the rebound Scrivens gave up that was fired past him for the 3-0 lead in the last two minutes of the second.

Just like Friday, we didn't get the breaks in and around the net (except in the last two minutes Friday when we did). Just like Friday, this was not our year to be a threat on the powerplay, including those two six-on-fours in the third when we got a PP and also pulled Scrivens.

You can also wonder how it would have turned out for Cornell if St. Lawrence had put in an empty netter Friday vs. Yale rather than allowing an extra-attacker goal and then the game winner and we played SLU. But we didn't.

Regardless, Yale was the better team Saturday and probably would have been bedtter even if we'd only played three not 4-1/2 periods of hockey in Friday's late game. Probably wouldn't have been as bad as the final 5-0 score. The passing from one side of Scrivens to the other to find openings for goals was pretty impressive. They're talented in a different way than we are.

We still have the better fans and band. Cornell propped up the Albany economy this weekend. Yale appeared to have one section of fans and a few scattered elsewhere in the arena. Otherwise it was a sea of red plus a few St. Lawrence fans who stuck around and the odd Clarkson fan, which means either they forgot who was in the final four or they're just serioius hockey fans.

The Pepsi Arena now Times-Union Arena is looking a bit more shopworn each year, but it was a pretty hospitable place and they had a bunch of things inside for kids Saturday such as jugglers and an inflatable jumping tent. Nearly as friendly as the people in Estero (Fla.) at the holiday tournament.

I think the outcome wasn't quite so terrible because we knew we're almost certainly in the NCAAs and the loss didn't knock us out of a 1-seed. (At least if you're an alum and have seen many years of sad outcomes; it's probably different as an undergrad when you're just building up your repertoire of disappointing games.) Plus, this wasn't supposed to be our year. It was supposed to be Princeton's.

As Bill said, we played pretty well for the first few minutes and then tanked. We were thoroughly outplayed and outclassed by Yale in our three meetings this year and it's hard to argue that we should have won the league championship when we went 0-3 against Yale.

Scrivens just does not show up in the big games. He's not awful, but he's bad enough that you can't help but think that the pressure or something else gets to him. Look at the game at MSG last year, or the semifinal last year, or the two games this weekend. To win in Albany, especially when the team plays so inconsistently, you have to have goaltending. That just wasn't around this weekend.

I don't know why so many people were high on Whitney after Friday night's game. He has a long way to go before I have any confidence in him.

Let's not overlook the fact that we played terribly the entire weekend, except stretches of the 1st period on both days, and then the last 5 minutes of regulation and OT Friday night. They were lucky they were able to salvage Friday's game, and then were just embarrassed tonight. When they're playing well, they look great. When they're not, they look awful. I don't know why it's so hard to put in a full three periods during the biggest games of the season.

I made it to 32 games this season and it's disappointing to think that (most likely) the last game I saw was such an abysmal effort. We eked out a trip to NCAAs with the win on Friday, but we imploded down the stretch this season, going from #1 in PWR to almost out of the tournament in less than 2 months.

If we can focus and play well in NCAAs, we can beat any team in the country. But I am not encouraged by what I saw this weekend.

ebilmes
As Bill said, we played pretty well for the first few minutes and then tanked. We were thoroughly outplayed and outclassed by Yale in our three meetings this year and it's hard to argue that we should have won the league championship when we went 0-3 against Yale.

Scrivens just does not show up in the big games. He's not awful, but he's bad enough that you can't help but think that the pressure or something else gets to him. Look at the game at MSG last year, or the semifinal last year, or the two games this weekend. To win in Albany, especially when the team plays so inconsistently, you have to have goaltending. That just wasn't around this weekend.

I don't know why so many people were high on Whitney after Friday night's game. He has a long way to go before I have any confidence in him.

Let's not overlook the fact that we played terribly the entire weekend, except stretches of the 1st period on both days, and then the last 5 minutes of regulation and OT Friday night. They were lucky they were able to salvage Friday's game, and then were just embarrassed tonight. When they're playing well, they look great. When they're not, they look awful. I don't know why it's so hard to put in a full three periods during the biggest games of the season.

I made it to 32 games this season and it's disappointing to think that (most likely) the last game I saw was such an abysmal effort. We eked out a trip to NCAAs with the win on Friday, but we imploded down the stretch this season, going from #1 in PWR to almost out of the tournament in less than 2 months.

If we can focus and play well in NCAAs, we can beat any team in the country. But I am not encouraged by what I saw this weekend.

I'm impressed you made it to so many games.

However, I don't agree with a few things that you wrote. First, I don't think that Cornell was outclassed by Yale in all 3 games. I won't comment on last night's game because Bill wrote about the game already in this thread. For the regular season games, Yale played with somewhat higher quality passing and better shooting, but neither game was a blow out. Yale didn't dominate Cornell in terms of puck control in either game. They have a few fast-skating guys who handle the puck extremely well in close to the net and they have some sneaky plays that produce goals at unexpected times. Cornell didn't score early in either game and was forced out of its regular defensively-oriented approach. It's clear that Cornell doesn't match up well with very fast skating teams that play a less cautious style of hockey, but they did manage to beat both SLU and ND in 1 of their 2 match-ups.

Regarding Scrivens, everyone expects him to stand on his head every game, probably because he seems to have the raw talent to do so. Many people lost confidence in him late in the season following his undisciplined ventures from the net. But, we should remember that despite that problem, he recorded 7 shutouts this year including one each against Princeton and St. Lawrence. That's not too shabby. I don't think any of the goals this weekend were soft goals. He could be blamed for giving up the rebound that set up the third Yale goal, but the other 3 Yale goals were just really good plays. He seems to improve each year and I think he could be very near the top in the nation next year.

Lastly, I think Cornell is a little banged up right now. Many teams could use the same excuse, but in Cornell's case they had to deal with RPI for 3 games (of course it was their fault the series went beyond 2). [I'd still like to know what happened when Gallagher got hurt on the face off in the second game. He was limping during the Yale game and didn't take many faceoffs. Patrick Kennedy has been bopped around more than his fair share.] Cornell probably would have been better off facing Quinnipiac, which I think would have been better preparation for Yale. I hope they can recuperate before the first round of the tournament. Let's hope for a good seeding today.

lynah80

Lastly, I think Cornell is a little banged up right now. Many teams could use the same excuse, but in Cornell's case they had to deal with RPI for 3 games (of course it was their fault the series went beyond 2). [I'd still like to know what happened when Gallagher got hurt on the face off in the second game. He was limping during the Yale game and didn't take many faceoffs. Patrick Kennedy has been bopped around more than his fair share.] Cornell probably would have been better off facing Quinnipiac, which I think would have been better preparation for Yale. I hope they can recuperate before the first round of the tournament. Let's hope for a good seeding today.

A little? How about the guys who were suited up in sports coats for the weekend? Roeszler, Kary, Devin and Devin. Gallagher is likely held together with adhesive tape and soaking his ankle in ice after each game and practice. And that is what is public - there are always the banged up kids we don't know about.

But Yale looks good. There D was big last night. It wasn't all Richards. We couldn't get off quality shots because they were on us on every trip down the ice and they just played intense defense all night long.

marty

A little? How about the guys who were suited up in sports coats for the weekend? Roeszler, Kary, Devin and Devin.

Kary was at least dressed for warmups last night, though I don't recall whether or not he was out during the game.

Before the season started, with all of the ice time we were expecting to give to freshmen, I didn't know if we had a tournament team. As Cornell was zooming up the PWR with the early season success I knew the computers were overrating us but I still wasn't sure how much. I was happy to find out it was a lot less than I thought.

I am very happy with our pre-tournament ranking and with the season so far. This game can't even be seen as much of a disappointment given (a) the prior games against Yale and (b) the 90 minute game on Friday night.

I don't care who we play in the first round at the NCAA's. It won't be someone we can't beat and it won't be someone we can't lose to. Sounds good to me.

ebilmes
As Bill said, we played pretty well for the first few minutes and then tanked. We were thoroughly outplayed and outclassed by Yale in our three meetings this year and it's hard to argue that we should have won the league championship when we went 0-3 against Yale.

Scrivens just does not show up in the big games. He's not awful, but he's bad enough that you can't help but think that the pressure or something else gets to him. Look at the game at MSG last year, or the semifinal last year, or the two games this weekend. To win in Albany, especially when the team plays so inconsistently, you have to have goaltending. That just wasn't around this weekend.

I don't know why so many people were high on Whitney after Friday night's game. He has a long way to go before I have any confidence in him.

Let's not overlook the fact that we played terribly the entire weekend, except stretches of the 1st period on both days, and then the last 5 minutes of regulation and OT Friday night. They were lucky they were able to salvage Friday's game, and then were just embarrassed tonight. When they're playing well, they look great. When they're not, they look awful. I don't know why it's so hard to put in a full three periods during the biggest games of the season.

I made it to 32 games this season and it's disappointing to think that (most likely) the last game I saw was such an abysmal effort. We eked out a trip to NCAAs with the win on Friday, but we imploded down the stretch this season, going from #1 in PWR to almost out of the tournament in less than 2 months.

If we can focus and play well in NCAAs, we can beat any team in the country. But I am not encouraged by what I saw this weekend.

While of course disappointed, I think we've gotten about out of much as this team as we could have possibly hoped, and to have a shot in the NCAA's is all I could ask for. The early PWR ranking was a bit of a mirage. Agreed that Scrivens was shaky; disagree about Whitney -- he's gonna be good by the time he's done, and showed me a lot considering he was thrust into the spotlight with little time under his belt. Yes, his turnover led to a goal, but that will happen. I liked how he jumped into the play and gave us a bit of offensive presence.

I was surprised Seminoff made the all Tourney team; he's been a favorite of mine, but on Friday especially he seemed shaky to me.

Whether it's UMD or NE, we'll take our chances. While we'll be the underdog, if we can get a bit healthy we'll take a shot.

I really think Coach needs to rethink his philosophy on PP. During the game I had just observed to my friends that they need to stop passing so much around the perimeter and especially focus on more play at the net and less one-timers, most of which were blocked or way off net. Working inside would take better advantage of our size against Yale. Then the cameras cut to a brief interview with Coach wherein he states that the problem with the PP is "we need to get off the extra pass and get a little more luck on our one-timers".

I really think Coach needs to rethink his philosophy on PP. During the game I had just observed to my friends that they need to stop passing so much around the perimeter and especially focus on more play at the net and less one-timers, most of which were blocked or way off net. Working inside would take better advantage of our size against Yale. Then the cameras cut to a brief interview with Coach wherein he states that the problem with the PP is "we need to get off the extra pass and get a little more luck on our one-timers".

I agree. There were a couple of moments yesterday when we had already passed the puck a half dozen times, the puck was in low, and the Yale defense sufficiently off-balance. That is the time to crash the net -- not cycle it back out to the point.

I think the "no gas in the tank" comment was spot on. I met a couple of the Princeton parents last night at dinner, and they said the same thing about their kids. That 2 OT game left both teams exhausted. Add that to the injuries (and the resulting lack of depth), and you got what we got.

Let's hope we get a little healthier for next weekend.

ChipJ
I really think Coach needs to rethink his philosophy on PP. During the game I had just observed to my friends that they need to stop passing so much around the perimeter and especially focus on more play at the net and less one-timers, most of which were blocked or way off net.

Agreed. This necessary facet of the game is one that Whitney seems to have already mastered. He seems to know how to get the puck on the net.

Yeah, he made a big (freshman) mistake in the Yale game, but this kid is going to be good. He's not as far along as Pokulok was at this point, but he looks to me to be that quality of defenseman, i.e., huge, bruising, offensively-talented, and yet the puck never seems to leave his stick.

What discouraged me most on the weekend? Well, people know I used to be down a bit on Moulson in the day, and I'm going to be down on Riley Nash. Yes, he was getting hacked in the Yale game, but that didn't translate to fire in the offensive end, just whining and shaking his head. He's not "directionally strong" with the puck. What I mean here is that he's perfectly happy to keep the puck on his stick and, well, go nowhere when he should be driving the net. Yes, not a "power" forward, and, hell, maybe he's a bit banged up, but he has the speed and skill to drive the net from just beyond the circles. He should do so. To my eyes, Greening showed up this weekend but Nash was kind of non-existent except for being in the right place at the right time at the end of Friday's game. (If the Oilers think he's ready for anything but a bunch of AHL seasoning, I'll be surprised. And having said all this, if he stays for next year, he will be a dominant player.)

What encouraged me? Whitney has been mentioned. I think the best non-senior performance (Why did Barlow take so long to click?!) was Brendon Nash, a player who, at times this season, has seemed to be on another planet and not in a good way. He was take charge; he saw an enormous amount of ice time; and it felt, finally, like we had a general out there. If he can get the puck on net rather than just nail those (useless) one-timers, he's going to be a rock next year. Keir Ross continues to be impressive in that slashing, Mark McCrae kind of way. I expect numbers out of him the rest of this year and next. Kreuger, though he didn't play great this weekend, is able protection for a small, slashing kind of guy.

Our defense, the foundation of our team, looks like it will be better next year. I'd love to find a Downs-type to protect Whitney, and I'd love to see a Murray-type (who wouldn't?) to pair with Ross, but you can't have everything. (Mike Devin, to my eyes, is a Cook-type or a Stevie-Wilson-type.)

On offense? Let's not mention the seniors, especially Barlow. They've stepped it up and are giving us a chance, as seniors should. Without those guys, the injuries would have left us dead in the water.

He didn't have a great weekend, but Colin Greening, jeebus, is a bear. First player we've had that could hold a candle to Chartrand's level of fire, determination, and skill. He needs to learn how to play a bit cleaner, just so that we can have him on the ice as much as possible. He will remember this loss and it will gnaw at him until next year's championship game, whether we do well in the NCAAs or not. That's a captain, folks. I expect Chartrand-like domination out of him next year.

I hope Joe Devin and Gallagher continue along the lines they were going before their respective injuries. Hell, I hope Joe Devin is healthy for Grand Rapids. The freshmen? Well, they all look young. Collins finally showed me a couple of things this weekend. Lots of freshmen have looked somewhat unimpressive and then turned out fantastic. (See Paolini, Sam.)

If we can play at full strength in Grand Rapids, we can beat anyone. Not to end on a down note, but without Joe and Mike Devin I think Washington is a bit too far away.

andyw2100

marty

A little? How about the guys who were suited up in sports coats for the weekend? Roeszler, Kary, Devin and Devin.

Kary was at least dressed for warmups last night, though I don't recall whether or not he was out during the game.

I'd guess he was warming up against the possibility that Gallagher found he couldn't make a go of it.

These guys played their hearts out on Friday but ran out of steam against a faster (and undoublty better) opponent on Saturday. Their comeback on Friday was an instant classic (right up there with 2003 OT win vs Harvard) displaying an ability to score late in games we haven't seen this year.
They played without both Devin's and Koezler, Gallagher was nursing a high ankle sprain and could have easily missed the weekend, and Patrick Kennedy took a vicious knee-knee hit in game 1.
FWIW, my bet is Whitney will be an excellent player. He has size, will get stronger and comes from a great hockey lineage.

For those putting down Cornell's performance this weekend, I think we have to give a lot of credit to both Princeton and Yale. Both teams completely clogged the middle and sealed off the passing lanes consistently. I often felt like I was watching some of our performances from earlier in the decade.

I had a feeling that one or two mistakes would be the decider. Unfortunately, we made a few and Yale capitalized almost every time. I thought the game was well-played overall, but we never really had any good lucks on Richards. They got a few and made them count. The game was far closer than the score would indicate.

The game was far closer than the score would indicate.

Agreed.

Cornell had the edge in play in the first; at times, by a lot. They had energy and got the benefit of some calls. Had they scored early, it would have been a different game.

I think Albany reflects the quality of the league this year. Yale was the best team and Cornell the next best; Princeton and SLU are tied, close behind. Too bad the numbers didn't quite work for the Saints.

If Yale can play next weekend the way they played against us in the 2nd and 3rd, they're going to be in DC. While I don't think it's likely Cornell will be there, one great thing about Schafer teams is that a shutout is not a rare event, and you can't lose if your opponent can't score.

Trotsky
Cornell had the edge in play in the first; at times, by a lot. They had energy and got the benefit of some calls. Had they scored early, it would have been a different game.

I think Albany reflects the quality of the league this year. Yale was the best team and Cornell the next best; Princeton and SLU are tied, close behind. Too bad the numbers didn't quite work for the Saints.

If Yale can play next weekend the way they played against us in the 2nd and 3rd, they're going to be in DC. While I don't think it's likely Cornell will be there, one great thing about Schafer teams is that a shutout is not a rare event, and you can't lose if your opponent can't score.

Agree on all counts. OTOH, to win you've got to score yourself, and that's *not* a great thing about Schafer teams. Excellent goaltending and an airtight D therefore become all-important. Let's hope we have both next weekend.

One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

Jim Hyla
One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.

KeithK

Jim Hyla
One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.

But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.

But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.

It's always about the cervical spine with you doctors, isn't it?

KeithK

Jim Hyla
One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.

I thought two was the right call, but on the boarding spectrum it fell somewhere between two and five rather than somewhere between two and no call. I was slightly relieved that Riley didn't get a "seriously, the game is over, cut that shit out NOW" major.

Josh '99
I was slightly relieved that Riley didn't get a "seriously, the game is over, cut that shit out NOW" major.

If it had happened against us, we would be screaming for the guy's cervical spine. We had a perfect view of the hit from our section, and it was terrible. I'm sure it wasn't malicious, but da rules is da rules, and he should have gotten a 5 and an early start on the puck bunnies.

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.

But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.

I don't like injuries either. But there's always going to be a risk of injury in hockey. I don't think a hit that isn't intended to injure deserves 5 and 10. Especially since it seems like more and more players are turning their backs to checkers in order to draw the hitting from behind penalty. If what I think I'm seeing is true then you may actually be increasing the risk of injury by emphasizing the rule.

Apparently the referees agree with me that the rule is overkill because they very often call a boarding minor in situations that clearly qualify as hitting from behind.

ugarte

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.

But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.

It's always about the cervical spine with you doctors, isn't it?

Not Funny. Jim is making a very important point. The rule was tightened up because of what happened at BC a number of years ago. Have you ever met with a kid with a cervical spine injury?

Hockey is only a game.

KeithK

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.

But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.

I don't like injuries either. But there's always going to be a risk of injury in hockey. I don't think a hit that isn't intended to injure deserves 5 and 10. Especially since it seems like more and more players are turning their backs to checkers in order to draw the hitting from behind penalty. If what I think I'm seeing is true then you may actually be increasing the risk of injury by emphasizing the rule.

Apparently the referees agree with me that the rule is overkill because they very often call a boarding minor in situations that clearly qualify as hitting from behind.

I don't think intent should enter. How do you judge intent to injure in a check. The point is that sometimes you just have to not do something because the risk is not worth the reward. Clipping is an obvious example. It's just not worth the kind of injury to block that way. And no, I'm not referring to the "don't hit the quarterback" penalties, rather the "we're not going to put this guy out for the season, or for life" type.

Likely the reason why they were not called is more in line with what Coach Schafer complained about, rather than them agreeing with you.

It's hard to protect the players when they won't protect themselves. As Keith alluded to, players are intentionally turning their backs when they see a hit coming, hoping to draw the penalty, putting themselves in danger. If you start handing out 5s like candy, it's just going to further encourage it. And it seems to just be a problem in college. By the time players get to the pros, they either have the sense to protect themselves better, or maybe the players prone to doing it in college just never get there. Either way, you see boarding-type hits way more in the college game than you do in the NHL.

lynah80

ugarte

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.

But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.

It's always about the cervical spine with you doctors, isn't it?

Not Funny. Jim is making a very important point. The rule was tightened up because of what happened at BC a number of years ago. Have you ever met with a kid with a cervical spine injury?

Hockey is only a game.

Not Serious. ugarte is making a very funny point. People use humor to lighten the mood and bring happiness to the world. Have you ever met a kid after he saw a clown show?

elynah is only playful banter.




Seriously though, I don't think anybody disagrees with you that it's a serious issue, and please forgive my snarky response. Having a little fun of my own.

CowbellGuy
It's hard to protect the players when they won't protect themselves. As Keith alluded to, players are intentionally turning their backs when they see a hit coming, hoping to draw the penalty, putting themselves in danger. If you start handing out 5s like candy, it's just going to further encourage it. And it seems to just be a problem in college. By the time players get to the pros, they either have the sense to protect themselves better, or maybe the players prone to doing it in college just never get there. Either way, you see boarding-type hits way more in the college game than you do in the NHL.

Pro players have always been much more aware of injury to others. That's why many were not in favor of helmets and then masks; the idea that players would be more able and willing to use their sticks up. It's also why you throw off your helmet if you're fighting. If you both have yours off, hopefully you both feel the vulnerability and won't do something stupid. There are always a few goons, but most respect the others right to earn a living.

Now if they are too many players turning to get hit from behind, then deal with that, don't not protect others. Riley's check was certainly not one of those.

BCrespi

lynah80

ugarte

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.

But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.

It's always about the cervical spine with you doctors, isn't it?

Not Funny. Jim is making a very important point. The rule was tightened up because of what happened at BC a number of years ago. Have you ever met with a kid with a cervical spine injury?

Hockey is only a game.

Not Serious. ugarte is making a very funny point. People use humor to lighten the mood and bring happiness to the world.

That's expressly why there are emoticons. You can't always tell context from writing like you can face to face. Now I was not offended, as I considered the source, but others might not be so sure. Just my statement "considered the source" can be interpreted with humor or sarcasm, a smiley helps.

elynah is only playful banter.

Not always.

Seriously though, I don't think anybody disagrees with you that it's a serious issue, and please forgive my snarky response. Having a little fun of my own.

Jim Hyla

KeithK
Apparently the referees agree with me that the rule is overkill because they very often call a boarding minor in situations that clearly qualify as hitting from behind.

Likely the reason why they were not called is more in line with what Coach Schafer complained about, rather than them agreeing with you.

I don't see a functional difference between "Let 'em play" (don't want to disrupt/affect the game by handing out majors) and thinking that an automatic 5 is too much. It's not like I think the officials listened to my opinion on this board and said "You know, KeithK is right! Let's do it his way!"

As a parent of a youth hockey player who was sent to a regional trauma center as a result of a hit from behind, I'm all for calling the hit from behind as it is written in the rule book. My son and our family are well aware of the risk of injury while playing the sport of hockey, but that does not make it any less scary when one of your own is lying on the ice with no feeling in his/her extremities. Luckily my son had no permanent injury and he continues to play hockey. My son and our family gained a new perspective and appreciation for avoiding that type of play, whether he is taking or delivering a hit.

Jim Hyla

BCrespi

lynah80

ugarte

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.

But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.

It's always about the cervical spine with you doctors, isn't it?

Not Funny. Jim is making a very important point. The rule was tightened up because of what happened at BC a number of years ago. Have you ever met with a kid with a cervical spine injury?

Hockey is only a game.

Not Serious. ugarte is making a very funny point. People use humor to lighten the mood and bring happiness to the world.

That's expressly why there are emoticons. You can't always tell context from writing like you can face to face. Now I was not offended, as I considered the source, but others might not be so sure. Just my statement "considered the source" can be interpreted with humor or sarcasm, a smiley helps.

elynah is only playful banter.

Not always.

Seriously though, I don't think anybody disagrees with you that it's a serious issue, and please forgive my snarky response. Having a little fun of my own.

Alright, sorry, I over reacted. I "live" in a hospital.

Ugarte is a funny guy and I appreciate his posts.

I personally like the way USA Hockey handles the hitting from behind rule.

If you hit someone from behind, 2 minute minor and a 10 minute misconduct.

if you hit someone from behind and they go head first into the boards, 5 minute major and a game misconduct.

the beauty of the 10 minute misconduct is that it doesn't hurt the offending team any more than the minor, and losing that player for 10 minutes.

I had a coach when I played that sat you for a period if he thought you were turning away from checks to draw penalties, and I have also called penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct on players who blatantly turn away from checks trying to draw a penalty (usually it ends up as just a 10 minute misconduct on the offending player without a minor).