Cornell Women - Olympic Hockey

Rebecca Johnston has a goal and 2 assists as Canada leads Switzerland 5-0 after 2 periods. Rogeau, Fortino and Jenner also in the lineup for Canada. Lots of mentions of Cornell by the announcers, Kenny Albert, A.J. Mleckzo and Pierre McGuire.

After 2 periods Scoreless game between Canada and Finland. There was a major scrum with fighting around the crease, and it appeared to me that the Canadian player #24 got largely mugged by three or four Finns but somehow the result was a power play for Finland. Shot total after 2 periods something like 28-10 Canada.

Rebecca Johnston was part of a 3 on 1 breakaway, got the pass 1 on 1 with the goalie, lots of net available - and missed everything.

She later scored a pretty tip-in on Canada's 3rd goal. Canada has not yet been scored upon in the Olympics and plays the US Wednesday morning.

Johnston gets Canada's third in a 3-0 win.

Canada vs. USA women Wednesday 2/12 7:30 a.m. EST gametime. (NBC lists it as 7 a.m., probably pregame.)

Spoiler Warning--

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.

Not gonna post a score, but it looks like none of the Cornell women had any points for Canada.

Jeff Hopkins '82
Not gonna post a score, but it looks like none of the Cornell women had any points for Canada.

Rebecca Johnston was a constant breakaway presence around Net USA.

billhoward

Jeff Hopkins '82
Not gonna post a score, but it looks like none of the Cornell women had any points for Canada.

Rebecca Johnston was a constant breakaway presence around Net USA.

Yes, RJ is much more of an offensive force than she was in Vancouver

scoop85

billhoward

Jeff Hopkins '82
Not gonna post a score, but it looks like none of the Cornell women had any points for Canada.

Rebecca Johnston was a constant breakaway presence around Net USA.

Yes, RJ is much more of an offensive force than she was in Vancouver

I think she was interviewed at the end of the game, on CBC. However I just fleetingly saw it, at work. I don't see the interview on their replay, and don't have time to try and find it on the CDC website. Their replay is nice, on the timeline they highlight each penalty and goal and even when the US went on extra attacker.

In a close game where the winner had a disputed goal, is the advantage to the winner (get last line change?) or to the team with something to prove?

The NBC commentator (Natalie Darwitz?) has amazing vision, seeing every uncalled foul by Team Canada.

Somebody get Doc Emrick a phone book to sit on. He's about six inches shorter than (?) Darwitz and every time he turns to talk, he's staring straight at her chest.

billhoward
In a close game where the winner had a disputed goal, is the advantage to the winner (get last line change?) or to the team with something to prove?

The NBC commentator (Natalie Darwitz?) has amazing vision, seeing every uncalled foul by Team Canada.

Somebody get Doc Emrick a phone book to sit on. He's about six inches shorter than (?) Darwitz and every time he turns to talk, he's staring straight at her chest.

5'3" Natalie Darwitz is in the studio with Liam McHugh and Jeremy Roenick; it's 5'11" AJ Mleczko (obligatory: Harvard sucks) towering over Mike Emrick.

SPOILER DISCUSSION CONTINUES. ACTUALLY, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU FEAR SPOILERS.

andyw2100

What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.

I can't get mad at a bad call undoing a terrible whistle.

ugarte
SPOILER DISCUSSION CONTINUES. ACTUALLY, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU FEAR SPOILERS.

andyw2100

What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.

I can't get mad at a bad call undoing a terrible whistle.

I don't disagree with that. I'm not saying Canada didn't "deserve" that goal.

But once the ref blew the whistle, there was nothing to review.

andyw2100

ugarte
SPOILER DISCUSSION CONTINUES. ACTUALLY, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU FEAR SPOILERS.

andyw2100

What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.

I can't get mad at a bad call undoing a terrible whistle.

I don't disagree with that. I'm not saying Canada didn't "deserve" that goal.

But once the ref blew the whistle, there was nothing to review.

If I'm not mistaken, I've heard an official use the explanation "the whistle was blown inadvertently" to allow the result of continuing play after a whistle to count. I don't really believe that that's the case here (I think it was just a quick whistle because the ref incorrectly believed Vetter to have the puck covered) but I think it could be used as a plausible justification if they were so inclined.

andyw2100

ugarte
SPOILER DISCUSSION CONTINUES. ACTUALLY, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU FEAR SPOILERS.

andyw2100

What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.

I can't get mad at a bad call undoing a terrible whistle.

I don't disagree with that. I'm not saying Canada didn't "deserve" that goal.

But once the ref blew the whistle, there was nothing to review.

Seriously. From experience, when the whistle is blown, I stop playing immediately. I stand up and relax. Respecting the whistle as the final arbiter of "is the play dead?" is necessary to maintaining control of the game, IMO: otherwise, you encourage players to continue playing after the whistle in case the whistle is retconned away through review.

Kyle Rose

andyw2100

ugarte
SPOILER DISCUSSION CONTINUES. ACTUALLY, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU FEAR SPOILERS.

andyw2100

What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.

I can't get mad at a bad call undoing a terrible whistle.

I don't disagree with that. I'm not saying Canada didn't "deserve" that goal.

But once the ref blew the whistle, there was nothing to review.

Seriously. From experience, when the whistle is blown, I stop playing immediately. I stand up and relax. Respecting the whistle as the final arbiter of "is the play dead?" is necessary to maintaining control of the game, IMO: otherwise, you encourage players to continue playing after the whistle in case the whistle is retconned away through review.

Don't jump, but I agree with you.

This looked like a defender's against goal, tapping the puck back to the goalie, except it slid under/behind the goalie, and the puck was 2-3-4-5-6" on the no-goal side of the goal, with momentum that carried it in, when the whistle blew. That's what I saw. No one was close enough to stop or tap in the puck from either side in the fraction of a second before it went in. Here two wrongs made a right.

billhoward
This looked like a defender's against goal, tapping the puck back to the goalie, except it slid under/behind the goalie, and the puck was 2-3-4-5-6" on the no-goal side of the goal, with momentum that carried it in, when the whistle blew. That's what I saw. No one was close enough to stop or tap in the puck from either side in the fraction of a second before it went in. Here two wrongs made a right.

But is it reviewable? If not, then making up new rules as you go is very questionable. Put that with the 2 missed too many men on Canada, and that they could have/should have called another penalty against Canada on the last US PP, and the officiating is /was suspect. Hopefully it makes the US mad enough to win it all.

Jim Hyla

billhoward
This looked like a defender's against goal, tapping the puck back to the goalie, except it slid under/behind the goalie, and the puck was 2-3-4-5-6" on the no-goal side of the goal, with momentum that carried it in, when the whistle blew. That's what I saw. No one was close enough to stop or tap in the puck from either side in the fraction of a second before it went in. Here two wrongs made a right.

But is it reviewable? If not, then making up new rules as you go is very questionable. Put that with the 2 missed too many men on Canada, and that they could have/should have called another penalty against Canada on the last US PP, and the officiating is /was suspect. Hopefully it makes the US mad enough to win it all.

Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

scoop85
Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

Trotsky

scoop85
Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

+1 Most Definitely!

Larry72

Trotsky

scoop85
Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

+1 Most Definitely!

My loyalties are divided.

cbuckser

Larry72

Trotsky

scoop85
Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

+1 Most Definitely!

My loyalties are divided.

I won't be too sad if Canada wins but I'm American so...Go USA!!

1. On the question of whether a play on which the referee blows the whistle because he/she loses sight of the puck should be reviewable: of course it should. "I know I lost sight of the puck, but I'm not certain whether the puck crossed the goal line before or after I lost sight of it." [I would really like to see the sport of hockey change the standard for blowing the whistle from "an official losing sight of the puck" to "an official being certain the puck has been covered/withheld from play". Especially with video review capability becoming standard. A late whistle that should have been blown earlier can easily be remedied ("no goal, the puck had been covered, reset the clock to <whatever>" ). A premature whistle that should not have been blown and that denies a team a legitimately-scored goal cannot be remedied.]

2. On the alleged "too many men" situations: a player may be legitimately substituted for when he/she is within five feet of the bench. The player coming on the ice may participate in the play immediately; as long as the player being substituted for goes directly to the bench and does not participate in play, both players can be on the ice at the same time without penalty. Note that the benches at the Olympics extend halfway into the defensive zone, unlike most rinks where the bench ends at the blue line, or at most a few feet inside the zone. So the so-called "too many men" infractions aren't as obvious as they seem to be.

3. I've already had enough of overrated blowhards like Bode Miller and Shaun White, who are promoted as the greatest athletes in world in their sport until they actually have to perform. I want the Cornell players to do well. I want the US women to do well. Let's play the games, and see what happens.

First of all, ACM - agreed on the rule stuff. BUT!

ACM
3. I've already had enough of overrated blowhards like Bode Miller and Shaun White, who are promoted as the greatest athletes in world in their sport until they actually have to perform.

Bode Miller has competed in 5 Olympics and has 5 Olympic medals, including 1 gold. He has 2 overall World cup titles, 6 season titles in various disciplines and 5 medals in world championships including 4 gold.

Shaun White has two Olympic gold medals and 15 X Games gold medals among other medals and is widely regarded as the best snowboarder of all time.

You can dislike them all you want but it is some kind of bullshit to say that they haven't performed in competition or have been overrated. They weren't even particularly braggy coming into this Olympic games. Any expectations that they would win were built on the foundation of actually performing better than their peers in the past generally, and on the Sochi courses in particular prior to their events. They didn't win this year, but they are competing against the best in the world. Shit happens.

scoop85

Jim Hyla

billhoward
This looked like a defender's against goal, tapping the puck back to the goalie, except it slid under/behind the goalie, and the puck was 2-3-4-5-6" on the no-goal side of the goal, with momentum that carried it in, when the whistle blew. That's what I saw. No one was close enough to stop or tap in the puck from either side in the fraction of a second before it went in. Here two wrongs made a right.

But is it reviewable? If not, then making up new rules as you go is very questionable. Put that with the 2 missed too many men on Canada, and that they could have/should have called another penalty against Canada on the last US PP, and the officiating is /was suspect. Hopefully it makes the US mad enough to win it all.

Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Even without Cornell connections, I know of more than a few people in the Greater Hartford area who are cheering on Canada simply for Whaler legend Kevin Dineen. Although honestly, I'm not sure how big a factor he is, given both how late in the process he was brought in and how long some of these players have played together.

Trotsky

scoop85
Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

I'm interested in good hockey. Screw jingoism. The presence of Cornelians on the Canadian team makes it somewhat of a sentimental favorite for me.

ACM
1. On the question of whether a play on which the referee blows the whistle because he/she loses sight of the puck should be reviewable: of course it should. "I know I lost sight of the puck, but I'm not certain whether the puck crossed the goal line before or after I lost sight of it." [I would really like to see the sport of hockey change the standard for blowing the whistle from "an official losing sight of the puck" to "an official being certain the puck has been covered/withheld from play". Especially with video review capability becoming standard. A late whistle that should have been blown earlier can easily be remedied ("no goal, the puck had been covered, reset the clock to <whatever>" ). A premature whistle that should not have been blown and that denies a team a legitimately-scored goal cannot be remedied.]

2. On the alleged "too many men" situations: a player may be legitimately substituted for when he/she is within five feet of the bench. The player coming on the ice may participate in the play immediately; as long as the player being substituted for goes directly to the bench and does not participate in play, both players can be on the ice at the same time without penalty. Note that the benches at the Olympics extend halfway into the defensive zone, unlike most rinks where the bench ends at the blue line, or at most a few feet inside the zone. So the so-called "too many men" infractions aren't as obvious as they seem to be.

3. I've already had enough of overrated blowhards like Bode Miller and Shaun White, who are promoted as the greatest athletes in world in their sport until they actually have to perform. I want the Cornell players to do well. I want the US women to do well. Let's play the games, and see what happens.

My question was not whether it should be reviewable, but whether under current rules it is reviewable. I don't know the Olympic rules, but if blowing the whistle is not reviewable, then I don't know what happened. If it is reviewable, then they made the right call.

I'd have to go back and rewatch the game about the too many men questions, but certainly the announcers were concerned.

I completely agree with ugarte in regards to the athletes.

Is this even a question? We have four players on Team Canada, and Sucks has 4 players and the coach on Team USA.

And if I wasn't supposed to cheer for Canada, why did Lynah teach me their anthem?

Swampy

Trotsky

scoop85
Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

I'm interested in good hockey. Screw jingoism.

+1. I want to see the best athletes compete at the highest level. Which is, of course, why I am not watching NBC's lousy coverage.

Swampy

Trotsky

scoop85
Curious how many folks are rooting for Canada to win gold, given the Cornell connection. I certainly am.

Of course.

I'm interested in good hockey. Screw jingoism. The presence of Cornelians on the Canadian team makes it somewhat of a sentimental favorite for me.

There is good jingoism and there is bad jingoism. Good jingoism is "wouldn't it be nice if an American won this race" bad jingoism is "love it or leave it."

I'll be rooting for the American squad, who is not as good as the Canadian team, but I will still be proud of the Canadian Cornellians when they are flashing their gold medals and smoking cigars on the ice.

Swampy
I'm interested in good hockey. Screw jingoism.

Exactly.

Why is it OK to root for Canada because there are Cornellians on the team, but it seems wrong to root for the country you live in? Because Nash is on Carolina, should I root for them, or do I get to pick my favorite team and root against him?

And I could care less that the US team has Harvard players and is coached by their coach. I'll root against Harvard, but when the game is over I'm happy to see them succeed for a team that I like. At some point you need to let it go.

Kyle Rose
Which is, of course, why I am not watching NBC's lousy coverage.

NBC is horrible, but I'm stuck with it, so I've adopted a survival strategy that's working pretty well.

1. TiVo everything, watch nothing live.
2. Fast forward through all commercials (obviously).
3. Fast forward through all HQ / fireside segments.
4. Fast forward through all back stories.
5. Fast forward through all "made for US TV ratings" events.
6. Fast forward through all the pre- and post-event twaddle.

This yields about 8 minutes of interest out of every hour, but since there are about 20 hours of coverage a day that's more than enough.

NBC should be congratulated for a couple things. The TV angles and fx on the downhill are insane. And their announcers have finally learned to shut the fuck up during the figure skating routines. They still do the USA derp, but since we suck this time that makes almost no impact on the good skaters.

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
Which is, of course, why I am not watching NBC's lousy coverage.

NBC is horrible, but I'm stuck with it, so I've adopted a survival strategy that's working pretty well.

1. TiVo everything, watch nothing live.
2. Fast forward through all commercials (obviously).
3. Fast forward through all HQ / fireside segments.
4. Fast forward through all back stories.
5. Fast forward through all "made for US TV ratings" events.
6. Fast forward through all the pre- and post-event twaddle.

This yields about 8 minutes of interest out of every hour, but since there are about 20 hours of coverage a day that's more than enough.

NBC should be congratulated for a couple things. The TV angles and fx on the downhill are insane. And their announcers have finally learned to shut the fuck up during the figure skating routines. They still do the USA derp, but since we suck this time that makes almost no impact on the good skaters.

Actually the hockey coverage wasn't horrible this morning. Emrick went as far as saying "there's no time for that now" when it came to explaining something irrelevant to the run of play.

I miss the medal ceremonies, tho. I always thought those were neat, and I haven't seen one (in this country) in years.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
Which is, of course, why I am not watching NBC's lousy coverage.

NBC is horrible, but I'm stuck with it, so I've adopted a survival strategy that's working pretty well.

1. TiVo everything, watch nothing live.
2. Fast forward through all commercials (obviously).
3. Fast forward through all HQ / fireside segments.
4. Fast forward through all back stories.
5. Fast forward through all "made for US TV ratings" events.
6. Fast forward through all the pre- and post-event twaddle.

This yields about 8 minutes of interest out of every hour, but since there are about 20 hours of coverage a day that's more than enough.

NBC should be congratulated for a couple things. The TV angles and fx on the downhill are insane. And their announcers have finally learned to shut the fuck up during the figure skating routines. They still do the USA derp, but since we suck this time that makes almost no impact on the good skaters.

Actually the hockey coverage wasn't horrible this morning. Emrick went as far as saying "there's no time for that now" when it came to explaining something irrelevant to the run of play.

I miss the medal ceremonies, tho. I always thought those were neat, and I haven't seen one (in this country) in years.

I agree. I was watching some online this AM at work. The streaming was good, and although I couldn't watch it continuously, I thought the announcing was fine. They should be congratulated for their online streaming as well. It's fairly complete and easily accessible. When I got home at midmorning, I could pick up on TV right where I left off. I certainly had more than 8 minutes/hour today.

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
Which is, of course, why I am not watching NBC's lousy coverage.

NBC is horrible, but I'm stuck with it, so I've adopted a survival strategy that's working pretty well.

1. TiVo everything, watch nothing live.
2. Fast forward through all commercials (obviously).
3. Fast forward through all HQ / fireside segments.
4. Fast forward through all back stories.
5. Fast forward through all "made for US TV ratings" events.
6. Fast forward through all the pre- and post-event twaddle.

This yields about 8 minutes of interest out of every hour, but since there are about 20 hours of coverage a day that's more than enough.

NBC should be congratulated for a couple things. The TV angles and fx on the downhill are insane. And their announcers have finally learned to shut the fuck up during the figure skating routines. They still do the USA derp, but since we suck this time that makes almost no impact on the good skaters.

You could save yourself even more time by not watching figure skating.

Josh '99
You could save yourself even more time by not watching figure skating.

Figure skating is great as long as you keep in mind the judging is fixed. Just don't worry about the medals and enjoy the performances. It's particularly good now because the Michael Bay jumping bean style is out (another positive consequences of the US sucking).

Josh '99

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
Which is, of course, why I am not watching NBC's lousy coverage.

NBC is horrible, but I'm stuck with it, so I've adopted a survival strategy that's working pretty well.

1. TiVo everything, watch nothing live.
2. Fast forward through all commercials (obviously).
3. Fast forward through all HQ / fireside segments.
4. Fast forward through all back stories.
5. Fast forward through all "made for US TV ratings" events.
6. Fast forward through all the pre- and post-event twaddle.

This yields about 8 minutes of interest out of every hour, but since there are about 20 hours of coverage a day that's more than enough.

NBC should be congratulated for a couple things. The TV angles and fx on the downhill are insane. And their announcers have finally learned to shut the fuck up during the figure skating routines. They still do the USA derp, but since we suck this time that makes almost no impact on the good skaters.

You could save yourself even more time by not watching figure skating.

Good luck. You might as welll skip 2/3 of NBC's coverage, then.

Jeff Hopkins '82

Josh '99

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
Which is, of course, why I am not watching NBC's lousy coverage.

NBC is horrible, but I'm stuck with it, so I've adopted a survival strategy that's working pretty well.

1. TiVo everything, watch nothing live.
2. Fast forward through all commercials (obviously).
3. Fast forward through all HQ / fireside segments.
4. Fast forward through all back stories.
5. Fast forward through all "made for US TV ratings" events.
6. Fast forward through all the pre- and post-event twaddle.

This yields about 8 minutes of interest out of every hour, but since there are about 20 hours of coverage a day that's more than enough.

NBC should be congratulated for a couple things. The TV angles and fx on the downhill are insane. And their announcers have finally learned to shut the fuck up during the figure skating routines. They still do the USA derp, but since we suck this time that makes almost no impact on the good skaters.

You could save yourself even more time by not watching figure skating.

Good luck. You might as welll skip 2/3 of NBC's coverage, then.

I worked from home today and watched a whole bunch of hockey and curling. No problems there!

Jeff Hopkins '82

Josh '99

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
Which is, of course, why I am not watching NBC's lousy coverage.

NBC is horrible, but I'm stuck with it, so I've adopted a survival strategy that's working pretty well.

1. TiVo everything, watch nothing live.
2. Fast forward through all commercials (obviously).
3. Fast forward through all HQ / fireside segments.
4. Fast forward through all back stories.
5. Fast forward through all "made for US TV ratings" events.
6. Fast forward through all the pre- and post-event twaddle.

This yields about 8 minutes of interest out of every hour, but since there are about 20 hours of coverage a day that's more than enough.

NBC should be congratulated for a couple things. The TV angles and fx on the downhill are insane. And their announcers have finally learned to shut the fuck up during the figure skating routines. They still do the USA derp, but since we suck this time that makes almost no impact on the good skaters.

You could save yourself even more time by not watching figure skating.

Good luck. You might as welll skip 2/3 of NBC's coverage, then.

Hey, figure skating is Vlad Tepes Putin's favorite event!

JINGOISM JINGOISM JINGOISM

ugarte
JINGOISM JINGOISM JINGOISM

You took the time to post THIS?

Seriously. It's a minor irritation to everyone except you.

I'm more worked up over our hockey team's inability to finish.

NBC announcers in many sports are blatant homers. I wanted to across the ocean and slap whoever was in the booth rooting on Team USA in skeleton. Plus she was another blabbermouth, believes more words are better words, was somehow upset at the sneaky, as that the words, Russian slider based on her start position. Her husband, boyfriend, partner misses her but he's getting two quiet weeks at home.

TimV

ugarte
JINGOISM JINGOISM JINGOISM

You took the time to post THIS?

Seriously. It's a minor irritation to everyone except you.

No, it's a major irritation. NBC thinks it has to market it that way because the average viewer is a xenophobic moron, but it sucks and it's one reason why more often than not I find myself rooting against the US.

The jingoism is the worst part of the Olympic coverage. I wish our local Spanish affiliate was broadcasting the games since then we'd have the ambient sounds without the idiocy of the commentary.

Trotsky
The jingoism is the worst part of the Olympic coverage. I wish our local Spanish affiliate was broadcasting the games since then we'd have the ambient sounds without the idiocy of the commentary.

+1

Maybe we're quibbling about definitions here- according to dictionary.com

jin·go [jing-goh]
noun, plural jin·goes.

1. a person who professes his or her patriotism loudly and excessively, favoring vigilant preparedness for war and an aggressive foreign policy; bellicose chauvinist.

It's NOT just excessive rooting and promotion of your favorite team - of which I am guilty on a regular basis. And I'm prepared to do it again in about 20 minutes.

Everybody does it at these events, Olympics, World Cup, etc etc. The pregame scenes this morning showed an awful lot of red, white and blue. Most of it was on Russians. I was happy to see it. The energy in the rink was fabulous.

billhoward
NBC announcers in many sports are blatant homers. I wanted to across the ocean and slap whoever was in the booth rooting on Team USA in skeleton. Plus she was another blabbermouth, believes more words are better words, was somehow upset at the sneaky, as that the words, Russian slider based on her start position. Her husband, boyfriend, partner misses her but he's getting two quiet weeks at home.

Well, there's thirty seconds I'm never getting back.

TimV

ugarte
JINGOISM JINGOISM JINGOISM

You took the time to post THIS?

Seriously. It's a minor irritation to everyone except you.

I'm more worked up over our hockey team's inability to finish.

It did take a lot of time, since I actually use a linotype machine to enter my posts and have it rigged to transmit via the internet. It was quite a bitch to edit this, let me tell you.

You really have to know the posters here better. I am PRO-sports-jingoism. I posted this strictly to annoy Trotsky. And if you think an American sports network is going to have more than the slimmest pretense of objectivity towards American athletes you are completely, incurably, helplessly insane.

billhoward
she was another blabbermouth, believes more words are better words

Irony … 3. … b : incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play

Ohhhhhhhhhh... why didn't you say so? How can I help?

ugarte
I posted this strictly to annoy Trotsky.

He likes me! He likes me!!!

Hoping #s 5, 6, 8, and 19 all have a great game. But pulling for Team USA.

It's GAMEDAY!!!! #GoCanadaGo pic.twitter.com/rwP5NO744G

— Rebecca Johnston (@RJohnst16) February 20, 2014

May the better country win.

Charlie Chaplinesque flicker of the online broadcast makes me pine for the Redcast of old.

I'm thinking the Russians will claim they invented Redcast after today. (I'm showing my age.)

Trotsky
May the better country win.

Adorably ambiguous.

JENNER!

Well now. That was an interesting 5 minutes.

Those are the best women's refs in the world? Wow!

Jim Hyla
Those are the best women's refs in the world? Wow!

Well, you know how it is. If you make a call in OT, you have to make a call the other way too on something you've let go all game. It's in the rulebook.

Three different Cornellians in on the three goals. Not bad. Not bad at all...

Put four more gold medals in the Cornell trophy case.

Dafatone

Jim Hyla
Those are the best women's refs in the world? Wow!

Well, you know how it is. If you make a call in OT, you have to make a call the other way too on something you've let go all game. It's in the rulebook.

Kinda made up for it with not calling an obvious penalty shot, though.

Just one more reason why 4x4 is bad overtime.

Trotsky

Dafatone

Jim Hyla
Those are the best women's refs in the world? Wow!

Well, you know how it is. If you make a call in OT, you have to make a call the other way too on something you've let go all game. It's in the rulebook.

Kinda made up for it with not calling an obvious penalty shot, though.

Just one more reason why 4x4 is bad overtime.

In that position, if I'm the US, I might just take a penalty shot. A 5x3 and then 4x3 is really tough to defend. Out of curiosity, what happens when America's first penalty would have released. Does it go from a 5x3 to a 5x4? Or a 4x3? Kinda had to force people off the ice. My guess is 5x4 until a stoppage, and then a 4x3.

Had America scored on that empty net post shot, the story would be the linesman screwing Canada. Bad job all around.

Trotsky

Dafatone

Jim Hyla
Those are the best women's refs in the world? Wow!

Well, you know how it is. If you make a call in OT, you have to make a call the other way too on something you've let go all game. It's in the rulebook.

Kinda made up for it with not calling an obvious penalty shot, though.

Just one more reason why 4x4 is bad overtime.

Except if the make-up call hadn't been called, the breakaway probably would not have happened. Terrible to end it that way.

Dafatone
Out of curiosity, what happens when America's first penalty would have released. Does it go from a 5x3 to a 5x4? Or a 4x3? Kinda had to force people off the ice. My guess is 5x4 until a stoppage, and then a 4x3.

I assumed the first US player could not leave the box until a stoppage. The on-ice numbers would remain 4x3 (after the return of the Canadian player) until the second penalty expired. i.e., the same as a penalty incurred by the down side during an Nx3 during a normal game.

This was probably the most intensely competed women's hockey game I've seen. I think the ref did a reasonable job managing the game and keeping her penalty calling to a minimum. I think she used great discretion to not award Wickenheiser a penalty shot because she did not appear to have full control of the puck at the time of the hit. Great game, really, and the luck of both sides evened out in the end, mostly. Kevin Dineen did a good job managing the time and player combinations and not settling for their inadequate attack--notably putting Jenner on Johnston and Poulin's line... in the 3rd period and OT, a lot of those women were really gassed, but Jenner impressed me with her freshness. The winning play was set up by Laura Fortino, at the top of the slot, receiving the puck from Johnston and faking a pass back to Johnston, but quickly moving the puck left to Poulin, who released the puck after quickly settling it onto her tape. Jessie Vetter was caught out of position when she didn't slide across immediately on the Fortino pass. Poulin has some of the best hands in the women's game, and it helped win gold for Canada yet again. I'd be remiss to not mention the steady play of Shannon Szabados in net for Canada, and a truly game-saving stop on a rifled PP shot in OT.

What an unbelievable game.

Very big ditto !! One of best games I've seen in many a year.

As if anyone cares about HOCKEY.

USCHO report on the women's playoffs had this nice quote on Olympics officiating:

The rosters in the bottom tier featured far better skaters than we’ve seen in Olympics past, so although teams may have faced a disadvantage in skill, strength, and stamina, at least there were far fewer reasons to feel pity for an athlete. That emotion was reserved for those having to put up with the overmatched officiating.

Read more: [www.uscho.com]