Game 3: Cornell 1, Clarkson 0 (OT)

Poll

Was this a good or bad result?

Only registered users are allowed to vote for this poll.
64 votes were received.

Good	59		92%
Bad	5		8%

---

Thank you Brian Ferlin.

For those headed to Lake Placid, there are 2-3 hotels still with rooms. It's possible some Clarkson RPI etcetera fans will cancel reservations but basically it's tough to get a room in town. There is still a lot of snow on the ground even for Lake Placid.

And there's the shutout.

So here's the goal. There's more than needed at the beginning, just pay attention when Ryan gets the puck at the Blue Line.





Here's the link for a larger screen. Copy and paste youtube.com/watch?v=OmM91GYNBqs&feature=youtu.be

I like the extra "context" - looks like Cornell was really getting some good pressure and cycling going leading up to the goal.

The OT goal was classic Cornell. They kept Clarkson pinned in their own end for a minute and a half. Off the faceofff in the Cornell end, they started with Kubiak, Freschi, J. McCarron, MacDonald, and Gotovets. During the shift they changed to Ferlin, Widiner, Bardraux, Ryan and Lewis. I didn't see Clarkson change anyone and they slowly tired out.

Icy
The OT goal was classic Cornell.

So was momentarily leaving the opponent an open net for long enough to get off a shot. Praise Allah, the infidels from the North aimed wide. Both sides had their share of misses and almosts, and then we connected after grinding them down, as we did in the TV game at UNH that had Barry Melrose agog several years ago. But then the almighty is on the side of the heavier battalion (Voltaire).

Looking this over is a reminder that both teams had so many great opportunities.

That game was a coin flip. I am very happy we are advancing.

Trotsky
Looking this over is a reminder that both teams had so many great opportunities.

That game was a coin flip. I am very happy we are advancing.

Nice that CU got to see the game over the Ivy Network.

Ugh. Great series, great games, and I am really sour about game 3. Two definite Clarkson goals missed/botched by the officiating crew in periods 2 and 3. Oh well. We had plenty of chances to close it out without those and didn't. Really tough way to end our season, but I was very impressed with Perry all weekend standing tall when he needed to. Hopefully it's his big break like 2005-2006 was for Leggio.

billhoward

Icy
The OT goal was classic Cornell.

So was momentarily leaving the opponent an open net for long enough to get off a shot. Praise Allah, the infidels from the North aimed wide.

Praise Cole Bardreau. As Icy noted on a different thread, Cole dove and got his stick in the way of the shot.

daredevilcu
Ugh. Great series, great games, and I am really sour about game 3. Two definite Clarkson goals missed/botched by the officiating crew in periods 2 and 3. Oh well. We had plenty of chances to close it out without those and didn't. Really tough way to end our season, but I was very impressed with Perry all weekend standing tall when he needed to. Hopefully it's his big break like 2005-2006 was for Leggio.

Clarkson played great. That was their 6th game in 10 days (!!!), and until the overtime they never let up the pressure.

Casey's got the program back on track, and that is great news for the ECAC.

Trotsky

daredevilcu
Ugh. Great series, great games, and I am really sour about game 3. Two definite Clarkson goals missed/botched by the officiating crew in periods 2 and 3. Oh well. We had plenty of chances to close it out without those and didn't. Really tough way to end our season, but I was very impressed with Perry all weekend standing tall when he needed to. Hopefully it's his big break like 2005-2006 was for Leggio.

Clarkson played great. That was their 6th game in 10 days (!!!), and until the overtime they never let up the pressure.

Casey's got the program back on track, and that is great news for the ECAC.

(and bad news for Cornell)

BearLover
(and bad news for Cornell)

Not at all. Better opponents (particularly our traditional rivals) --> better conference --> better for us.

daredevilcu
Ugh. Great series, great games, and I am really sour about game 3. Two definite Clarkson goals missed/botched by the officiating crew in periods 2 and 3. Oh well. We had plenty of chances to close it out without those and didn't. Really tough way to end our season, but I was very impressed with Perry all weekend standing tall when he needed to. Hopefully it's his big break like 2005-2006 was for Leggio.

Yeah, I understand the sour taste, daredevilcu. I know we Cornell fans would have had the same reaction, because we did in past "the whistle blew" or "intent to whistle" rulings that have burned us. Here are the two photos that would have most fans shaking heads if it happened to them.

First a pic of the scrum that led to the lengthy video review. Not sure if the ruling after review was that the refs didn't see it cross the line or the whistle had blown:

We was wobbed! Puck was over the line for @CUknights. Still 0-0 after 2 periods pic.twitter.com/QkuUVmQCh7

— michael tansey (@tancommedia) March 17, 2014

Second, the save that got carried into the net. Whistle had blown.

@tancommedia photo of play where Iles went in net with puck on DiNallo shot. Whistle blew before #ECACHockey pic.twitter.com/cej7fT8VBO

— Cap Carey (@CapCareyWDT) March 17, 2014

Proof to Cornell fans that we're not always the victims of quick whistles.

Perry was great positionally all weekend.

The pic shows it very clearly as a goal, but in review I believe the referees only have access to the overhead camera. An overhead shot or a view from anywhere but right on the glass in Section O would not have been able to see the puck through all the bodies. I'm not mad that it wasn't overturned on review, I'm just annoyed they didn't get it right to begin with in both cases.

Trotsky

BearLover
(and bad news for Cornell)

Not at all. Better opponents (particularly our traditional rivals) --> better conference --> better for us.

Here we go again...

Can we at least wait until Q and U are playing in April to have this discussion?

edit: never mind, answered downthread.

To think I could have gone through the whole day without seeing those pictures and getting pissed off all over again.

perhaps they also ruled he was pushed into the net which is what he implies in the interviews.. no way the puck is seen in the overhead videos..

in the first picture, is it really the puck? looks a bit funny more like tape.

The Cornell write-up of the game says that the play in which Iles wound up across the goal line on the break-away was ruled not to be a goal because he was pushed in by the Clarkson player. Here's the quote from the article:

"The Golden Knights had another close call with 12:30 to play in the third period when a funny bounce off the glass sent DiNallo away on a breakaway. He attempted to beat Iles with a shot between the legs, but the Big Red's goalie smothered the puck. There was some controversy as he slid backward toward the goal line with the puck still underneath his pads, but the referee closest to the play ruled he was pushed into the net by Christian Powers' poke at the pads."

Watching as it happened, my thoughts were that the only reason there wasn't a 1 on the scoreboard for Clarkson was that the ref must have ruled that either he had blown the whistle or had intended to before the puck crossed the line. I didn't think the Clarkson player had any impact on moving Iles across the goal line. I haven't seen video, but seeing the picture above reinforces my belief that that must have been the ruling, as the Clarkson player is just getting to Iles who is already well into the goal. I think there's a pretty good chance the writer is not correct with respect to why that was not a Clarkson goal. If I am mistaken, then I think we really dodged a bullet, and got the benefit of a blown call. Does anyone have video of this play?

Edit: The Twitter caption above is consistent with my assessment.

upprdeck
in the first picture, is it really the puck? looks a bit funny more like tape.

It's definitely the puck. Even after everyone stood up and moved away from the net, it was still sitting in that exact spot.

Chris '03

Trotsky

BearLover
(and bad news for Cornell)

Not at all. Better opponents (particularly our traditional rivals) --> better conference --> better for us.

Here we go again...

Can we at least wait until Q and U are playing in April to have this discussion?

He won't be as pissed this year - the Elis at done.

My impression of the non-goal was that it was a quick whistle, hence the final position of the puck is irrelevant. Both teams missed so many great chances it really collapses down to one of those "we'll never know who really won," like the 2000 election. All we have is the ruling; 99.9% of the time that's a clearcut reflection of what "really" happened, but in that fractional case it's an approximation of an unknown.

Still, Clarkson fans have my sympathy. If that game had gone the other way I'd be irritated too.

The one thing nobody can say is that it was a poorly played series. It was one of the most fun series I've ever been to.

daredevilcu
The one thing nobody can say is that it was a poorly played series. It was one of the most fun series I've ever been to.

It was a great series, and the final game was one of the best games I've ever seen.

andyw2100
The Cornell write-up of the game says that the play in which Iles wound up across the goal line on the break-away was ruled not to be a goal because he was pushed in by the Clarkson player. Here's the quote from the article:

"The Golden Knights had another close call with 12:30 to play in the third period when a funny bounce off the glass sent DiNallo away on a breakaway. He attempted to beat Iles with a shot between the legs, but the Big Red's goalie smothered the puck. There was some controversy as he slid backward toward the goal line with the puck still underneath his pads, but the referee closest to the play ruled he was pushed into the net by Christian Powers' poke at the pads."

Watching as it happened, my thoughts were that the only reason there wasn't a 1 on the scoreboard for Clarkson was that the ref must have ruled that either he had blown the whistle or had intended to before the puck crossed the line. I didn't think the Clarkson player had any impact on moving Iles across the goal line. I haven't seen video, but seeing the picture above reinforces my belief that that must have been the ruling, as the Clarkson player is just getting to Iles who is already well into the goal. I think there's a pretty good chance the writer is not correct with respect to why that was not a Clarkson goal. If I am mistaken, then I think we really dodged a bullet, and got the benefit of a blown call. Does anyone have video of this play?

Edit: The Twitter caption above is consistent with my assessment.

Post-game interview with Casey. He says the ref told him he blew the whistle.

The other goal is more questionable. Was it stopped and then everyone pushed in? No way that I think the refs could have seen whether it crossed, but they must have been looking at something, they were in there a long time.

Jim Hyla
The other goal is more questionable. Was it stopped and then everyone pushed in? No way that I think the refs could have seen whether it crossed, but they must have been looking at something, they were in there a long time.

I don't know how he knew this, but Jason mentioned on the broadcast that during that stoppage the refs were reviewing both situations. That's why it took so long.

The Bardreau save at 12:30 in the first period, part 1:
(1) Sexton takes a backhand shot from the slot
(2) Iles makes the save, but the rebound slides to his left
(3) Josephs makes a backhand grab of the puck, wide open net.

The Bardreau save at 12:30 in the first period, part 2:
(1) Josephs brings the puck to his forehand
(2) Shoots as Bardreau dives in front of him
(3) And Bardreau blocks the shot with his stick.

Icy
The Bardreau save at 12:30 in the first period, part 2:
(1) Josephs brings the puck to his forehand
(2) Shoots as Bardreau dives in front of him
(3) And Bardraux blocks the shot with his stick.

Thank god for a bad backhand, he certainly could have scored if he felt good about it.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
The other goal is more questionable. Was it stopped and then everyone pushed in? No way that I think the refs could have seen whether it crossed, but they must have been looking at something, they were in there a long time.

I don't know how he knew this, but Jason mentioned on the broadcast that during that stoppage the refs were reviewing both situations. That's why it took so long.

I think Brandon Thomas tweeted that he'd learned that during the intermission a few minutes before it was mentioned on the broadcast.

Jim Hyla

Icy
The Bardreau save at 12:30 in the first period, part 2:
(1) Josephs brings the puck to his forehand
(2) Shoots as Bardreau dives in front of him
(3) And Bardraux blocks the shot with his stick.

Thank god for a bad backhand, he certainly could have scored if he felt good about it.

Definitely. I would score 9 out of 10 times from that spot with a backhand so no doubt Josephs would have if he'd had the good sense to just put it in.

As an aside, I suspect that is the kind of "finishing" that can definitely be taught. You don't need much natural skill to tap in a rebound in a situation like that. You just have to have the instincts and confidence to just tap the puck home rather than switching sides.

Jim Hyla

andyw2100
The Cornell write-up of the game says that the play in which Iles wound up across the goal line on the break-away was ruled not to be a goal because he was pushed in by the Clarkson player. Here's the quote from the article:

"The Golden Knights had another close call with 12:30 to play in the third period when a funny bounce off the glass sent DiNallo away on a breakaway. He attempted to beat Iles with a shot between the legs, but the Big Red's goalie smothered the puck. There was some controversy as he slid backward toward the goal line with the puck still underneath his pads, but the referee closest to the play ruled he was pushed into the net by Christian Powers' poke at the pads."

Watching as it happened, my thoughts were that the only reason there wasn't a 1 on the scoreboard for Clarkson was that the ref must have ruled that either he had blown the whistle or had intended to before the puck crossed the line. I didn't think the Clarkson player had any impact on moving Iles across the goal line. I haven't seen video, but seeing the picture above reinforces my belief that that must have been the ruling, as the Clarkson player is just getting to Iles who is already well into the goal. I think there's a pretty good chance the writer is not correct with respect to why that was not a Clarkson goal. If I am mistaken, then I think we really dodged a bullet, and got the benefit of a blown call. Does anyone have video of this play?

Edit: The Twitter caption above is consistent with my assessment.

Post-game interview with Casey. He says the ref told him he blew the whistle.

Thanks, Jim. That makes a lot more sense.

marty

Chris '03

Trotsky

BearLover
(and bad news for Cornell)

Not at all. Better opponents (particularly our traditional rivals) --> better conference --> better for us.

Here we go again...

Can we at least wait until Q and U are playing in April to have this discussion?

He won't be as pissed this year - the Elis at done.

I was never pissed, just sad.

@Trotsky: the logic of the second conditional does not follow.

I don't want to have this discussion again either. (I mean, I do, but not that much.) However, I'll say this: with this year's talent, Cornell makes the NCAA's if the ECAC is as good as it was in 2003. And as Yale proved last year, you don't need to be one of the best teams to win it all--you just need to get in.

the picture ignores the clarkson player whose stick you can see jammed into the pile. does it have to be a body that shoves the goalie or can an opposing players stick shove someone in?

Jim Hyla
Thank god for a bad backhand, he certainly could have scored if he felt good about it.

I wonder if it is just a hellish angle from the backend? Really surprising a player would not instinctively just chop it in.

In case you didn't have a chance to see Andy's last moments at a game in Lynah.
Warning: turn down the audio!
video: [youtu.be]

cayugadan
In case you didn't have a chance to see Andy's last moments at a game in Lynah.
Warning: turn down the audio!
video: [youtu.be]

You captured Iles kissing the logo at center ice that the other video I've seen missed. The other video was posted to Facebook by The Cornell Alumni Association. I'll try to include the link here, but in case it doesn't work, you know where to look for it.

[www.facebook.com]

BearLover

marty

Chris '03

Trotsky

BearLover
(and bad news for Cornell)

Not at all. Better opponents (particularly our traditional rivals) --> better conference --> better for us.

Here we go again...

Can we at least wait until Q and U are playing in April to have this discussion?

He won't be as pissed this year - the Elis at done.

I was never pissed, just sad.

@Trotsky: the logic of the second conditional does not follow.

I don't want to have this discussion again either. (I mean, I do, but not that much.) However, I'll say this: with this year's talent, Cornell makes the NCAA's if the ECAC is as good as it was in 2003. And as Yale proved last year, you don't need to be one of the best teams to win it all--you just need to get in.

The biggest thing hurting us is bad losses/ties to very bad teams. I'm not sure what the relative strength of the ECAC has to do with that.

Post-game comments by Mike, Andy and Brian.

BearLover
the logic of the second conditional does not follow

Opinions vary, but I do (as you know) think that as the league gets better we do, too. I think we will always be able to recruit well within the league, so the question is what pool of players are available to us. The better our league does, the more kids consider the Ivy and ECAC teams as credible paths to titles, exposure, and the draft. If an Atlantic Hockey team runs off a string of 4 or 5 conference titles and auto bids because the rest of the conference is terrible, they still go nowhere. The ECAC ran a real risk of becoming a marginal conference like that -- I never want to go back to that, because that way lies Ivy football-like irrelevance.

Anyway, this weekend there is no disagreement between us on who we're rooting for.

Dafatone

BearLover

marty

Chris '03

Trotsky

BearLover
(and bad news for Cornell)

Not at all. Better opponents (particularly our traditional rivals) --> better conference --> better for us.

Here we go again...

Can we at least wait until Q and U are playing in April to have this discussion?

He won't be as pissed this year - the Elis at done.

I was never pissed, just sad.

@Trotsky: the logic of the second conditional does not follow.

I don't want to have this discussion again either. (I mean, I do, but not that much.) However, I'll say this: with this year's talent, Cornell makes the NCAA's if the ECAC is as good as it was in 2003. And as Yale proved last year, you don't need to be one of the best teams to win it all--you just need to get in.

The biggest thing hurting us is bad losses/ties to very bad teams. I'm not sure what the relative strength of the ECAC has to do with that.

Who would've thought a close loss to a then-.500 BU team coming off a series win over UND would be such a black mark?

UNO also let us down by sucking.

BU and Dartmouth were the only bad losses; Maine, SLU and Dartmouth were the bad ties. Blowing 7 bad points over a 31-game string isn't egregious.

Basically, Bob Gaudet hurt us, but we are still in contention for both the ECAC title and an NC$$ bid, and at the beginning of the season the consensus was a successful season would be a bye and getting to Lake Placid.

IMHO, the Clarkson win locked up a "B plus" for this season, and a Union win would lock up an "A minus" (kids who matriculated after 1990 substitute "A minus" and "A," respectively).

NM. Greg did a better job wrapping up my thought.

I just posted it there

andyw2100

cayugadan
In case you didn't have a chance to see Andy's last moments at a game in Lynah.
Warning: turn down the audio!
video: [youtu.be]

You captured Iles kissing the logo at center ice that the other video I've seen missed. The other video was posted to Facebook by The Cornell Alumni Association. I'll try to include the link here, but in case it doesn't work, you know where to look for it.

[www.facebook.com]

KeithK

Jim Hyla

Icy
The Bardreau save at 12:30 in the first period, part 2:
(1) Josephs brings the puck to his forehand
(2) Shoots as Bardreau dives in front of him
(3) And Bardraux blocks the shot with his stick.

Thank god for a bad backhand, he certainly could have scored if he felt good about it.

Definitely. I would score 9 out of 10 times from that spot with a backhand so no doubt Josephs would have if he'd had the good sense to just put it in.

As an aside, I suspect that is the kind of "finishing" that can definitely be taught. You don't need much natural skill to tap in a rebound in a situation like that. You just have to have the instincts and confidence to just tap the puck home rather than switching sides.

Trotsky already mentioned this, but from the photos that looks like a really rough angle for a backhand tap-in off a rebound, especially if the puck was moving towards the player's outside with speed or was angled towards the end boards in any way. If the Clarkson forward didn't have a great handle on that rebound when the backhand was available pulling it back across to settle it and shoot under control was the right move. He really did have the time - as it was Bardreau had to make a great play *and* get lucky to block that shot.

Tom Lento

KeithK

Jim Hyla

Icy
The Bardreau save at 12:30 in the first period, part 2:
(1) Josephs brings the puck to his forehand
(2) Shoots as Bardreau dives in front of him
(3) And Bardraux blocks the shot with his stick.

Thank god for a bad backhand, he certainly could have scored if he felt good about it.

Definitely. I would score 9 out of 10 times from that spot with a backhand so no doubt Josephs would have if he'd had the good sense to just put it in.

As an aside, I suspect that is the kind of "finishing" that can definitely be taught. You don't need much natural skill to tap in a rebound in a situation like that. You just have to have the instincts and confidence to just tap the puck home rather than switching sides.

Trotsky already mentioned this, but from the photos that looks like a really rough angle for a backhand tap-in off a rebound, especially if the puck was moving towards the player's outside with speed or was angled towards the end boards in any way. If the Clarkson forward didn't have a great handle on that rebound when the backhand was available pulling it back across to settle it and shoot under control was the right move. He really did have the time - as it was Bardreau had to make a great play *and* get lucky to block that shot.

I agree with this; note that Bardreau is, at first, moving away from the goal line (note that he's near the crease in the first picture in the sequence and almost up to the hash marks in the third) and changes direction in no time flat to make the play.

Anyway, Josephs is the one who ran Iles in the first game of the series, right? So I think this is just karma biting him in the ass.