cornell - quin sat night

Ok.. Im confused how can you not at least replay the game winning goal with 2 min 2 go? crease violation or contact maybe/maybe not but dont you have to take a look?

I had the sound off during the third period. Was there an explanation for no review?

nothing other than SS asking for one and the refs just skating away.. after seeing the overhead replay even more reason to question why no replay? i thought if you asked for one they almost had to? we had a TO to ask for one.

Disappointing that we didn't at least get a review on the only goal of the game. However, the larger concern about this game, and the season, is that we can't score.
We had a full minute of a two-man advantage and a four-minute powerplay and had no good scoring chances on either one. Our best scoring chances came at 5-on-5. When you watch us play, it's hard to tell the difference between our first line and our third line. Our first line of Bardreau, Lowry and McCarron doesn't play like a first line. When you saw Quinnipiac's first line of Anas and Pecca (before he got ejected) and Smith, it looked like a dangerous line. Every time Anas had the puck in our zone and a little space, you had to hold your breath. Our second and third lines had as many scoring chances as our first line, which wasn't many.
We almost pulled it off, but you can't come in to any game expecting that your best bet to get a point is to get a scoreless tie. Part of our lack of offense is due to Ryan's absence. It also looks like Ferlin's departure is going to hurt us significantly. You can't teach offensive creativity, but you can teach players to put the puck on the net, to get their shots off faster and to crash the net, looking for a rebound or a garbage goal. When you give up 6 goals in 4 games, you expect to win a few of them. But when you score three goals in six games, you're lucky if you're going to win any of them.
With no Cornell pep band and no goals for most of the night (and thankfully no thundersticks!), this was the quietest I've heard the Q rink. But you could see Q's goal coming, as they were keeping the puck in our end and putting a lot of pressure on our defense. By contrast, we had one SOG the entire third period. Hopefully, one of these nights we'll get a few good bounces and the goals will start flowing. Otherwise, it's going to be a long season.

"It's every night. And we can't score."

Varsity hockey teams now sit at combined 0-7-1 and football is 0-8. Thinking I should look forward to basketball. Oh, wait...

Yup, basketball has lost 32 of its last 33 D-1 games, and it's top scorer transferred to Vandy. Tough times in Ithaca

The glory days of 2010 seem like a century ago

SOG in the third period were 19-1, Q.

From what I saw of the PP, it seemed we were focusing too hard on setting up one timers from the point. Which is a fine thing to go for, but when your three men on the blue line are covered by three defenders, don't you have to work the puck behind the net and then pass it back out? A lot of shots off of Q's ankles.

Score? SCORE??? We can't even shoot! We DON'T even shoot! Get bounces? It's not a matter of getting bounces. We play horrible, atrocious offensive hockey. How does Yale recruit offensive players? How does freakin'UNION for gawd's sake? I'm frustrated as hell. Lacrosse season can't get here fast enough.

Al DeFlorio
Varsity hockey teams now sit at combined 0-7-1 and football is 0-8. Thinking I should look forward to basketball. Oh, wait...

How about 'rasslin season?

First, I think we have a regit goalie in Mitch. He is keeping us in games.
We don't get offense minded recruits because of the system. Third in the country presently in team defense and dead last in offense.
Outshot 19-1 in last period is ridiculous. Stats are for losers usually but these don't lie.
I am a Shafer fan but this style of hockey is outdated especially with current rule changes.
The question is, if you were a top recruit with professional aspirations, why would you come to Cornell to play.
Not panic time yet but there could be a lot of crickets at Lynah if this continues.

dwakelin
First, I think we have a regit goalie in Mitch. He is keeping us in games.
We don't get offense minded recruits because of the system. Third in the country presently in team defense and dead last in offense.
Outshot 19-1 in last period is ridiculous. Stats are for losers usually but these don't lie.
I am a Shafer fan but this style of hockey is outdated especially with current rule changes.
The question is, if you were a top recruit with professional aspirations, why would you come to Cornell to play.
Not panic time yet but there could be a lot of crickets at Lynah if this continues.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

watching the game with the sound off i would never have guessed the shots were that bad in the 3rd. the play seemed up and down cornell had the puck a decent amount on the offensive end.

I'm a Shafer fan also, but I agree this system needs to be modernized. The game has passed the System, and maybe Shafer, by. If Shafer wants to win a national championship he's got to adapt so that some decent offense can be generated. In my section of Lynah it feels like everyone can see it. Heck even the Shafer supporters in my section are grumbling more and more after the past two plus seasons.

Oh, and I also agree about Gillam. It's early but I think he's got very good potential. I like his positioning and his rebound control.

Towerroad

dwakelin
First, I think we have a regit goalie in Mitch. He is keeping us in games.
We don't get offense minded recruits because of the system. Third in the country presently in team defense and dead last in offense.
Outshot 19-1 in last period is ridiculous. Stats are for losers usually but these don't lie.
I am a Shafer fan but this style of hockey is outdated especially with current rule changes.
The question is, if you were a top recruit with professional aspirations, why would you come to Cornell to play.
Not panic time yet but there could be a lot of crickets at Lynah if this continues.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Except that we're not doing the same thing as years ago. His style has openned up more. Just look at the Princeton game. Or even the first 2 periods last night. I don't know why they can't put it into the net, even when they have control and a lot of shots. Obviously our senior forwards are not producing as they should.

I do agree that if this continues, there will be a lot of crickets.

Jim Hyla
Except that we're not doing the same thing as years ago. His style has openned up more.

Maybe that's the problem. We're the tallest roster in the NCAA by half an inch, when the range from #2 to #59 is only 2.1". If Schafer really is trying to open up the style, do we really have the right roster for that?

There's something to be said for trying to adapt to a style, but there's also something to be said for playing the style most suitable for your roster...

Robb

Jim Hyla
Except that we're not doing the same thing as years ago. His style has openned up more.

Maybe that's the problem. We're the tallest roster in the NCAA by half an inch, when the range from #2 to #59 is only 2.1". If Schafer really is trying to open up the style, do we really have the right roster for that?

There's something to be said for trying to adapt to a style, but there's also something to be said for playing the style most suitable for your roster...

Well, it's not like we're getting burned by giving up a lot of goals. I'd say that there is probably a lot of bad luck (that's what the first UNO and the Princeton game sound like) but the third period against Q isn't just statistical noise; it's an ass-whipping that looks like a mere loss because of a goalie playing well.

After watching both games this weekend, I'm just not sure who is going to score goals this season. It's weird because I actually think that our style has become more offensive-minded than a few years ago. Instead of dump-and-chase, I'm seeing a lot more cross-ice passes through the neutral zone. Instead of being content to grind along the boards, our big guys are trying to get the puck towards the net and we're taking some one-timers if we see some space.

Problem is, it doesn't seem like anyone has the talent to bury the puck. Even by our normally low standards for Cornell offense, this team is awful. In two games this weekend, I saw so few quality scoring chances. Against P, most of our shot attempts came from bad angles or from way up high. Against Q, it was the same story, except that our offense disappeared as the game went along.

Nothing seemed to matter. Five consecutive powerplays on Friday night? Nope. 1:00 of 5x3 on Saturday night? Nope. 4:00 during a major? Nope.

Ryan plays point on the powerplay, right? We definitely miss him. I never thought I'd say this, but I almost miss Brendan Nash. Please, just anyone to
move the puck and try something different.

Opposing goalies have a .975 save percentage against us this season, meaning that for every 40 shots we take (i.e. against P), one might go in (i.e. against P). Sure, goalies have been playing well against us, but our weak shot attempts are making their jobs easier.

Lowry-McCarren-Bardreau are probably our best bet to score a goal or two this season. Maybe as the season goes on, someone will step up and find the scoring touch, a la Evan Barlow a few years ago. Who knows?

I actually feel pretty good about our defense and goaltending. I hope we practice some shooting this week.

Lastly, do any undergrads travel to games anymore?

upprdeck
watching the game with the sound off i would never have guessed the shots were that bad in the 3rd. the play seemed up and down cornell had the puck a decent amount on the offensive end.

I was sitting at the Quinnipiac end of the ice for the third period, and watching in person, as the period went on, Cornell was spending less and less time in the Quinnipiac end, especially in the stretch leading up to the controversial goal.

ebilmes
It's weird because I actually think that our style has become more offensive-minded than a few years ago. Instead of dump-and-chase, I'm seeing a lot more cross-ice passes through the neutral zone. Instead of being content to grind along the boards, our big guys are trying to get the puck towards the net and we're taking some one-timers if we see some space.

Our style is definitely more offensively oriented versus a few years ago, but that's only half the puzzle. Bottom line, it has become clear over time that this coaching staff does not know how to teach offense. They are not doing a bad job, they're just not doing a good one.

However, we are performing so badly right now, the path of least resistance is probably up. There are also problems with morale and leadership that should improve after painful experiences like this.

Oh well... another year of mediocrity.

ebilmes
Lastly, do any undergrads travel to games anymore?

Not winning titles kills undergrad travel. That's always been true. When Anne and I traveled in the late 80s to middle 90s we were sometimes close to the only people in places like Gutterson or Appleton. Harvard is never a problem, but the other places depend on local alumni during lean years.

If anything, I think we're trying TOO hard to put together a fancy offense. I'd like to see more driving to the net and less centering passes through traffic.

Then again, last night was the only game I've seen this year (as opposed to listening to them), and I only saw half of it.

I agree with the posters who have opined that Schafer has been opening the style. He will always build them out from the net and, put it this way, they're that much more of a superlative defensive unit to be so effective despite getting no pressure in the other end.

One of the things that surprised (and disappointed) me a lot in this game was the number of one-timers they took during the 5 on 3. It would seem that with a 5 on 3 advantage and all that open ice you'd want to move the puck around a lot and look for a back-door kind of opportunity--something from in-close, with a lot of open net. The one-timers result in rebounds that can be cleared down the ice or into the corners and along the boards where the puck can be tied up. I haven't watched a replay, but I think they tried several one-timers during that 5 on 3. It seemed almost as if they were playing it like a regular 5 on 4 powerplay instead of like a 2 man advantage.

So here's the goal. The replay critical times are at 0:57 & 1:01 video: [youtu.be]


ps: I'd certainly like to see the overhead camera. You wonder if the refs wouldn't do a review because Schafer compains and asks so much, as earlier in the game.

What is most amazing is that this incredible senior class is looking at a single tournament appearance in their four years at Cornell.

Jim Hyla
So here's the goal. The replay critical times are at 0:57 & 1:01 video: [youtu.be]


ps: I'd certainly like to see the overhead camera. You wonder if the refs wouldn't do a review because Schafer compains and asks so much, as earlier in the game.

Thus showed the overhead on the q feed for a split second a few minutes after the goal was scored.

Chris '03

Jim Hyla
So here's the goal. The replay critical times are at 0:57 & 1:01 video: [youtu.be]


ps: I'd certainly like to see the overhead camera. You wonder if the refs wouldn't do a review because Schafer compains and asks so much, as earlier in the game.

Thus showed the overhead on the q feed for a split second a few minutes after the goal was scored.

This is from the archived program. I don't remember that, but I'll look again, could they have removed it?

It was near the very end of the game. It prompted the announcer to make a comment about Cornell crying for a replay I think. They mentioned that the (overhead) replay shown in the building just the proved it was a goal to them.

Chris '03
It was near the very end of the game. It prompted the announcer to make a comment about Cornell crying for a replay I think. They mentioned that the (overhead) replay shown in the building just the proved it was a goal to them.

At some point--either then or earlier, when they were talking about Schafer asking for a review--the announcers also said something about how Schafer must have been complaining about the guy running into Gillam --AFTER-- the goal was scored.

andyw2100

Chris '03
It was near the very end of the game. It prompted the announcer to make a comment about Cornell crying for a replay I think. They mentioned that the (overhead) replay shown in the building just the proved it was a goal to them.

At some point--either then or earlier, when they were talking about Schafer asking for a review--the announcers also said something about how Schafer must have been complaining about the guy running into Gillam --AFTER-- the goal was scored.

Go to the 2:39 mark of the replay linked up thread. That's when they show the overhead replay.

Towerroad

dwakelin
First, I think we have a regit goalie in Mitch. He is keeping us in games.
We don't get offense minded recruits because of the system. Third in the country presently in team defense and dead last in offense.
Outshot 19-1 in last period is ridiculous. Stats are for losers usually but these don't lie.
I am a Shafer fan but this style of hockey is outdated especially with current rule changes.
The question is, if you were a top recruit with professional aspirations, why would you come to Cornell to play.
Not panic time yet but there could be a lot of crickets at Lynah if this continues.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Or repeating the same quote. ..

IMHO it does not matter who centers Lowry and McCarron, saw that first hand at Princeton. Those two are grinders who would rather jam the puck into the net than beat the goalie with a shot. Not a lot of give and go. Cycle, jam and cram is more like it. Weidner, Kubiak and Bardreau centered those two and things really did not change much depnding on who centered them, unfortunatrely they are a very, very good college checking wingers. At Princeton it looked like Fiegl and Freschi had good chemistry, yet did not play together at Quinnipiac. Schafer kept line combinations pretty consistent throughout Q game and played Anderson more on D, unlike the musical chairs line combinations at Princeton. I would like to Yates on the power play, he has the hands and sense of a scorer. Like I said in the Princeton recap, Yates needs to improve his fitness and things will happen for this kid. I also agree with what many have said, Schafer has opend things up. the D really pushes the play and in the defensive zone the system is still there. The effrort is there, the hustle is there, this is one of the best skating Cornell teams I have seen from top to bottom. They are not going to be out skated by anyone. Generating better scoring chances is coaching, it is also a mindset, Shafer was no Lodboa as a player and Topher Scott learned from Schafer. I think it is time to hire someone outside the traditional Cornell way of doing things. Someone with an offensive mindset to counterbalnce Schafers excellent defensive system. Better to have these issues now than at the end of the season.

It sounds like Schafer doesn't like Pecknold.

Here is the write-up
[theqbsn.com]
[sportsnewstime.org]

From the latter link, the headline:

"Photo Gallery: Cornell Coach Mike Schafer Insights Post Game Fracas"

No comment.

The problem with all of this is, when you lose, it just sounds like sour grapes, even if you're right. I can see where Schafer would be upset with someone thinking that Bardreau was embellishing the hit. Put that on top of the prior playoff game, where he thought Q was piling on, and that the officials would not review the winning goal, you get some harsh words. It would've been better if he had kept his cool and just stated the facts, but oh well.

I had a great angle on the hit. It was an obvious five and game misconduct; a DQ would've been the wrong call.

Frankly, hearing that Pecknold was calling for an embellishment makes me pissed off. Every coach in the league knows what happened with Bardreau. Schafer's completely right that his response sends the wrong message to his team, that there was nothing wrong with Peca's hit. It was five; it's going to be called every time. You can break someone's neck that way, I hear.

The germane part of the interview for the future: "If it was his kid that went into the boards, I think I'd be a little frickin' concerned! Maybe not anymore…"

Ummm... yikes. Not the words you want to hear coming out of Schafer's mouth. Let's just hope that playoff seeding is on everybody's minds on February 6th.

Maybe, just maybe, this will be a turning point in the early season. Coach did/said what he thought was appropriate given the situation, may cost him a fine/suspension but his emotions tell a lot. My thoughts are that the team will rally and have his back, with or without him on the bench this weekend.

That may be true, but I'm hoping Cornell suspends him before the ECAC gets involved. A coach should not speak in such a way and get away with it. He also said the players get their cues from the coaches -- wonder how many parents want their kids handling adversity in such a way? Maybe scoring while on a 5x3 or on an extended PP would have made for a more appropriate response. If he doesn't like Rand how about building a system that beats his.

ithacat
That may be true, but I'm hoping Cornell suspends him before the ECAC gets involved. A coach should not speak in such a way and get away with it. He also said the players get their cues from the coaches -- wonder how many parents want their kids handling adversity in such a way? Maybe scoring while on a 5x3 or on an extended PP would have made for a more appropriate response. If he doesn't like Rand how about building a system that beats his.

Yeah, my thoughts as well. I certainly understand why he said what he said, but the choice of words really should have been used (if at all) behind close doors rather than at a press conference. I think Cornell needs to get ahead of this and have him sit out a game or two.

scoop85

ithacat
That may be true, but I'm hoping Cornell suspends him before the ECAC gets involved. A coach should not speak in such a way and get away with it. He also said the players get their cues from the coaches -- wonder how many parents want their kids handling adversity in such a way? Maybe scoring while on a 5x3 or on an extended PP would have made for a more appropriate response. If he doesn't like Rand how about building a system that beats his.

Yeah, my thoughts as well. I certainly understand why he said what he said, but the choice of words really should have been used (if at all) behind close doors rather than at a press conference. I think Cornell needs to get ahead of this and have him sit out a game or two.

I agree. I think Schafer should sit for a game. My issue is with his choice of language and the animosity that comes across by his comments, not necessarily the sentiment of the comments.

I disagee with sitting Coach. If Cornell needs to council Coach in private and is satisfied with future behaviour, no sitting for a game is necessary.

However, sitting non-producing forwards in favor of the next guy given a chance to step up... now that's an idea!

Cheerio.

Just a reminder. We've lost three games by one goal. To me, that says bad luck. Yes, we can't score, but our offense is about as bad as our defense is good. A couple bounces the other way and we're at .500.

And we're playing without Joakim Ryan.

Coach was just defending his player. It's good to finally see some passion. Now, if we could just score a goal, or two...

USCHO reporting coach suspended for Friday night by the league.

I'm not defending Schafer's use of a vulgarity in the press conference, but it's important to put his outburst in context. I've seen almost every game Cornell has played at Quinnipiac since it joined the ECAC, as well as a few other Q games. Pecknold definitely encourages a "goon" mentality from his players, and this has been building up. A few years ago, one of Cornell's key forwards, Scali, suffered a major injury while playing at Quinnipiac. And of course there was the 10-0 rout in the playoffs two years ago when Pecknold still had his first-unit powerplay on the ice against our backup goalie -- who hadn't played all season -- late in the second period. I was sitting right next to the boards where Pecca ran into Bardreau, and we knew right away that it was a terrible hit and were relieved that Cole wasn't seriously hurt. There's been bad blood between Schafer and Pecknold for years, and this just adds fuel to the fire.

[www.collegehockeynews.com]

Is it hypocritical to think both that Schafer was right to make those comments and that he should be suspended?

CAS
Coach was just defending his player. It's good to finally see some passion. Now, if we could just score a goal, or two...

I have no doubt he was defending his player. That's no excuse for saying what he said. He could have shown the same protection and passion without resorting to that language.

Dafatone
Is it hypocritical to think both that Schafer was right to make those comments and that he should be suspended?

Not at all.

Well, to look through a relatively independent eye on the event, here's what Ken Schott has to say. The meat of his column is:

Was Schafer right in calling Pecknold something nasty? Probably not. Was he expressing what some of the league’s coaches think privately? I think so.

Ever since the Bobcats joined the ECACH in the 2005-06 season, they have been a brash, very confident (some would call it cocky) team. They take their lead from Pecknold. He is very happy when his team wins. But when the team loses, he will sometimes complain and not give the give the opposition credit.

Interesting.

Schafer has been suspended 1 game by the ECAC, and thus he'll be out for Clarkson on Friday, according to a update by Schott:
[www.dailygazette.com]

here is an interesting thing. all the quinipiac videos are still on line except for the cornell one that actually shows the overheadview.. if you slow down the one video you can see the player was in the crease, contact is hard to tell, but the overhead view showed contact but you couldnt slow it down in real time..

whas the rule on being in the crease now in college hockey? he was in the crease before the goal but is that enough without contact?

still hard to see how they couldnt get the replay

by rule physical or visual prevention of defending the goal is the rule. so a player standing next to the goalie in the crease while a shot takes place would seem to meet the criteria. contact would, but even lack of contact in this case..

my question would be this , it was reviewable and cornell could request it and they have to review it if we want them to. so why didnt we or they do so? wouldnt that have been worth a TO?


"A team may use its timeout for the purpose of reviewing situations that
are in the video replay criteria or a potentially non-detected goal.
If the
challenge is successful, the team retains its timeout. This timeout policy
applies to any video replay procedure used."

Here's the best I could get. It's at 2:39:12 of the broadcast here: [quinnipiacbobcats.com]

The puck is just leaving the shooter's stick (under the play button) but has not gone in yet. Gillam is just a little obstructed.

And here's a split second earlier with the puck still on shooter's tape and a stick draped over Gillam's arms:

Chris '03
And here's a split second earlier with the puck still on shooter's tape and a stick draped over Gillam's arms:

Thanks, I didn't realize that it was shown after play resummed, and not when they were showing the other replays. If you follow the play after the shot, you can se that it looks like Gillam has been pushed by the Q player. I hope the refs get to see this. At the very least it shows it should have been reviewed. However, as I've said before, I wonder if the refs are getting to the point that they just disregard Schafer, and maybe even unconsciously stick it to him.

thats how i recalled watching it live but this view at best shows it should have been replayed. not sure how it wouldnt have been overturned under almost any guidlelines except as you say the refs didnt want to deal with the coach.

Schafer and Andy Noel released statements following the announcement of the suspension:
[ithacavoice.com]

The scoring play should have been reviewed. Why have the equipment and not use it?

I was at the two UVM-Maine games last weekend. There were five reviews in the two games. One was a goal review where there might have been goalie interference (there wasn't). Three were on plays where there were scrambles around the net and the refs wanted to make sure puck never crossed the line and one was on a crossbar shot. None of the reviews took more than a couple of minutes. It seemed evident to me that Hockey East encourages their referees to use replays when they see fit.

Over the last 40 years, we've gone from one referee and one linesman to two referees to two refs and one linesman to two referees and two linesman today. Overhead cameras are installed at every rink and virtually all games are now televised in some fashion. And we still don't have consistently implemented replay rules in the ECAC. Why not?

Here's an interview with Schafer and Bardreau.

KeithK

Dafatone
Is it hypocritical to think both that Schafer was right to make those comments and that he should be suspended?

Not at all.

Coach Schafer is a known quantity.
What other coach, when a CU player, broke his stick over his own helmet to fire up his teammates and terrify his opponents?
What other coach played to the fan chant of, "Kill, Schafer, kill!!"
No, somehow Mike Schafer telling Rand Pecknold, "Now, gosh darn it, Rand. I'm really upset with your behavior tonight"... that just doesn't cut it.
Yes, it was a violation of all things Emily Post. And, coach should be sanctioned; I guess.
Especially after he politely asked the fans (several years ago) to stop chanting stuff like, "The ref f*#%s sheep".
Hey, hockey is a family sport, right? The line in the cheer is, "Rough 'em up, Rough 'em up". Yes??

But, now the bigger questions are:
1.) What affect will all of this have on the team?
2.) Will Coach need to wear a disguise to get into Lynah Friday night!?

This ain't tennis, Nancy!

Meh, it gives a certain type of person the excuse to clutch their pearls and cluck about the tragic loss of civility in contemporary society. So there's that.

I wonder whether it was a calculated move. Now you have a team where they're circling the wagons and feeling "it's us against the world," which carries great currency for young boys looking for dragons the slay.

We were all there. We all saw it with our own eyes.

Dave.

Goddamn lardass, Barclay Donaldson. I'm tellin' you, he jumped us.

Gloves off, stick down, no warning. He challenged the Chiefs!

He called us names. (Called us names!)

But Dave was there. (Dave's a killer!)

Dave's a killer.

(Dave's a mess.)

OK, but Dave's out.

Who's gonna take his place?

(pause)

Is the answer Jesus?

Scersk '97
The germane part of the interview for the future: "If it was his kid that went into the boards, I think I'd be a little frickin' concerned! Maybe not anymore…"

Ummm... yikes. Not the words you want to hear coming out of Schafer's mouth. Let's just hope that playoff seeding is on everybody's minds on February 6th.

If someone from the soccer team dresses for that game, watch out.

Chris '03
USCHO reporting coach suspended for Friday night by the league.

Mike got off easy. Jets' Rex Ryan fined $100,000 for post-game profanity.