Quinny @ CU 02/06/15

From USCHO:

Quinnipiac at Cornell
Enticing matchup: Cornell is 4-2-1 in its last seven, while QU is 5-0-1 in its last six league contests. The advantage definitely rests with the Bobcats however, as Cornell’s offense – with nine goals in its last five games – is about as reliable as a pre-owned Mini Cooper. QU wins.

Ouch!
But, looking at their record it doesn't seem as clear cut.
Chance for a Denver or Hahvahd style upset?

After all, it is Friday........

Ken Schott says:

No. 16 Quinnipiac at Cornell — Cornell, 2-1.

Jim Hyla
Ken Schott says:

No. 16 Quinnipiac at Cornell — Cornell, 2-1.

We're doomed.

Anybody know the injury statuses? McCarron, Fiegl, Bliss, and Ryan all had issues of various severity, IINM.

Willcox, McCarron doubtful per Coach Schafer in IJ:

Senior Joakim Ryan missed eight games in November and December after suffering a hand injury in the opener, and junior Reece Willcox and sophomore Patrick McCarron are currently nursing injuries; their returns are doubtful for this weekend, Schafer said.

[www.ithacajournal.com]

Poor Gavin. If he went away for another year and came back as a goalie, they'd still have him on defense.

No mention of last meeting yet?

[m.youtube.com]

toddlose
No mention of last meeting yet?

[m.youtube.com]

What's to say? Pecknold's an asshole, but even if he were Lady Byng we'd still have to score goals tonight.

Good news: Willcox is back.

another review goes against cornell some how.. player in the crease called when a puck was in the crease.. strange call when they didnt blow the whistle..

goalie interference might make sense but there were 3-4 guys in the crease and 2 quin D players..

watching the replay. clearly some contact, but also the goalie didnt have control of the puck, add in some contact by the D from behind on hilbreth? too. contact occured outside crease but goalie was half in half out. then as the contact happened both players went into crease and the puck came back out a bit.

they took it away but never even reviewed the play that happened against Quin on the road which was clear goalie interference.

tough loss.. played well most of the night.. the only thing quin has is better team speed. bad played by the goalie cost them the game

upprdeck
tough loss.. played well most of the night.. the only thing quin has is better team speed. bad played by the goalie cost them the game

The other thing Quinnipiac has is an actual ability to finish scoring chances

Tough loss for Cornell.

The refs made a good call on Cornell's disallowed goal. Hilbrich was clearly in the crease before McCarren shot the puck in the net and he wasn't pushed in.

Toddlose - thanks for the Bardreau video. I watched it in slow motion and I think Mike's anger was appropriate.

I thought you could be in the crease as long as you're not interfering with the play?

BearLover

upprdeck
tough loss.. played well most of the night.. the only thing quin has is better team speed. bad played by the goalie cost them the game

The other thing Quinnipiac has is an actual ability to finish scoring chances

Once

Due to a brief psychotic episode I missed the OT goal scenario.
You say that it was the result of a misplay by Gillam?

And, just curious....when did attempting to thread passes replace skating the puck out of our end as an offensive strategy?
The 3rd frame of Quinny 2 looked at lot like 'Gate 2.

you can be in the crease if the puck is in the crease which it was, it then came out, so a crease violation is the wrong call.

if replayed didnt exist cornell would be far better off in the standings thats for sure

all the harder to take the call when there was no review and it was called a goal. only one ref is close says its good and its turned over after a talk much later by 3 officials out of position.. no wonder they called in the crease, they had no idea where it really took place..

Trotsky

BearLover

upprdeck
tough loss.. played well most of the night.. the only thing quin has is better team speed. bad played by the goalie cost them the game

The other thing Quinnipiac has is an actual ability to finish scoring chances

Once

No, this is something I've noticed every time I've seen them play Cornell. The teams are generally equal except Q is MUCH better at finishing chances. They are great at tip and one-timer placement, for instance. Sometimes they're just clearly better and badly outshoot us, but quite a few times shots have been even and they've better-capitalized on their opportunities.

Here's the No Goal. video: [www.youtube.com]

Man in the crease, no. Goalie interference, maybe.

Jim Hyla
Here's the No Goal. video: [www.youtube.com]

Man in the crease, no. Goalie interference, maybe.

Seems like a good no goal to me, as much as it pains me to admit. Hilbrich makes contact with the goalie before the defender pushes him in there, and while the defender's still shoving him, his presence keeps the goalie from having a play on the puck.

The Q defender clearly pushes him into the goalie. Without the push can he make a play on the rebound? If I was a Q fan I would think it was the correct call.

In the Journal it was reported that the replay equipment didn't work. We've now had ice issues, Zamboni issues, scoreboard issues, and replay issues (which I don't think is the first time). At least our tickets are cheap.

Wait, so the no goal was ruled WITHOUT a review, after it was called a goal on the ice?

To put it delicately, wtf is that?

Murky and inconsistent officiating standards would seem appropriate.

the refs talked then went in and talked then came out and talked then changed the call. what i dont get is why the one ref closest called it a goal and its his call.. how often does the center ice ref rule on plays in the crease?

the goalie had the puck on his pads and lst control. does that mean no contact by the offense is allowed going after the puck?? but he can go into the crease to get the puck. goalie interference i could see called. but how often is it called when the goal is called good and the ref closest doesnt call it?

did a linesman make the call?

2 games against the same team decided by the same play. one never gets reviewed and should have. the other gets changed but never reviewed..

ithacat
The Q defender clearly pushes him into the goalie. Without the push can he make a play on the rebound? If I was a Q fan I would think it was the correct call.

totally disagree- watch the slow mo video. The CU player didn't stop himself in time and hit the goalie on his own. The QU player only pushed our guy deeper into the goalie after our guy was already there.

No goal. Lucky it wasn't a goalie interference penalty on us.

Watching the video, I think the refs ultimately made the correct call. What I mean is, I think if the video had been working and they had gone and looked at it and were able to see what we can see on the video, they would have ruled it a no-goal.

That being said, I thought to use what they saw on the video, there had to be conclusive evidence that the ruling on the ice was incorrect, and if it wasn't conclusive, that the ruling on the ice stood. The ref behind the goal was clearly indicating that it was a goal. So how did they have conclusive evidence to overrule the ruling on the ice if there was no video to review?

I think they got to talking and someone said hey the Q goalie might have gotten shoved. someone else said well did see him in the net after it was all over. and someone else said 2 Q players ended up in the net too but its not possible they caused any of that chaos. Well maybe a Cornell player did it. Did anyone see the tallest player on the ice near the goalie when it started? Nope/nope/nope. Well thats good enough for me. lets talk some more in the replay room and then come out and go back in and talk some more to make it look like we are doing our job..

abmarks

ithacat
The Q defender clearly pushes him into the goalie. Without the push can he make a play on the rebound? If I was a Q fan I would think it was the correct call.

totally disagree- watch the slow mo
video. The CU player didn't stop himself in time and hit the goalie on his own. The QU player only pushed our guy deeper into the goalie after our guy was already there.

No goal. Lucky it wasn't a goalie interference penalty on us.

I did and I have a different interpretation. I think if no goal is involved and a penalty is called it would have been on Q. Considering how many times one sees a goalie bowled over with no call that play was contact by spray. Again, I'm not surprised that a Feola crew over turned an on ice call without any evidence.

andyw2100
Watching the video, I think the refs ultimately made the correct call. What I mean is, I think if the video had been working and they had gone and looked at it and were able to see what we can see on the video, they would have ruled it a no-goal.

That being said, I thought to use what they saw on the video, there had to be conclusive evidence that the ruling on the ice was incorrect, and if it wasn't conclusive, that the ruling on the ice stood. The ref behind the goal was clearly indicating that it was a goal. So how did they have conclusive evidence to overrule the ruling on the ice if there was no video to review?

The ref called the goal because the puck went in, just like a goal judge used to do. However the other ref and the linesmen are out on the ice and look at what's happening with the rest of the players. They saw the goalie interference, or as they said "man in the crease". That's why they went to 2 refs, so the whole ice could be seen. It's no different than if an offsides was called, but not heard, and play went on to a goal. It would have been disallowed, even if a ref called it in.

how do you call man in the crease when the puck is in the crease?

upprdeck
how do you call man in the crease when the puck is in the crease?

"Who's on first?"

"I don't know."

""Third base! !""

upprdeck
how do you call man in the crease when the puck is in the crease?

Rule allows Hilbrich to go into crease if the puck is there -- but he can't make contact with the goalie. And he wasn't pushed in.

— Brandon Thomas (@BT_unassisted) February 7, 2015

Video of the Saturday QPac at Colgate game is being shown on TW Cable in the Capital District as I type. It is running from 7:30 to 10:00. I just checked online and see that it is also being shown on TW Cable Ithaca 323.

Jim Hyla

andyw2100
Watching the video, I think the refs ultimately made the correct call. What I mean is, I think if the video had been working and they had gone and looked at it and were able to see what we can see on the video, they would have ruled it a no-goal.

That being said, I thought to use what they saw on the video, there had to be conclusive evidence that the ruling on the ice was incorrect, and if it wasn't conclusive, that the ruling on the ice stood. The ref behind the goal was clearly indicating that it was a goal. So how did they have conclusive evidence to overrule the ruling on the ice if there was no video to review?

The ref called the goal because the puck went in, just like a goal judge used to do. However the other ref and the linesmen are out on the ice and look at what's happening with the rest of the players. They saw the goalie interference, or as they said "man in the crease". That's why they went to 2 refs, so the whole ice could be seen. It's no different than if an offsides was called, but not heard, and play went on to a goal. It would have been disallowed, even if a ref called it in.

Sure.

So you're saying all the officials got together and before attempting to review the video that turned out not to exist, had actually ruled it a no-goal on the ice? That makes sense. (If that happened, I didn't see it, as I wasn't there. My daughter had the lead in a musical. Having failed to sell two of my tickets, and having heard about the lengthy review from my other daughter, I made it to Lynah in time for most of the third period, and, of course, the OT.)

andyw2100

Jim Hyla

andyw2100
Watching the video, I think the refs ultimately made the correct call. What I mean is, I think if the video had been working and they had gone and looked at it and were able to see what we can see on the video, they would have ruled it a no-goal.

That being said, I thought to use what they saw on the video, there had to be conclusive evidence that the ruling on the ice was incorrect, and if it wasn't conclusive, that the ruling on the ice stood. The ref behind the goal was clearly indicating that it was a goal. So how did they have conclusive evidence to overrule the ruling on the ice if there was no video to review?

The ref called the goal because the puck went in, just like a goal judge used to do. However the other ref and the linesmen are out on the ice and look at what's happening with the rest of the players. They saw the goalie interference, or as they said "man in the crease". That's why they went to 2 refs, so the whole ice could be seen. It's no different than if an offsides was called, but not heard, and play went on to a goal. It would have been disallowed, even if a ref called it in.

Sure.

So you're saying all the officials got together and before attempting to review the video that turned out not to exist, had actually ruled it a no-goal on the ice? That makes sense. (If that happened, I didn't see it, as I wasn't there. My daughter had the lead in a musical. Having failed to sell two of my tickets, and having heard about the lengthy review from my other daughter, I made it to Lynah in time for most of the third period, and, of course, the OT.)

That's sort of what I'm saying. I have no idea if they ruled it no goal before trying to look at the video. However I am saying that the other officials had a question of what I'd rather call goalie interference and decided to check the video. When that wasn't available, they got together, refs and linesmen, and decided no goal.