Monday, August 21st, 2017
Who is this season's most improved player?
Matt Buckles
Jeff Kubiak
Alex Rauter
Trevor Yates
 
 
 
Updates automatically
Twitter Link
CHN iOS App
 
NCAA
1967 1970

ECAC
1967 1968 1969 1970 1973 1980 1986 1996 1997 2003 2005 2010

IVY
1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1977 1978 1983 1984 1985 1996 1997 2002 2003 2004 2005 2012 2014

Cleary Bedpan
2002 2003 2005

Ned Harkness Cup
2003 2005 2008 2013
 
Brendon
Iles
Pokulok
Schafer
Syphilis

cu- lowell

Posted by upprdeck 
cu- lowell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 12:13PM

is there some part of that review that makes any sense? stick contact way below the shoulder. or do the announcers have the rule confused?
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: Al DeFlorio (72.2.237.---)
Date: March 25, 2017 12:25PM

upprdeck
is there some part of that review that makes any sense? stick contact way below the shoulder. or do the announcers have the rule confused?
Deja vu 2003

 
___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 12:28PM

I'm wondering if the rule is based on where the puck makes contact or simply how high the stick is in total. Cause the contact was further up the shaft and definitely below the shoulders, but the blade came up that high at some point in the play.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: MattShaf (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 12:51PM

Yup....Although we were outplayed the rest of the period by UML, the response was better than against UNH in '03.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 12:52PM

its where the contact occurs not where the stick is.

i was trying to find the most recent rule about it. all the older rules i found makes it sound like it should have counted like the announcers though.. it was easily below the shoulder but maybe its really the net?
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: LGR14 (---.hsd1.va.comcast.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 12:54PM

The rule, at least in the NHL, is that the point of contact cannot be above the crossbar. At least to me, I thought it looked like the point of contact WAS above the crossbar.

My problem is that I'm not sure why it was reviewable. If the puck had gone in off the high-stick, fine. But now what's the line? If the puck is played with a potential high-stick, waived off, then three minutes later the team scores, is that too tenuous?
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 25, 2017 12:59PM

It was ruled a goal on the ice. There was not, in my opinion, irrefutable evidence that the puck was played with a high-stick. It was an incredibly close call. If it's that close, the refs should allow the call on the ice to stand.

I definitely feel like the refs are looking at the replays, and simply making a call based on what they see, with no regard for what was called on the ice. It's as if they are starting from scratch. Bullshit!
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: LGR14 (---.hsd1.va.comcast.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 01:01PM

andyw2100
It was ruled a goal on the ice. There was not, in my opinion, irrefutable evidence that the puck was played with a high-stick. It was an incredibly close call. If it's that close, the refs should allow the call on the ice to stand.

I definitely feel like the refs are looking at the replays, and simply making a call based on what they see, with no regard for what was called on the ice. It's as if they are starting from scratch. Bullshit!

I do agree with this point - and that seemed to be what was going on in a couple of yesterday's games, too. Also have to be mindful of how the angles can be misleading, especially when it comes to the height of a stick and whether the puck has crossed the line.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 01:02PM

LGR14
The rule, at least in the NHL, is that the point of contact cannot be above the crossbar. At least to me, I thought it looked like the point of contact WAS above the crossbar.

My problem is that I'm not sure why it was reviewable. If the puck had gone in off the high-stick, fine. But now what's the line? If the puck is played with a potential high-stick, waived off, then three minutes later the team scores, is that too tenuous?

My understanding is that they can and will review everything from the puck entering the zone to the goal.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 01:06PM

found this on one site

Here is a tricky situation. What happens if the player has his stick pointing above his head, but the puck hits a spot on the portion of his stick that is below his shoulders?

The answer is that this would not be considered a high stick. Even though the stick was high up in the air, the actual puck contacting the stick was below the shoulders; therefore play shall be allowed to continue. If the puck happens to enter the net after such a play, the goal would count.

its also the normal height of the shoulder.. so as he was crouching its actually a big higher..
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: imafrshmn (---.hsd1.mi.comcast.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 01:20PM

It's gonna be real hard to get back into this game down 2-0. UML looks like they're turning the screws the way Harvard did to us last week.

 
___________________________
class of '09
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 01:31PM

would have been nice to get that slash call on the yates attempt.. when we have had a chance to forecheck we have created chances, they are just a bit quicker to recover and limit the chances with the puck
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: snert1288 (---.sub-70-195-139.myvzw.com)
Date: March 25, 2017 01:44PM

Good call waving off UML short handed goal. Looks like at least 5 (probably 6) men on ice
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: toddlose (---.hsd1.nj.comcast.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 01:46PM

Need to handle the puck alot better. Connecting on a pass seems like a rarity. Turnover after turnover.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: BMac (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 02:00PM

The neutral zone turnovers are brutal. The beginning of the first period we looked awesome, like our game against union. Now we look overmatched and slow.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 02:03PM

great they overruled the goal.. terrible they missed it in the first place it was so obvious.. we needed a few breaks to beat this team and screwing up the first goal and missing the 2 many men penalty hurt us when we generate so fewer many chances.. even the yates chance was ruined by a slash out front worse then the trip we got called for down low.

but the PP is awful and thats our fault too.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: snert1288 (---.sub-70-195-139.myvzw.com)
Date: March 25, 2017 02:11PM

The too many men did appear obvious! Gotta score one
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: snert1288 (---.sub-70-195-139.myvzw.com)
Date: March 25, 2017 02:14PM

Great first shift of 3rd period
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 02:20PM

good pressure the start of each period.. got nothing for it. then they would make a bad play and pay for it.

still only allowing under 15 shots it should be closer but the few lowell chances are all point blank
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: David Harding (---.hsd1.il.comcast.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 02:35PM

upprdeck
its where the contact occurs not where the stick is.

i was trying to find the most recent rule about it. all the older rules i found makes it sound like it should have counted like the announcers though.. it was easily below the shoulder but maybe its really the net?
2016-2018 NCAA ice hockey rule book
87.4 Disallowed Goal - When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent's goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.

93.4 Video Replay Criteria - The following criteria are subject to the use of video replay:
...
* A puck directed or deflected into the net by a high stick. (See 83.6)
...
* To determine if a goal was scored as the direct result of a hand pass or high stick by an attacking player to a teammate or deflection off of the goalkeeper.
...

83.6 Disallowed Goals - An apparent goal shall not be allowed by the Referee in any of the following cases:
* An attacking player strikes the puck with a stick when the puck is above the height of the crossbar of th gaol frame (4 feet). Where the puck contacts the stick is the determining factor in this rule.
,..
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 02:42PM

so none of the things happened they would cause the goal to be taken away.

the 2 many men penalty was awful

the late major not even sure what they called that.. seen far worse get no call this year.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: BMac (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 02:46PM

Just a shitty way to end the game. These refs and their reviews have been painful
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 02:50PM

lowell is better so losing doesnt feel so bad, but still mutliple reviews even the announcers question is pretty bad.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 03:06PM

Better team - today and all year - won. Officiating was still dubious. McCarron interference (to create 4x4) was bullshit; McCarron major at the end should have been a minor. Took way too long to wave off the too-many-men goal when it was insanely obvious.

In general I hate replay review for rules infractions other than goalie interference or to see whether the puck was in the net. A blown offsides call that doesn't lead to a goal on the rush should stand; a high-stick that requires a subjective off-angle review should stand; a less-egregious uncalled too-many-men should stand (though this one was a Rosie Ruiz-level joke).

But to reiterate, there are no circumstances other than the egregious reffing going against Lowell all game that would have resulted in a Cornell W. A well-reffed game would have been a closer loss.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 03:38PM by ugarte.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: djk26 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 03:16PM

Disappointing... I was 80% sure Cornell would lose, but did not expect it to be this bad. And now we graduate 38% of our goals+assists, plus our goaltender. :-O

Even so, the team did better than expected this year, they should be proud.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: abmarks (---.pools.spcsdns.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 03:53PM

Lowell was superb. A Lowell v Harvard match-up would be a he'll of a game
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: BMac (107.77.109.---)
Date: March 25, 2017 04:58PM

They really should be proud. Especially with the injuries they had, this was a team that got it together and provided one of the most fun seasons in quite a while
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: imafrshmn (---.hsd1.mi.comcast.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 05:02PM

BMac
They really should be proud. Especially with the injuries they had, this was a team that got it together and provided one of the most fun seasons in quite a while

+1 [god, i wish the ELF still had that feature]

 
___________________________
class of '09
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: BearLover (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 05:49PM

ugarte
Better team - today and all year - won. Officiating was still dubious. McCarron interference (to create 4x4) was bullshit; McCarron major at the end should have been a minor. Took way too long to wave off the too-many-men goal when it was insanely obvious.

In general I hate replay review for rules infractions other than goalie interference or to see whether the puck was in the net. A blown offsides call that doesn't lead to a goal on the rush should stand; a high-stick that requires a subjective off-angle review should stand; a less-egregious uncalled too-many-men should stand (though this one was a Rosie Ruiz-level joke).

But to reiterate, there are no circumstances other than the egregious reffing going against Lowell all game that would have resulted in a Cornell W. A well-reffed game would have been a closer loss.
Cornell didn't play badly enough to conclude this. UML is clearly better but an early goal was one of the ways Cornell was going to sneak out alive. I hope the referees know something in the rules that we don't, because otherwise overturning the call on the ice made little sense.

Schafer had the team prepared. Cornell was ready for all of UML's stretch passes and contained their breaks as best as they realistically could. But UML skated so much faster and was so much crisper in their passing and was so much more suffocating in their forecheck. That's been the story all season, and really for the past eight years, whenever Cornell has struggled against the top teams. Today wasn't a gameplan thing; it was a recruiting thing. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Schafer can coach a defense. The players however simply aren't there to compete with the Yales and Qs and Harvards and UMLs on the forecheck and in transition.

UML, which in six years has gone from cellar dweller to one of the premier programs in college hockey, has shown you don't need top-flight talent or
a hoard of 5'7 guys to play this way. Schafer is well aware of all of this, but the Baulds, Hoffmans, Murphys, and Lalors didn't really blow anybody away this year. Hopefully they'll develop. Next year's team will be sturdy defensively, but everything else is up in the air.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 06:05PM

This squad gets ruined by a decent forecheck and today they were facing a good one. They play solid defense when they get set up but they simply don't stickhandle well enough to get the puck out of their own end and then the defense has to scramble after the turnover,

I couldn't tune in until after we were down 1-0 so I didn't see the reversal but everything after I turned the game on was an uphill slog despite being down a single goal.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 07:01PM

the to's that they commit for no reason lead to too much chasing by the D.

first goal by cornell was just an awful replay review.
first goal by lowell was the cornell D being careless.
the 3rd lowell goal was just a bad lazy entry pass that turned into a rush the other way.

the last 2 goals came when the game was out of reach but still to have a call that a non call on the ice by refs who clearly saw the play and ignore it turn into a major and a then to have qoal taken away by a too many men play that does not result in a penalty is just a bad rule.

the times cornell generated good pressure we didnt get rewarded or the clear slash on the yates play goes uncalled.

it wasnt a 5-0 game. 3-1 would have been a better result of the play, but who knows if they dont blow the first call and miss the too many men call maybe its 3-2 late and we get lucky or at least have a shot to pull the goalie
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: Hooking (---.res.bhn.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 07:02PM

". . . sturdy defensively, but everything else is up in the air." - That comment is annoyingly accurate and familiar. Still, following this year's Big Red team was immensely more enjoyable this year than last year. A similar improvement next year would brig joy to the faithful, more fans to Lynah, and more prospects to Ithaca. Hope springs eternal . . .
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: GBR1234 (---.hsd1.ct.comcast.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 08:39PM

Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: French Rage (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 08:44PM

GBR1234
Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?

Apparently it's only an additional penalty if occurring during a major penalty but not a minor penalty. Which is really random.

 
___________________________
03/23/02: Maine 4, Harvard 3
03/28/03: BU 6, Harvard 4
03/26/04: Maine 5, Harvard 4
03/26/05: UNH 3, Harvard 2
03/25/06: Maine 6, Harvard 1
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 25, 2017 08:55PM

French Rage
GBR1234
Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?

Apparently it's only an additional penalty if occurring during a major penalty but not a minor penalty. Which is really random.

That's not quite it. If I understand correctly:

Replay can only be used to assess a penalty if it is to assess a major where no call was made or where a minor call was made. Replay cannot be used to assess a minor where no call was made. The fact that there were too many men on the ice was enough to call back the goal, as the ongoing play that led to the goal was invalid, but they can't impose a penalty for it.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: French Rage (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 09:29PM

Beeeej
French Rage
GBR1234
Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?

Apparently it's only an additional penalty if occurring during a major penalty but not a minor penalty. Which is really random.

That's not quite it. If I understand correctly:

Replay can only be used to assess a penalty if it is to assess a major where no call was made or where a minor call was made. Replay cannot be used to assess a minor where no call was made. The fact that there were too many men on the ice was enough to call back the goal, as the ongoing play that led to the goal was invalid, but they can't impose a penalty for it.

Ahh. The broadcaster said something about major-not-minor and I misunderstood it.

Also, was I the only one not aware that college hockey still enforces the penalty even if the other team scores during the delayed penalty?

 
___________________________
03/23/02: Maine 4, Harvard 3
03/28/03: BU 6, Harvard 4
03/26/04: Maine 5, Harvard 4
03/26/05: UNH 3, Harvard 2
03/25/06: Maine 6, Harvard 1
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 25, 2017 09:32PM

French Rage
Beeeej
French Rage
GBR1234
Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?

Apparently it's only an additional penalty if occurring during a major penalty but not a minor penalty. Which is really random.

That's not quite it. If I understand correctly:

Replay can only be used to assess a penalty if it is to assess a major where no call was made or where a minor call was made. Replay cannot be used to assess a minor where no call was made. The fact that there were too many men on the ice was enough to call back the goal, as the ongoing play that led to the goal was invalid, but they can't impose a penalty for it.

Ahh. The broadcaster said something about major-not-minor and I misunderstood it.

Also, was I the only one not aware that college hockey still enforces the penalty even if the other team scores during the delayed penalty?

That is a relatively recent rule change, so you're certainly not the only one who was surprised or had forgotten.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: Anne 85 (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 09:44PM

French Rage
GBR1234
Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?

Apparently it's only an additional penalty if occurring during a major penalty but not a minor penalty. Which is really random.
You need to change your sig.

This is Trotsky, visiting, BTW. Anne isn't obnoxious. B-]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2017 09:45PM by Anne 85.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: jeff '84 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 25, 2017 10:38PM

andyw2100
It was ruled a goal on the ice. There was not, in my opinion, irrefutable evidence that the puck was played with a high-stick. It was an incredibly close call. If it's that close, the refs should allow the call on the ice to stand.

I definitely feel like the refs are looking at the replays, and simply making a call based on what they see, with no regard for what was called on the ice. It's as if they are starting from scratch. Bullshit!

Lot of hating on CU in the comment section: [www.uscho.com]
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: BearLover (---.sub-174-192-26.myvzw.com)
Date: March 25, 2017 10:45PM

jeff '84
andyw2100
It was ruled a goal on the ice. There was not, in my opinion, irrefutable evidence that the puck was played with a high-stick. It was an incredibly close call. If it's that close, the refs should allow the call on the ice to stand.

I definitely feel like the refs are looking at the replays, and simply making a call based on what they see, with no regard for what was called on the ice. It's as if they are starting from scratch. Bullshit!

Lot of hating on CU in the comment section: [www.uscho.com]
These people are giant idiots
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2017 04:27AM by BearLover.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 26, 2017 12:22AM

French Rage
Also, was I the only one not aware that college hockey still enforces the penalty even if the other team scores during the delayed penalty?

One of the two commentators on our game was also confused about it. Eventually the other one cleared it up for him, though it took long enough that it wouldn't surprise me if he was handed a note or had someone talking in his ear or something.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 26, 2017 07:36AM

andyw2100
French Rage
Also, was I the only one not aware that college hockey still enforces the penalty even if the other team scores during the delayed penalty?

One of the two commentators on our game was also confused about it. Eventually the other one cleared it up for him, though it took long enough that it wouldn't surprise me if he was handed a note or had someone talking in his ear or something.

The rule rarely results in two goals but Air Force scored its only goals that way against Harvard on Saturday. The beautiful thing about their extra attacker goal was that they had to bring the puck the length of the ice and the score was made because the 6th man was just able to keep the puck in the zone as he skated on.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: March 26, 2017 09:35AM

Beeeej
French Rage
Also, was I the only one not aware that college hockey still enforces the penalty even if the other team scores during the delayed penalty?

That is a relatively recent rule change, so you're certainly not the only one who was surprised or had forgotten.

I'm not a big fan of that, but IIRC either college or pro used to go too far in the other direction. Like if a goal is scored on a delayed penalty during a power play, it would wipe out both penalties. (I.e., the power play would end and a new one wouldn't start.)

 
___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: Trotsky (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 26, 2017 10:39AM

jtwcornell91
I'm not a big fan of that, but IIRC either college or pro used to go too far in the other direction. Like if a goal is scored on a delayed penalty during a power play, it would wipe out both penalties. (I.e., the power play would end and a new one wouldn't start.)
The WHL used this rule for one year and boy was it unpopular. It also led to one of the strangest applications of a rule I've ever seen. In an exhibition game Portland had a power play and a delayed penalty, Tri Cities accidentally pulled its goalie thinking the penalty was on Portland. A Portland player picked up the puck at center ice and shot blindly at the goal and a TC dman, realizing their mistake, lunged and slid his stick across the ice, thus creating a second delayed penalty. The stick missed the puck which missed the net. With the TC man out of the play the Portland player casually skated in, picked the puck off the boards and put it in the net.

There was a 15 minute delay while the officials did a "So You Think You Know Baseball?" discussion. After which they ruled thusly:

1. a goal occurred on a power play so the man in the box who created the power play comes out
2. the rule is that the delayed call also ends, which has to do with the possession team pulling its goalie and creating an additional manpower advantage, so the first delayed penalty is wiped out
3. the second delayed call produced no additional manpower advantage, so that penalty goes up on the board.

The whole rest of the game was just fans arguing about the rule. No idea who won.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: LGR14 (---.hsd1.va.comcast.net)
Date: March 26, 2017 10:44AM

The delayed penalty/goal thing has been the rule for a number of years now [wcha.com]
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: Trotsky (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 26, 2017 10:47AM

LGR14
The delayed penalty/goal thing has been the rule for a number of years now [wcha.com]
IMO this, along with ending the two-line pass and forcing icing team players to remain on the ice, is one of the best rule changes we've had.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: Beeeej (Moderator)
Date: March 26, 2017 12:54PM

LGR14
The delayed penalty/goal thing has been the rule for a number of years now [wcha.com]

That's certainly "relatively recent" compared to the length of Cornell hockey fandom for most people on this board.

 
___________________________
Beeeej, Esq.
Tundra British Columbia Headhunters Circus
Tucson or Bust!

"Cornell isn't an organization. It's a loose affiliation of independent fiefdoms united by a common hockey team."
- Steve Worona
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: marty (---.nycap.res.rr.com)
Date: March 28, 2017 04:59PM

I've decided to do my version of "Fifty Shades of Red" and self flagellate by watching the replay of Saturday's game on ESPN.

With regard to the too many men on the ice call against UML during the UML penalty kill, I get that the only penalty that can be called on a video review is a major. I don't understand why in this particular situation the rule cannot be changed to allow a penalty. It would seem pretty reasonable to allow a review to determine that there were too many men.

With regard to the minor for interference on MacCarron becoming a major on video review. How many majors for interference are called? I don't ever remember seeing one. :-(

On the other hand, I'm also planning to watch the third period of the PSU-Union game to raise my spirits a bit.
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: March 29, 2017 11:11AM

imafrshmn
BMac
They really should be proud. Especially with the injuries they had, this was a team that got it together and provided one of the most fun seasons in quite a while

+1 [god, i wish the ELF still had that feature]

I dunno. Do you people think you can behave yourselves this time?

 
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
 
Re: cu- lowell
Posted by: French Rage (38.99.127.---)
Date: March 29, 2017 01:46PM

CowbellGuy
imafrshmn
BMac
They really should be proud. Especially with the injuries they had, this was a team that got it together and provided one of the most fun seasons in quite a while

+1 [god, i wish the ELF still had that feature]

I dunno. Do you people think you can behave yourselves this time?

Have we ever been able to?

 
___________________________
03/23/02: Maine 4, Harvard 3
03/28/03: BU 6, Harvard 4
03/26/04: Maine 5, Harvard 4
03/26/05: UNH 3, Harvard 2
03/25/06: Maine 6, Harvard 1
 

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login