Monday, October 21st, 2019
 
 
 
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 Spittoon
2002 2003 2005

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

ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)

Posted by andyw2100 
ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.sub-174-220-4.myvzw.com)
Date: March 22, 2019 06:42PM

It's been working, so...
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2019 12:01AM by andyw2100.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: djk26 (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 22, 2019 10:01PM

It's Clarkson, 5-2 over Harvard. Good luck to Cornell--that's an impressive score for Clarkson against a good Harvard team.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.biz.spectrum.com)
Date: March 22, 2019 10:38PM

I only stayed for the first period, but Sucks looked like they were skating in sand compared to Clarkson.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: scoop85 (---.sub-174-220-10.myvzw.com)
Date: March 23, 2019 07:02PM

Motley in for Murphy, presumably to get more size in the lineup
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: RichH (159.192.222.---)
Date: March 23, 2019 08:23PM

Looks like we have to stay out of the box. Tech is having their way with us on the PP in the 1st. Otherwise, both sides playing well, 2-1 Tech.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2019 08:24PM by RichH.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BMac (---.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 10:04PM

That tying goal was magic. Let’s go!!!
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: RichH (159.192.222.---)
Date: March 23, 2019 10:06PM

BMac
That tying goal was magic. Let’s go!!!

Getting the equalizer that late feels so good, considering they did it to us at Cheel. Bigger stakes tonight. Could be a long night.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Lauren '06 (---.hsd1.wa.comcast.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 10:47PM

Well at least they'll be angry going into the NCAAs.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: imafrshmn (---.hsd1.mi.comcast.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 10:47PM

Congratulations to your 2019 ECAC Hockey Champions, the Clarkson Golden Knights.

 
___________________________
class of '09
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BearLover (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 10:49PM

The refs blew this one.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Iceberg (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 10:49PM

Hopefully it's nothing serious with Galajda. McGrath looked shaky but given the circumstances somewhat expected
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Dafatone (---.midco.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 10:50PM

From what I can tell, that shouldn't be offsides. Puck came out, puck entered the zone while a Clarkson guy was in, Clarkson guy exits the zone, then they rushed in.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: imafrshmn (---.hsd1.mi.comcast.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 10:54PM

Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment

 
___________________________
class of '09
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Redscore (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 10:59PM

Imafrshmn U r an idiot Give it a rest and enjoy your win. Topher actually said this game was even going into overtone, when any moron knew that it was not. Cornell just could not put it in the net and Clarkson was lucky to win Thats the fact. Enjoy, don't be a jerk....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2019 11:00PM by Redscore.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 10:59PM

there were 2 close calls in the last stretch where offsides was waived off.. not sure which one they were trying to get replayed.. the 2nd one was very close as to whether the back foot was on the ice.. too hard to replay very well in the espn app.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BMac (107.77.109.---)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:00PM

Imafreshman is a Cornell fan, and a classy one. Congrats to Clarkson. This game sucked.

Edit: the result sucked. Our guys were dominating and deserved the win.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2019 11:01PM by BMac.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: RichH (159.192.222.---)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:00PM

imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment

To be fair, the RPI play-by-play guy said something like "should be offsides, but they play on..." All skaters clearly touched up and were onside.

Like I said on the chat, if I had to choose a team to lose an ECAC championship to, it's them. Great game, and hats off to Casey and Clarkson. Nobody should be surprised he built a championship team there.

The 2010s is the first decade Cornell didn't win at least two ECAC championships.

Lick the wound and gear up for the next tournament.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BearLover (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:03PM

To be clear regarding my "the refs blew this one" comment, the first period was probably the worst-officiated period I've ever seen in my life. I couldn't tell if the OT winner came off an offsides and have no interest in going back to look.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Iceberg (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:04PM

Well, we'll see what happens next weekend, but the neutral zone play will definitely have to be better. That overtime goal was basically the result of an advance up the ice that just wasn't deep enough
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BearLover (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:08PM

Can't complain about how Cornell played tonight. Or all season long, really. They lost a second-line forward minutes into the game and then conceded a goal on the horseshit penalty call, yet dominated 5-on-5 play, came back and had several great chances to win it. Just bad luck and bad officiating.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: CU2007 (---.sub-174-202-3.myvzw.com)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:11PM

Shitty result but that’s what happens in OT. You can dominate for 2 or 7 OT’s and one bounce and your season is over. Luckily ours is not. Tough break for sure but we skate on. LGR
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Cornell95 (---.bstnma.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:13PM

as a casual fan who never played hockey... can someone more knowledgeable comment on the high number of clearances blocked by refs tonight?
does it always fall on the player to know where the ref is stationed?
ref have some responsibility to anticipate/move?
a result of both players and refs not playing on Olympic size sheet?
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.nys.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:40PM

What was said on the video about the play in which Galajda got injured?

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BearLover (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:42PM

Jim Hyla
What was said on the video about the play in which Galajda got injured?
That it was completely insane for the refs not to blow the play dead. They can blow the whole season dead though if Galajda is unable to play in the NCAAs.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: redice (---.stny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:44PM

BearLover
Can't complain about how Cornell played tonight. Or all season long, really. They lost a second-line forward minutes into the game and then conceded a goal on the horseshit penalty call, yet dominated 5-on-5 play, came back and had several great chances to win it. Just bad luck and bad officiating.

Well said, but it still pains me right now..
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: andyw2100 (---.sub-174-220-9.myvzw.com)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:48PM

BearLover
They lost a second-line forward minutes into the game and then conceded a goal on the horseshit penalty call...

What did that look like on the broadcast / replay? My sense watching it live was that neither player really saw the other.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: CU2007 (---.sub-174-202-3.myvzw.com)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:49PM

andyw2100
BearLover
They lost a second-line forward minutes into the game and then conceded a goal on the horseshit penalty call...

What did that look like on the broadcast / replay? My sense watching it live was that neither player really saw the other.

Exactly right. Clarkson player changed directions into him and there was nowhere for him to go, hence his injury. A truly awful penalty call in every sense.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 vs. Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: BearLover (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:56PM

The officiating this postseason has been disgraceful. Cornell was been the beneficiary of some of it--the embellishment call on Union in the third period of game 3 and the tripping call on Brown last night come to mind--but tonight they got absolutely fucked by the refs. The refs make calls at random and it cost us tonight.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: jtwcornell91 (Moderator)
Date: March 23, 2019 11:59PM

imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment
I didn't see a replay on ESPN+, but in general I think video reviewing offsides on every goal is killing the pace of the game. So while I would have been happy to see Cornell survive by having the goal waved off like that, it would have been like winning a shootout.

 
___________________________
JTW

Enjoy the latest hockey geek tools at [www.elynah.com]
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: marty (---.sub-174-220-8.myvzw.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 12:08AM

jtwcornell91
imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment
I didn't see a replay on ESPN+, but in general I think video reviewing offsides on every goal is killing the pace of the game. So while I would have been happy to see Cornell survive by having the goal waved off like that, it would have been like winning a shootout.

I agree except when it is the GWG in OT. Reviewing offsides otherwise sucks.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.biz.spectrum.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 12:17AM

CU2007
andyw2100
BearLover
They lost a second-line forward minutes into the game and then conceded a goal on the horseshit penalty call...

What did that look like on the broadcast / replay? My sense watching it live was that neither player really saw the other.

Exactly right. Clarkson player changed directions into him and there was nowhere for him to go, hence his injury. A truly awful penalty call in every sense.

I spoke to Malott's father after he went in the locker room to talk to Jeff. He said the Clarkson guy fell on Jeff's leg. It wasn't the initial contact that caused the injury. And yes, it's an ACL.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Dafatone (---.sub-174-219-150.myvzw.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 01:03AM

Oh well. We played well. They played well. The refs managed to blow some calls, block some clears, and let a net fall on Galajda.

I'd be madder if Clarkson weren't the only other ECAC team I don't hate.

I guess RPI is okay.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BearLover (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 01:10AM

If Galajda is too hurt to play next week I peg our chances of beating Northeastern around 25%.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 01:15AM

imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment
the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: CU2007 (---.sub-174-202-3.myvzw.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 01:29AM

ugarte
imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment
the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don’t know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn’t that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: LGR14 (---.hsd1.va.comcast.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 01:33AM

CU2007
ugarte
imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment
the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don’t know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn’t that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable

This has happened from time to time in the NHL and it's not reviewable. They only review the last entry that led to the goal. The last entry was legal, even though the one immediately preceding it was not. Yes, it's stupid.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2019 01:36AM by LGR14.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: ugarte (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 01:35AM

CU2007
ugarte
imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment
the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don’t know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn’t that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable
think of it this way. the poke check happens, the refs don't blow the whistle. Cornell gets possession, carries the puck up the ice, muck around a bit in the Clarkson end, Clarkson gets possession without a stoppage in play, enters the zone cleanly, scores. Reviewable?

the problem is definitely NOT that there isn't enough offsides review in college hockey.

 
___________________________
Jokes and stuff

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2019 01:36AM by ugarte.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: CU2007 (---.sub-174-202-3.myvzw.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 01:54AM

ugarte
CU2007
ugarte
imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment
the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don’t know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn’t that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable
think of it this way. the poke check happens, the refs don't blow the whistle. Cornell gets possession, carries the puck up the ice, muck around a bit in the Clarkson end, Clarkson gets possession without a stoppage in play, enters the zone cleanly, scores. Reviewable?

the problem is definitely NOT that there isn't enough offsides review in college hockey.

Is that what happened? If so that makes more sense to me. I haven’t seen a replay. I don’t think you should be able to demand a replay from 5 minutes ago if the play has gone up and down the ice. To be honest, I don’t remember the lead up to the goal.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.nys.biz.rr.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 02:11AM

CU2007
ugarte
CU2007
ugarte
imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment
the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don’t know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn’t that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable
think of it this way. the poke check happens, the refs don't blow the whistle. Cornell gets possession, carries the puck up the ice, muck around a bit in the Clarkson end, Clarkson gets possession without a stoppage in play, enters the zone cleanly, scores. Reviewable?

the problem is definitely NOT that there isn't enough offsides review in college hockey.

Is that what happened? If so that makes more sense to me. I haven’t seen a replay. I don’t think you should be able to demand a replay from 5 minutes ago if the play has gone up and down the ice. To be honest, I don’t remember the lead up to the goal.

No, the offsides was immediately before. ugarte was just exaggerating to make the point as to why they couldn't review it. Too many mistakes by officials in this game and unfortunately 2 of them led to the loss.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: CU2007 (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 02:29AM

Jim Hyla
CU2007
ugarte
CU2007
ugarte
imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment
the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don’t know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn’t that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable
think of it this way. the poke check happens, the refs don't blow the whistle. Cornell gets possession, carries the puck up the ice, muck around a bit in the Clarkson end, Clarkson gets possession without a stoppage in play, enters the zone cleanly, scores. Reviewable?

the problem is definitely NOT that there isn't enough offsides review in college hockey.

Is that what happened? If so that makes more sense to me. I haven’t seen a replay. I don’t think you should be able to demand a replay from 5 minutes ago if the play has gone up and down the ice. To be honest, I don’t remember the lead up to the goal.

No, the offsides was immediately before. ugarte was just exaggerating to make the point as to why they couldn't review it. Too many mistakes by officials in this game and unfortunately 2 of them led to the loss.

That was my view too. Welp, fuck em. No other path forward. Rallying cry into the big dance. Let’s go get em
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: adamw (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 03:20AM

One of the smallest worst calls of the night was the high stick whistle against Donaldson (I believe) when he batted down the puck at this waist - would've had a clear path to the net.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: BigRedHockeyFan (---.apn.wlan.upenn.edu)
Date: March 24, 2019 04:11AM

Video of the goal, with a look at the possible offsides:

 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: BigRedHockeyFan (---.apn.wlan.upenn.edu)
Date: March 24, 2019 04:20AM

Klack's left skate is in the crease before he shoots and before Nuttle pushes him.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: BigRedHockeyFan (---.apn.wlan.upenn.edu)
Date: March 24, 2019 04:22AM

Malott's injury looked ugly. I hope he will be ok for next season.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2019 04:22AM by BigRedHockeyFan.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: BigRedHockeyFan (---.apn.wlan.upenn.edu)
Date: March 24, 2019 04:31AM

Second Cornell goal:



First Cornell goal:

 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: RichH (104.238.46.---)
Date: March 24, 2019 05:02AM

BigRedHockeyFan
Malott's injury looked ugly. I hope he will be ok for next season.

Coach Schafer mentioned that surgery is coming with an 8-month recovery time. That timeline takes it to late November, plus he'll have to get into condition. I'm guessing he won't be back until January after the break.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: cth95 (---.hsd1.vt.comcast.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 08:17AM

Being there, I thought the review was to see if he was in the crease.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: BigRedHockeyFan (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 08:39AM

Right before the shot.

 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: marty (---.sub-174-220-8.myvzw.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 08:55AM

Albany Times Union coverage of the games.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 09:05AM

it is interesting how they often ignore guys in the crease and other times dont.. is it more about interfering with the goalie that they care about?
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: sah67 (---.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 09:13AM

Schafer’s comments on the Galajda situation:

“The million-dollar question is do I want to coach in the NCAAs or do I not want to coach in the NCAAs. That’s my goal in this press conference, so I’ll answer that question very carefully.

Why [do] the officials want to keep the net on in that situation that cost my starting goaltender, our starting goaltender, a knee injury? For what? To keep the play going? They messed up the call and the kid got hurt. For no reason. The Clarkson kid’s trying to help him. That’s the kind of sportsmanship. The goalie’s down on his knees, the thing’s on the back of his neck and yet they can’t blow the whistle. And it hurt a student-athlete. I just think that’s unacceptable from an officials standpoint.

And great sportsmanship. Like our guys started helping, the Clarkson kid was trying to help him. The only ones that weren’t trying to help him were the officials. They were the only ones not doing their job. … I mean It was just a weird play, and it’s just unfathomable why they would [not] stop to blow the whistle and protect everybody involved.”
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: sah67 (---.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 09:17AM

Video of the Malott injury/“penalty” for those who haven’t seen:

 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BigRedHockeyFan (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 09:31AM

upprdeck
it is interesting how they often ignore guys in the crease and other times dont.. is it more about interfering with the goalie that they care about?

I'm guessing the crease violation looked minor to refs and because there was no contact between Austin and Klack, they didn't call it.

Still, planting his skate in the crease gave Klack an advantage in scoring the goal. In my opinion, no goal.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: BigRedHockeyFan (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 09:33AM

RichH
BigRedHockeyFan
Malott's injury looked ugly. I hope he will be ok for next season.

Coach Schafer mentioned that surgery is coming with an 8-month recovery time. That timeline takes it to late November, plus he'll have to get into condition. I'm guessing he won't be back until January after the break.

Losing Malott bothers me a lot more than losing the game.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: redice (---.stny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 09:48AM

marty
Albany Times Union coverage of the games.

They really "hit it out of the park", didn't they? SMH!!!

The Ithaca Journal (online edition), on Saturday, didn't mention the Men's semifinal win... But, they somehow managed to cover the Saturday loss in today's edition... Interesting..
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2019 09:51AM by redice.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: scoop85 (---.hvc.res.rr.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 09:48AM

BigRedHockeyFan
RichH
BigRedHockeyFan
Malott's injury looked ugly. I hope he will be ok for next season.

Coach Schafer mentioned that surgery is coming with an 8-month recovery time. That timeline takes it to late November, plus he'll have to get into condition. I'm guessing he won't be back until January after the break.

Losing Malott bothers me a lot more than losing the game.

Possibly losing Galajda probably even worse.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: LGR14 (205.196.206.---)
Date: March 24, 2019 09:58AM

BigRedHockeyFan
upprdeck
it is interesting how they often ignore guys in the crease and other times dont.. is it more about interfering with the goalie that they care about?

I'm guessing the crease violation looked minor to refs and because there was no contact between Austin and Klack, they didn't call it.

Still, planting his skate in the crease gave Klack an advantage in scoring the goal. In my opinion, no goal.

The player has to be "substantially occupying" the crease. The skate in the crease didn't inhibit McGrath from making a play on the puck. There were a ton of egregious calls in this game, and horrible reffing in general (e.g., Donaldson high stick, not being in position on the clears, Galajda net, etc.), but eh.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BearLover (---.sub-174-203-10.myvzw.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 10:28AM

I don't know if I could have scripted a more nightmarish loss than last night's. Lose in OT in the championship game on a blown call, give up the other two goals on bad penalty calls, possibly lose your starting goalie on a blown call, lose your second-line forward for the season and likely part of next season. I guess it could have been against Harvard or something, but it doesn't get much worse than last night.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BearLover (---.sub-174-203-10.myvzw.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 10:43AM

RichH
imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment

To be fair, the RPI play-by-play guy said something like "should be offsides, but they play on..." All skaters clearly touched up and were onside.
I didn't realize the play-by-play guy was the same bozo who claimed in the game at RPI a few months ago that Malott was faking an injury when he stayed down on the ice after getting pushed head-first into the boards.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 10:49AM

i still dont see any reason why he didnt blow the whistle on that play.. but then he also didnt blow the whistle on the play where the clarkson goalie almost get speared on a loose puck scramble ealier
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: osorojo (---.res.spectrum.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 11:24AM

Looks like Cornell played a good game - but they lost. The chief result of excuses is to justify losing. I would prefer to read specific suggestions as to how Cornell could play better hockey as a team?
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: CU2007 (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 11:36AM

BigRedHockeyFan
Video of the goal, with a look at the possible offsides:


Why was anyone saying they didn’t see the offside? That’s clearly offside. Wow
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: BearLover (---.nycmny.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 11:42AM

Also, McGrath was clearly not on his game in the OT. Which might be expected due to the circumstances, but Galajda probably poke checks the puck out of the crease rather than falling over backwards.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: imafrshmn (---.hsd1.mi.comcast.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 11:44AM

CU2007
BigRedHockeyFan
Video of the goal, with a look at the possible offsides:


Why was anyone saying they didn’t see the offside? That’s clearly offside. Wow

I don't know why it took me so long to realize this was offsides. It sucks.

 
___________________________
class of '09
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: Iceberg (---.hfc.comcastbusiness.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 12:12PM

BearLover
Also, McGrath was clearly not on his game in the OT. Which might be expected due to the circumstances, but Galajda probably poke checks the puck out of the crease rather than falling over backwards.

Yeah, that's what I thought too. He definitely could've stopped the pass across. But he was basically thrown into the fire yesterday. Tough luck
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: jy3 (173.225.61.---)
Date: March 24, 2019 12:15PM

The crease rules have changed over the last 15 years multiple times in college hockey. Here is the current iteration. I initially thought the goal was scored with a kicking motion on first look. That does not seem to be the case. Being in the crease does not invalidate the goal. It appears to me by the definition below the goal is good.



Rule 73 - Interference on the Goalkeeper
73.1 Interference on the Goalkeeper - The overriding rationale of this rule
is that a goalkeeper should have the ability to move freely within the
goal crease without being hindered by the actions of an attacking player.
However, an attacking player’s position, whether inside or outside the
crease, should not, by itself, determine whether a goal should be allowed
or disallowed. In other words, goals scored while attacking players are
standing in the crease may, in appropriate circumstances, be allowed.
Goals should be disallowed only if an attacking player, either by positioning
or by contact, impairs the goalkeeper’s ability to defend the goal.
Section 9 / Other Fouls 61
If an attacking player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by a defending
player and causes contact with the goalkeeper, such contact will not be deemed
contact initiated by the attacking player for purposes of this rule, provided the
attacking player has made a reasonable effort to avoid such contact.
If a defending player has been pushed, shoved, or fouled by an attacking
player so as to cause the defending player to come into contact with the
goalkeeper, such contact shall be deemed contact initiated by the attacking
player for purposes of this rule, and if necessary a penalty assessed to the
attacking player and if a goal is scored it shall be disallowed.
Rights of the Goaltender – The rules must protect the goaltender and allow
him or her to defend the goal, within the goal crease, without interference
from an attacking player. This includes allowing a goaltender to move
effectively and efficiently within the crease, as well as being able to see the
puck unimpeded by a player who has established a position in the crease.
Rights of the Attacking Player – Attacking players who are outside of the
crease have some rights to the space they occupy. In cases where an attacking
player makes contact with goaltender’s equipment that extends outside the
plane of the crease (e.g., glove, blocker, stick, etc.), provided that the attacking
player does not initiate distinct and deliberate actions aimed at impeding the
goaltender’s use of their equipment (e.g., slashing the goaltender’s glove), this
contact should be considered incidental and goals scored on such plays shall
be allowed.
If an attacking player establishes a significant position within the goal
crease, so as to obstruct the goalkeeper’s vision and impair his ability to
defend his goal, and a goal is scored, such goals shall be disallowed. For this
purpose, a player establishes a significant position within the crease when, in
the referee’s judgment, his/her body, or a substantial portion thereof, is within
the goal crease for more than an instantaneous period of time.
Role of the Official – Officials are encouraged to use their


video review rules have changed over the years as well. There was a point in the NHL that play would resume while the review was happening and you could seriously play minutes while the review was going on and then have to replay if the original play was overturned by the review. This was insane and this rule was quickly changed.

Under 93.4, it is correct that the initial off-sides is not reviewable because the puck left the Clarkson attacking zone.
12. To determine if a goal was scored as a result of an offside play or as
the result of an undetected too many men on the ice infraction by
the attacking team. The opportunity for review exists during the time
the puck entered the attacking zone illegally as a result of the offside
infraction and until the puck either:
a) Leaves the offending team’s attacking zone;
b) A stoppage of play occurs and a faceoff is conducted; or
c) The defending team gains possession and control of the puck

[www.ncaapublications.com]

Those are the rules. The crease/goal tender interference rule is a tough one because you have to balance safety with fairness for the attacker. The review rule likely was determined as you have to cut off how far back you can review. So it looks like the offsides was missed but the goal was legal.

 
___________________________
LGR!!!!!!!!!!
jy3 '00
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: ursusminor (---.washdc.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 02:21PM

BearLover
RichH
imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment

To be fair, the RPI play-by-play guy said something like "should be offsides, but they play on..." All skaters clearly touched up and were onside.
I didn't realize the play-by-play guy was the same bozo who claimed in the game at RPI a few months ago that Malott was faking an injury when he stayed down on the ice after getting pushed head-first into the boards.

Don't forget to blame RPI for ref C. J. Hanafin (RPI '05) :-P
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: marty (---.sub-174-220-19.myvzw.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 02:47PM

BearLover
RichH
imafrshmn
Yeah, I don’t see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate “should have been offsides” comment

To be fair, the RPI play-by-play guy said something like "should be offsides, but they play on..." All skaters clearly touched up and were onside.
I didn't realize the play-by-play guy was the same bozo who claimed in the game at RPI a few months ago that Malott was faking an injury when he stayed down on the ice after getting pushed head-first into the boards.

As mediocre as their play by play crew is, their video production is tops. I saw a black RPI TV tshirt during Friday's game. I'm assuming that the ECAC got the full RPI.

Tute each his own.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: coz (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 03:03PM

marty

As mediocre as their play by play crew is, their video production is tops. I saw a black RPI TV tshirt during Friday's game. I'm assuming that the ECAC got the full RPI.

Tute each his own.

I thought Perry was okay though he did make a few mistakes. It was clearly not the RPI guys on the main camera. Whoever it was had no idea where the puck was at least half the time.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BigRedHockeyFan (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 04:25PM

LGR14
BigRedHockeyFan
upprdeck
it is interesting how they often ignore guys in the crease and other times dont.. is it more about interfering with the goalie that they care about?

I'm guessing the crease violation looked minor to refs and because there was no contact between Austin and Klack, they didn't call it.

Still, planting his skate in the crease gave Klack an advantage in scoring the goal. In my opinion, no goal.

The player has to be "substantially occupying" the crease. The skate in the crease didn't inhibit McGrath from making a play on the puck. There were a ton of egregious calls in this game, and horrible reffing in general (e.g., Donaldson high stick, not being in position on the clears, Galajda net, etc.), but eh.

I just read the rule LGR14. It looks like I was wrong. I don't like the rule though.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: BigRedHockeyFan (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 04:27PM

jy3
The crease rules have changed over the last 15 years multiple times in college hockey. Here is the current iteration. I initially thought the goal was scored with a kicking motion on first look. That does not seem to be the case. Being in the crease does not invalidate the goal. It appears to me by the definition below the goal is good.


Those are the rules. The crease/goal tender interference rule is a tough one because you have to balance safety with fairness for the attacker.

Thank you for the information about the crease rules.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: redice (---.stny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 04:56PM

coz

I thought Perry was okay though he did make a few mistakes.

I know that this won't be well received here, but my wife & I felt that Topher sounded like a Clarkson cheerleader on Saturday. I expect that he didn't want to sound like a Cornell fan (which he probably is), and he over conpensated. It was difficult to hear all game long.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Jim Hyla (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 05:09PM

So after being home for a couple of hours, I'm less angry. However I realize that I'd pretty much be okay if the ECAC would come out and admit that the officials missed the offsides call and that they should have blown the play dead when it became obvious that Galajda could not get unencumbered from the net. Even if there is no specific rule, in the interest of player safety it seems it could have been blown dead.

I don't expect that the ECAC will say anything, but I can always hope.

It also would have been nice if the Clarkson write-up had mentioned any of the questions or injuries. They made no mention of Malott's game ending injury on his penalty and with Galajda's, here's the quote:

"as the net never totally came off its moorings but did seem to somewhat incapacitate starting goaltender Matthew Galajda."

Of course no mention of the missed offside.

If teams, leagues, fans just admit when something like that happens, it's a lot easier to take a loss.

Interestingly as I looked back on the goal net play, when they finally blew the whistle they faced-off at center ice. Was that whistle eventually blown because of the net? I completely forgot about that until watching again.

 
___________________________
"Cornell Fans Made the Timbers Tremble", Boston Globe, March/1970
Cornell lawyers stopped the candy throwing. Jan/2005
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: RatushnyFan (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 05:30PM

Couple of tough breaks for sure. But I thought that Cornell played excellent hockey for much of the game. Curious if the officials have a more difficult time transitioning to the Olympic sheet? Despite the big ice they were in the way more often than what I normally see. They have a tough job. Apologizing would be nice, if they do that though I imagine it would be to Cornell's coaching staff.

Re. Topher, I liked his commentary. He's probably close with Casey Jones. He was very complimentary of Clarkson but they're a pretty skilled team and would be easy to like aside from the fact that they're.........Clarkson. I'll take impartiality (or even overcompensating) over Jack Edwards any day of the week!
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: upprdeck (---.syrcny.east.verizon.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 06:27PM

there is no rule needed when it comes to player safety.. same with every sport.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: CU2007 (---.nyc.res.rr.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 07:45PM

redice
coz

I thought Perry was okay though he did make a few mistakes.

I know that this won't be well received here, but my wife & I felt that Topher sounded like a Clarkson cheerleader on Saturday. I expect that he didn't want to sound like a Cornell fan (which he probably is), and he over conpensated. It was difficult to hear all game long.

What? He almost screamed at the refs for the missed offside on the “game winner”
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: redice (---.stny.res.rr.com)
Date: March 24, 2019 08:37PM

CU2007
redice
coz

I thought Perry was okay though he did make a few mistakes.

I know that this won't be well received here, but my wife & I felt that Topher sounded like a Clarkson cheerleader on Saturday. I expect that he didn't want to sound like a Cornell fan (which he probably is), and he over conpensated. It was difficult to hear all game long.

What? He almost screamed at the refs for the missed offside on the “game winner”

That's one moment... Listen to the whole broadcast & tell me I'm wrong... From one Cornellian, speaking of another, I expect you will!
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: CU77 (---.sb.sd.cox.net)
Date: March 24, 2019 09:30PM

I thought he called things pretty straight.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: BigRedHockeyFan (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: March 25, 2019 12:33PM

ESPN on Matt 3/25/19:

"Following an emotional ECAC championship game loss to Clarkson, the status of star goaltender Matthew Galajda is up in the air after he was injured during the overtime period. Without Galajda, Cornell faces an uphill battle but plays a style that wears on its opponents no matter who is in net. Led by Barron up front, this Cornell squad has some skill to go with its trademark grit."
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: March 25, 2019 01:23PM

The old memes die hard.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: Jeff Hopkins '82 (---.102.132.76.res-cmts.sm.ptd.net)
Date: March 25, 2019 09:23PM

Trotsky
The old memes die hard.

It's the system. deadhorse
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)
Posted by: Swampy (---.cl.ri.cox.net)
Date: March 26, 2019 11:13PM

RichH
BigRedHockeyFan
Malott's injury looked ugly. I hope he will be ok for next season.

Coach Schafer mentioned that surgery is coming with an 8-month recovery time. That timeline takes it to late November, plus he'll have to get into condition. I'm guessing he won't be back until January after the break.

In today’s Daily Sun Mike is more optimistic:
Mike Schafer
We hope we’ll get him back at the start of the year next year, he’ll go through surgery and rehab and everything else but we hope that he’ll be back” ...
Schafer said.

He compared the injury with one Smith had 2 years ago, and Smith was back at the start of the next season.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: BigRedHockeyFan (---.phlapa.fios.verizon.net)
Date: April 01, 2019 01:11PM

Jim Hyla
...they should have blown the play dead when it became obvious that Galajda could not get unencumbered from the net. Even if there is no specific rule, in the interest of player safety it seems it could have been blown dead.

This was the worst missed call of the season.
 
Re: ECAC Finals: Clarkson vs. Cornell
Posted by: Trotsky (---.dc.dc.cox.net)
Date: April 01, 2019 01:14PM

BigRedHockeyFan
Jim Hyla
...they should have blown the play dead when it became obvious that Galajda could not get unencumbered from the net. Even if there is no specific rule, in the interest of player safety it seems it could have been blown dead.

This was the worst missed call of the season.
It was the worst on-ice decision by an official I have seen in my [redacted] long years of watching college hockey.
 

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login