ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)

It's been working, so...

It's Clarkson, 5-2 over Harvard. Good luck to Cornell--that's an impressive score for Clarkson against a good Harvard team.

I only stayed for the first period, but Sucks looked like they were skating in sand compared to Clarkson.

Motley in for Murphy, presumably to get more size in the lineup

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.

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

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.

Well at least they'll be angry going into the NCAAs.

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

The refs blew this one.

Hopefully it's nothing serious with Galajda. McGrath looked shaky but given the circumstances somewhat expected

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.

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

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If Galajda is too hurt to play next week I peg our chances of beating Northeastern around 25%.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

It's a heartbreaking loss for @CUBigRedHockey in overtime. Here's the winning goal ... pic.twitter.com/WWQV3eo3YI

— Cornell Video (@CornellVideo) March 24, 2019

Klack's left skate is in the crease before he shoots and before Nuttle pushes him.

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

Second Cornell goal:

Here's a look at Tristan Mullin's goal to tie it at 2! Watch on ESPN: [t.co] pic.twitter.com/OsSrF2nZZc

— Cornell Video (@CornellVideo) March 24, 2019

First Cornell goal:

Here's a look at Noah Bauld's third goal of the postseason to give @CUBigRedHockey an early 1-0 lead on Clarkson! Watch on ESPN: [t.co] pic.twitter.com/nRvc9OCf2Q

— Cornell Video (@CornellVideo) March 23, 2019

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.

Being there, I thought the review was to see if he was in the crease.

Right before the shot.

Albany Times Union coverage of the games.

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?

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.”

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

Bad looking knee injury for Jeff Malott, who needed assistance getting off the ice and went directly to the locker room. Was grimacing on the ice. Does not look promising. pic.twitter.com/OoXQz2WeUG

— Zachary Silver (@zachsilver) March 24, 2019

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.

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.

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..

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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?

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

It's a heartbreaking loss for @CUBigRedHockey in overtime. Here's the winning goal ... pic.twitter.com/WWQV3eo3YI

— Cornell Video (@CornellVideo) March 24, 2019

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

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.

CU2007

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

It's a heartbreaking loss for @CUBigRedHockey in overtime. Here's the winning goal ... pic.twitter.com/WWQV3eo3YI

— Cornell Video (@CornellVideo) March 24, 2019

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

there is no rule needed when it comes to player safety.. same with every sport.

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”

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!

I thought he called things pretty straight.

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."

The old memes die hard.

Trotsky
The old memes die hard.

It's the system.

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.

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.

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.