Dartmouth @ Cornell, 12/3/2022

Last home game of the semester against Fartmouth *cough* sorry I meant Dartmouth

Cornell Lines:

No lines yet

Dartmouth Lines:

I don't pay too much attention to other teams' news these days. I completely missed that Fusco (son, nephew of THE Fuscos) transferred from H to D.

Andreev not in lineup due to "illness" according to Cornell TV guys.

That was not a work of art, but rather a grind-it-out game.

Meanwhile Colgate beat Harvard 6-4 a week after the Raiders were swept by Niagara.

But how? Harvard has so many draft picks!!!

That was not the prettiest game and it could've easily went to overtime, but thankfully...it didn't. Another win against an opponent that should be won against and 3 points in the conference to go into the break. Yesterday aside, the past few weeks look much better compared to how the season started.

Great attendance and energy among the students so far this season.

BearLover
Great attendance and energy among the students so far this season.

Thanks! We are trying our best to not only keep the traditions alive but thriving

seemed like HArvard and Cornell both took a step back after the friday game

Scersk '97
But how? Harvard has so many draft picks!!!

Either draft picks don't mean a ton, or Donato is kinda bad at coaching.

Or both. Definitely could be both.

From the Sacred Heart thread, where I had asked about a possible rule change that caused the ref to force Sacred Heart's coach to either play their backup goalie or use their timeout while their goalie dealt with an equipment issue in the crease:

Give My Regards
This is a change to Rule 14 ("Adjustments to Clothing and Equipment" ) that was adopted this season. Text of the proposal:

"Goalkeeper equipment issue (protocol). The Ice Hockey Rules Committee added additional guidance when goalkeepers have an equipment issue. When an equipment issue causes the goalkeeper to come to the bench for assistance, officials shall instruct the coach to prepare the backup goalkeeper for play.

"If the issue requires additional time, the coach will be given the chance to use their timeout or substitute for the goalkeeper. If the team does not have a timeout, a delay of game penalty may be issued.

"Rationale: While rare, the Ice Hockey Rules Committee believes clarity is needed for officials and coaches to manage these situations"

In the Sacred Heart game, the goalie never actually came to the bench.

Last night in the Dartmouth game, during the second period the Dartmouth goalie did come to the bench, for a fairly long time, dealing with an equipment issue. As soon as he did, one of the refs pointed to the backup goalie, but then quite a bit of time elapsed, the goalie eventually had his equipment issue resolved, and play continued without Dartmouth having to use their timeout.

I wasn't timing it, but I would estimate the time from the beginning of the SHU equipment issue until the point that the ref made the SHU coach use their timeout was under a minute. The goalie was ready to play perhaps a minute or at most two minutes after that.

Last night I'm guessing play was stopped for significantly longer, yet Dartmouth did not need to use their timeout.

Based on this sample size of two, it seems the new rule is being enforced pretty arbitrarily.

andyw2100
From the Sacred Heart thread, where I had asked about a possible rule change that caused the ref to force Sacred Heart's coach to either play their backup goalie or use their timeout while their goalie dealt with an equipment issue in the crease:

Give My Regards
This is a change to Rule 14 ("Adjustments to Clothing and Equipment" ) that was adopted this season. Text of the proposal:

"Goalkeeper equipment issue (protocol). The Ice Hockey Rules Committee added additional guidance when goalkeepers have an equipment issue. When an equipment issue causes the goalkeeper to come to the bench for assistance, officials shall instruct the coach to prepare the backup goalkeeper for play.

"If the issue requires additional time, the coach will be given the chance to use their timeout or substitute for the goalkeeper. If the team does not have a timeout, a delay of game penalty may be issued.

"Rationale: While rare, the Ice Hockey Rules Committee believes clarity is needed for officials and coaches to manage these situations"

In the Sacred Heart game, the goalie never actually came to the bench.

Last night in the Dartmouth game, during the second period the Dartmouth goalie did come to the bench, for a fairly long time, dealing with an equipment issue. As soon as he did, one of the refs pointed to the backup goalie, but then quite a bit of time elapsed, the goalie eventually had his equipment issue resolved, and play continued without Dartmouth having to use their timeout.

I wasn't timing it, but I would estimate the time from the beginning of the SHU equipment issue until the point that the ref made the SHU coach use their timeout was under a minute. The goalie was ready to play perhaps a minute or at most two minutes after that.

Last night I'm guessing play was stopped for significantly longer, yet Dartmouth did not need to use their timeout.

Based on this sample size of two, it seems the new rule is being enforced pretty arbitrarily.

The problem with enforcing this is the vague term "additional time." The rule would have more teeth, for example, if once the goalie skated to the bench, a countdown started to, just for an example, 30 seconds. If after 30 seconds the goalie's problem still wasn't fixed, then either the backup goalie would have to come in, or the goalie's team would be automatically charged with a timeout or assessed a delay of game penalty. But without a specific time mentioned, it's left to the officials' discretion, which as we've seen in the past few weeks can vary from game to game.

the issue they all have is that they worry about goalies coming in with little time to prep and stretch and getting injured I suppose.

upprdeck
the issue they all have is that they worry about goalies coming in with little time to prep and stretch and getting injured I suppose.

That's a non-issue. If it was an issue, the rule would not have been put on the books