Cornell VS Clarkson , Saturday Feb 23rd

This will be the discussion thread for the game in the subject field.

Kindest Regards,
JD

Cornell leads 4-2 10 minutes into the second. Vesce and Murray each with a pair.

I've come, over the years, to have respect Clarkson's hockey program, most of their fans, and grudgingly their band. However, tonight, I lost a good chunk of that respect because of the action of one player.

Deliberately shooting the puck into the opposing team's bench off the face-off with seconds left in a game is completely unacceptable. What if it seriously injured someone, especially those in the bench without any protective gear?

I'm sure I'll get over it eventually, but this has definitely left a sour taste in my mouth.

what happened? another player shooting pucks at defenseless people??? did he get a DQ or anything for it?

He got a 10 min. misconduct, but not game DQ. However they did get 2 game DQ's involving their best players with the fight right before the end.

The same thing happened (I think) 4 years ago at Clarkson. Willie Mitchell sent a puck into Cornell's bench, and it hit Schafer in the head. He may have sustained a concussion from that incident. They have a history of classlessness

I believe Willie is now in the NHL or on a NHL farm team. He left Clarkson early. Friggin goon.....

> The same thing happened (I think) 4 years ago at Clarkson. Willie Mitchell sent a puck into Cornell's bench, and it hit Schafer in the head. He may have sustained a concussion from that incident. They have a history of classlessness

I was at that game, and Schafer surprised us afterwards by going out of his way to say he thought it was an accident. Mitchell, who just laughed the whole thing off, had a mean streak and it seemed like a suspicious incident (he had to turn all the way around to shoot the puck into the bench). I figure he was flailing in the general direction of the bench and got "lucky," but that's still irresponsible.

Grady thought the Clarkson player shot off the faceoff right into the bench. This was seconds after the ejections, so again the timing was suspicious. That having been said, although I think Morris is sometimes a loudmouthed buffoon, I don't think he actively encourages goonery.

Greg Berge wrote:

Grady thought the Clarkson player shot off the faceoff right into the bench. This was seconds after the ejections, so again the timing was suspicious. That having been said, although I think Morris is sometimes a loudmouthed buffoon, I don't think he actively encourages goonery.

In addition to having been seconds after the ejections, it was also with, what, like three seconds left in the game? There's no call for him to do anything there except hold on to the puck until the buzzer went off. We actually couldn't tell from the far side of the ice that the puck had gone into the Cornell bench, just that it had gone out of play. Hearing that it went into the bench, it's even tougher to believe that it was an accident.

And speaking of things that didn't seem to be accidents, Willie Mitchell. Sorry, but a guy who has a shot that good can tell where the puck is going when he does that, at least well enough to be able to tell whether it's going into the bench. You can't make me believe he didn't do that on purpose.

So theoretically, coach Schafer could send tapes for review to the ECAC commitee to suspend said player. I also hear there is some buzz on the previous game when a goonish Clarkson player elbowed a Colgate player into unconciousness.

Four suspensions... That could kill anybody's chances...

(All theoretically of course, since I kind of doubt Schafer is going to much about things.)

Felix Rodriguez wrote:

I also hear there is some buzz on the previous game when a goonish Clarkson player elbowed a Colgate player into unconciousness.

The Techer in question is Poapst, who was one of the Knights DQed last night; if he gets a DQ for the Colgate game, he'll be suspended for three games (one for the first DQ and two for the second).

I think Poapst was already DQ'd for a similar late game misbehavior--against Princeton maybe. Grady referred to him as "one of the dirtier players in the ECAC." Scuderi is apparently a real gem, too.

Poapst is a bit dirty. Last year he cost Clarkson the game with two or three penalties in the same period (I believe it was the third, too). The fight cost Clarkson Poapst and O'Flaherty, while Cornell lost a *very* angry Shane Palahicky. I saw O'Flaherty and Cook trading slashes. O'Flaherty got Cook behind the knee on one, but it wasn't a vicious cut - Cook turned around and whacked him on the forearm, and then all hell broke loose in the corner and O'Flaherty apparently went and threw some punches. I think the mismatched DQs was the right call, since I only saw 1 clear punch thrown by a white jersey and 2 clear punches thrown by guys in green, but it's tough to tell in that kind of a scrum.

The puck was not shot in off the faceoff. Clarkson won the faceoff, and we just let them have it so they could run the clock out...no one came after the puck. He stood there for a second with the puck, then shot it right into Murray, who I thought was about to kill someone. The misconduct was definitely deserved. Horrible class.

Whoever it was last evening was certainly aiming for Schafer. Not cool, defiantly not cool. Less class than bottles on the ice for sure!!! Pucks will do serious damage. We had a run-in with an usher at Cheel and then this nonsense. . . just goes to show you how little class the Clarkson hockey program has.

And the classless Clarkson band, how dare they applaud politely after our Alma Mater! Oh, wait. . .

Don't stereotype. I highly doubt that the Clarkson hockey program, as a whole, would condone intentionally firing a puck at an opposing coach.

Tom Lento wrote:

And the classless Clarkson band, how dare they applaud politely after our Alma Mater! Oh, wait. . .

Don't stereotype. I highly doubt that the Clarkson hockey program, as a whole, would condone intentionally firing a puck at an opposing coach.

Yeah, making gross sweeping generalizations based on the actions of a few bad apples is RichS's job...

Funny, he was at the game night and we have yet to hear from him....

Wishful thinking, John. We'll hear more than we need to, I'm afraid to say.

Read the finest in whining over on the Round Table. Pass the gruyere.

Clarkson has a great program, and I don't think it's fair to call them classless. I think the problem here is with a few individual players:

O'Flaherty, according to a Clarkson fan on USCHO, has already had one DQ, so this is his second.

Poapst has always been a nasty little punk. He's got the inside track to be immortalized as the first Golden Knight recipient of the Kevan Melrose Award for least respected opponent.

Thank the gods that Murray kept his cool.

Calling the entire program classless was an overstatement on my behalf. . .apologies for that broad brushed inference. It upsets me that in our two contests this season, I have either witnessed or been the target of (student ushers) misguided Clarkson aggression upon the conclusion contest. So. . .b/c my experiences this season have not been pleasent, I'll be more careful when throwing my $.02 into the conversation.

Yeah. Murray was REALLY on fire last night. That guy goes a few games without doing much of anything aside from some hard hitting and then gets the first 5 pt performance in 4 years ( i think the last was during Lady's freshamn year but I'm too lazy to check it). Last night he was friggin unbelieveable. At times he even appreared to have some real speed. I was very impressed. He had me eating my previous assessment and I admit I was more than happy to do so.

Yeah I agree Melissa...I saw him working really hard with a good transition game. But thing is, I almost feel he almost got lucky with his slapshot last night. I mean, clearly its a REALLY hard shot, but I think we were also screening Walsh very well and Clarkson's defense wasn't really pushing the screen out well. I definitely think Murray has skill moving the puck towards the goal on a non-slapshot. If you look at some of the old media on elynah from earlier games where murray scored a couple goals, I remember one or two where he skated across the center and flicked it in. Its definitely harder to get him off the puck than some other players, but its usually the case that he's playing a more defensive game from the blueline so doesnt get a chance to show off those skills.

About the alma mater... was I the only one to take exception to the whole lighters thing? Did you guys see it as a genuine tribute, bc I thought it was a mockery. Mocking the team, expected, mocking the fans, acceptable... mocking the school's alma mater? Get some class.

yeah. definitely mockery and tho i personally try and respect others' alma matters i really wasn't that offended. in thie respect colgate really shows class. was very impressed that gate stood out of respect during ours when visiting.

I was amused by the lighters...of course, most of what the Clarkson band does amuses me since they're one of the few schools in the ECAC whose fans have some sort of energy.

I wouldn't insult them for their energy, as annoying as it might be the ECAC needs more schools with fans like Clarkson (and the Lynah Faithful of course). I just felt that whole lighters thing was mocking our respect for our school, which isn't to be touched. The emotional equivalent of bottle-throwing if you will. I dunno, just pissed me off, as I'm sure you can tell.

Oh please. Were they mocking us a bit during the Alma Mater? Yeah sure. But you've got to admit, singing the whole six verse Alma is probably worth a little mocking from the opponent's perspective. I mean, it takes almost the whole intermission! And this comes from someone who memorized the whole six verses years ago and really misses being there for the group rendition. Save your indignation for something that deserves it. This seems like a bit of good natured ribbing...
Heck, it's not like they played over it, which happened to me once at Cheel while we were singing the Alma a capella.

More than a few red fans have made classless remarks and "sweeping generalizations" about the Clarkson program and fans etc...including the proud Al D...Be's not the first.

Yes, I was there last night...stayed through the end of the ceremony honoring the seniors...very well done. Then had a few other folks to ta;k with.

I just got back to NJ a while ago after the trip down from Binghamton today but it will be a bit later or tomorrow before I can comment. No surprise I didn't see things quite as one sided as some... but not all...of you folks did.

After all your years of supposed association with the cornell program, I thought perhaps some of the class you so bountifully attach to it would have rubbed off on you...

Guess I'm not surprised that your comment here is more gratuitous sarcasm. Oh, and uh...where's the "whining" on the RT you're referring to?

Here we go again. . . Al, Rich, stop it. Seriously. Or should we resurrect the sandbox thread?

As for the lighters - it's something of a tradition. Cornell plays the Alma Mater, the Clarkson band stands and waves lighters. They've done it for several years now, and as evidenced by the fact that several Clarkson bandies applauded politely when it was done it's nothing more than good-natured ribbing.

From the Round Table (posted in two different threads in case someone might miss it--as RichS obviously did):

"I was at the game last night and the referring was absolutly terrible....Cook from Cornell should have been called about 6 different times for holding or high sticking, but he was never called. Also, I heard that they DQ's to O'F and Poaspt were going to be reviewed by the ECAC commissioner, but the tape that was recording the game ended with just over a minute left to go....THAT IS ABSOLUTLY UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

"The knights played extremely well in the 1st and 2nd period, in order for us to believe that they were two comparable teams on the ice especially since the amount of penalties that should have been called on Cornell.....the knights kept their cool and until the end of the 3rd, played well. I can understand why they lost it at the end of the 3rd because the Clarkson fans were losing it as well...it was heartbreaking to watch."

and maybe they even burned thier fingers. . .

I'm with Tom and Keith; I don't see it as mocking, but teasing. The first time I saw that I thought it was hilarious. (This as opposed to the mocking Alma lyrics, which are annoying and unfunny, but I suppose something of a tradition at this point, kind of like hotel and ag school jokes at football games.) Sorry, DeltaOne, but your pompous reaction is just the sort of thing that gives Clarkson fans a reason to tease us about the Alma Mater.

And nothing I've heard from a pep band, even Colgate playing over one of our cheers, is anywhere near as classless and stupid as throwing bottles or other non-ritualistic crap on the ice.

You know, I was wondering about that. Having a lighter on for all 6 verses of the Alma Mater must not be too pleasant. If nothing else, maybe they melted the top of the lighter.

I was wondering if they all had new lighters or if one of their lighters would go out due to lack of butane

I didn't mean to sound pompous. Due to other things in my life, I'm not having the best night, so I'm not going to type much, but I'm sorry. I think the internet may have made things come across worse than they were meant. Believe me, I would never condone bottle throwing or throwing of anything other than newspapers and fish at the Harvard (sucks) game. I'd rather have Clarkson do that at every game than have one Cornell fan throw one bottle on the ice all season. It is absolutely classless. As much as some people don't like it, maybe another note is in order (ala the keys one last year).

Maybe I've always considered the alma mater a little more serious than I should - maybe I should work on that.

There's nothing wrong with having a healthy respect for the alma mater, but I think there's also nothing wrong with some friendly heckling that involves a school's alma mater. Playing over it - bad. Having an entire student section turn its back to the band - bad. Lighters? That's kinda funny, actually. Maybe I'm just a jerk.

Al,

Nope, I didn't miss those comments...but let me get this straight...

Fans of the other team see things differently than you do, and you automatically call that "whining"?



FWIW, I had a two brief conversations with one of the red-jacketed cornell security officers at ice level at the bottom of section O. He said he's a cornell fan, of course...but said he thought Kotyra was awful...both ways! Care to spin that one, sir?

I agree that Kotyra was awful. I thought that there were plenty of penalties that should have been called on both sides. It started with that early whistle on the CU goal that wasn't, then the horrible call on McRae that led to the third Clarkson goal, then the horrible call on McMeekin...2 minutes for receiving. After that, it seemed to me that Clarkson was taking cheap shots for a while, and Kotyra called none of them. After a bit, Clarkson settled down, and Cornell realized that Kotyra was calling nothing, so they started taking cheap shots. They had tons of infractions that should have been called, but Kotyra insisted on letting the game get out of hand. It was penalty after penalty on both sides, none of which were called...eventually it led to a fight. At least...that's the way I saw it.

Jordan,

That's the way I saw it too. In fact, with a couple of exceptions, I think most fights in College Hockey start because of a referee that's too lax in his calls.

It still doesn't justify the puck throwing at our coach tho'.

Guys,

I think you're forgetting that the call on McMeekin was part of matching minors. Clarkson's Zach Schwan is shorter and 60 lbs lighter than McMeekin who certainly gave more than he recieved in that instance.

The cornell cheap stuff started early...with Murray's blatant hit from behind in the first the first that was actually called. When Hagwell looks at the tape, hopefully he'll see Murray's two blatant cheap cross checks to the back of a player who was down in front of the Clarkson bench late in the third.

Also the numerous crease violations by both teams!

There is no love lost between these teams and how a referee, knowing that, could let the game get out of control, especially when scoring chances are denied, is inexcusable. With Hagwell in attendance to boot!

It's off topic, but I can't help but note for the CNY locals that Clarkson's Zach Schwan is Ithaca's Zach Schwan- the product of Ithaca Youth Hockey, and a season at IHS before moving on to the Capital District Selects and then to Clarkson. A great guy, too!

Well, I wasn't on top of the McMeekin play, so I'm not sure exactly what went on. From where I was sitting, it looked like McMeekin was hooked, held, and then bodyslammed. If he hit Schwan first, or last, or in the middle, then sure he deserved a penalty, but there was no way to see it at that distance. You were in a better position to see the play than I was, if you were in section O (I guess it depends on where in section O). What, exactly, did McMeekin do to earn the penalty? I'm just curious. I don't think anyone is claiming that Cornell was unfairly put a man down, I think everyone is complaining that there should've been a Cornell powerplay. Of course, Clarkson can counter by saying that there was a blatant trip of a Golden Knight on a partial breakaway in the second that could've been a penalty - but nobody is claiming that Kotyra didn't miss anything.

As for the numerous uncalled penalties on both sides, I don't think that too many people who know the game would disagree. Clarkson got away with the occasional leg trip (including one at the start of the game, although it wasn't a malicious intent to injure or anything like that), charging, hitting from behind, and lots of interference. Cornell got away with the occasional cross check, charging, hitting from behind, and lots of interference. Both teams were getting their sticks up and giving facials in the corners, more so than I've seen in other games. Cook and O'Flaherty should've both been put in the box about 10 seconds before the fight broke out, and it turned out to be *very* bad for Clarkson that they weren't. As for Murray - he's big, he's mean, and he doesn't take kindly to people hanging on him, hooking him, going out of their way to hit him when he doesn't have the puck, and generally trying to knock him around. Night in and night out other teams do anything they can to slow him down and knock him off his game, and I'm not too surprised that he started beating on a couple of the Golden Knights - it's not the first time he's gotten, ahem, fired up and taken it out on an opponent, both physically and on the scoreboard, and it won't be the last. Also, if I'm thinking about the same cross-checks that you're thinking of, then they were far from vicious. How many times have you seen a "stay down" hit put on another player? Should it happen - probably not. Is it worth a penalty? Sure. Was Murray the only player on the ice to do something like that? Absolutely not. If Hagwell sees it, he'll probably say something like "should've been 2 minutes for cross-checking, but it's too late now." The blatant hit from behind was clearly a penalty, but if the Clarkson player had been turned 30 degrees to either side it might've been legal, and Murray lined him up before the guy turned around. I guess he didn't see Doug coming, since he turned his back to get into the play (or perhaps to leave the ice - Clarkson was on a change at that point). Just food for thought.

Finally, it was a great game, marred by some ugliness at the end. I thought Clarkson played very well, and apart from a couple of breakdowns the Knights could've won that game. They had a couple of players with great speed, although overall I don't think they were that much faster than the Big Red, and it seems to me that Walsh was a little bit off of his game. Kudos to Morris for pulling the goalie early. I know some people don't like it, but I prefer the non-conservative approach. Get a good line combination and control of the puck with less than 2 minutes, and it's a good time for the extra skater. Also, the Knight forecheck was a lot of fun to watch when Cornell was trying to work that set breakout play. The weave definitely threw the Red for a loop in the first, although the breakout adjusted pretty well.

FWIW, from Section C, the "blatant hit from behind" by Murray didn't look so blatant, but it occurred in the dangerous area within a foot or two of the boards (and in front of the Clarkson bench), so I don't have a problem with the call. I am a little surprised, however, that the play could be seen so clearly from Section O.

I would have called the "stay down" cross-check, but Kotyra was clearly not calling anything at that point.

It seems that all agree it was not a very well officiated game, and hopefully both coaches will point this out to the ECAC. But I don't feel that Clarkson was put at an unfair disadvantage because of the officiating. After all, Cornell had 1 goal waved off and I think they had fewer powerplay chances (I only remember 1 real Cornell powerplay, although obviously there was also a powerplay at the very end of the game).

Overall, I thought it was a great game -- much better than the one on Friday. Both teams played well and fought hard for the full 60 minutes. It was just the kind of game you expect to see between these two teams at this point of the season.

Brava, Anne! You've got it exactly right.

The refereeing--good, bad, or indifferent--did not affect the outcome of the game. And blaming a loss on the referee--or the ice conditions, or a leaky roof, or the long lines at the rest rooms--is whining.

This was a good hockey game. Clarkson played well. Cornell played better than I had thought they might--given the clinching of top seed the night before. If they play again it might turn out differently.

Joining the discussion a little late, and maybe I should leave the Willie Mitchell thing alone...

I recall watching this game on tape, which clearly showed the Mitchell shot hitting the corner of the glass above the bench, then catching Coach Schafer in the head on the rebound. IIRC, Willie was just flailing around during a stoppage in play and shot the puck in disgust over something or other -- he didn't line it up. Also, while Willie had a heck of a shot, nobody's got such good aim that he could catch someone on a rebound high off the glass.

Idiotic? Yes. Irresponsible? Definitely, and I also remember wondering why he didn't get a delay-of-game penalty for shooting the puck out of play. But a deliberate attempt to injure? Not a chance. What the kid did Saturday night sounds a heck of a lot worse.

Complaining about an usher, who's probably a student? If it were significant, you could have brought it to the attention of the arena manager. This sounds like "whining"!

Considering the history of things being thrown onto the ice at Lynah this year, including a bottle tossed at Coach Morris on Saturday, I think you should be more careful about slinging the "classless" arrows!

You are way off on this...there's no way Mitchell fired the puck attempting to hit Schafer!

First of all, it was a tight game that went to OT so doing such a thing would have been dumb! Willie was a big physical D man, but he was certainly NOT a dumb player. (By the way, he plays on the Minnesota Wild's top dfensive pair).

I saw the game on TV...it was the ECAC GOTW...and they showed the replay several times. The announcers...Norton and ??? said nothing about it being suspicious at all.

I have the game on tape as well he was doing was attempting to clear the puck. As I recall he was turned around trying to do it. Plus the puck hit Shafer on the carom! It's not at all rare for pucks to fly into the bench area when the clear attempt misses the glass before a bench.

Going back three years to try to link Saturday's event to that one is pretty lame!

Bill,

Glad to see you added some reason here. It's nuts to say he aimed at Schafer as others suggested earlier..

It was a clearing attempt that missed the glass so why would he get a delay of game penalty? The puck left the ice, hence the stoppage. The ref would have to rule it deliberate and that's a call they rarely make as its just too difficult to judge intent in that case.

RichS wrote:

It was a clearing attempt that missed the glass so why would he get a delay of game penalty? The puck left the ice, hence the stoppage. The ref would have to rule it deliberate and that's a call they rarely make as its just too difficult to judge intent in that case.

It WASN'T a clearing attempt. The puck was fired out of play out of frustration, because a delayed penalty (or was it two of them?) had been called on Clarkson. All Willie had to do was touch up. And while nobody is saying he aimed the puck at Schafer, and you're right, nobody's aim is good enough to bank the puck off the glass and at somebody, his aim damn well should've been good enough to not fire it into Cornell's bench. At the VERY least, it was extremely irresponsible of him.

RichS - I recently said this to one of the Cornell posters on this board regarding Clarkson hockey, and now I'm going to say it to you.

Don't stereotype. Just because there's one idiot who decided to throw an empty plastic bottle at Coach Morris, and one or two idiots who have thrown bottles in the past, does NOT mean that Cornell's fans as a whole are classless, nor does it mean that such behavior is condoned by the majority of Cornell fans or the Cornell hockey program. You go out of your way to paint the Lynah Faithful as a bunch of classless thugs, and repeatedly bring up (the same) isolated incidents of buffoonery to support your claim. That is stereotyping. Stop it. I think that's all that needs to be said on this topic.

Tom,

Pretty well said.

But, I never claimed or even hinted that ALL the faithful are "classless thugs". I said clearly I dislike the vulgar cheers etc but I actually I found the environment this past Saturday to be a lot milder than in my last two visits in '99 and '97.

It just rings hollow when some of you folks trash Clarkson players and coaches for what you find to be classless behavior when you really ought to direct your ire at the clear offenders in your own house first. I'll make that statement about anyone's arena...I have not been present at Cheel to see the supposed mistreatment of cornell fans there but had I been, I'd have been embaressed and upset if those things actually took place.

For what it's worth, in prior visits to Lynah, I've had things thrown at me, etc. Nothing like that took place this time.

Was Grady using Murray as his barometer?



Does Schafer qualify as "a real gem" also...for his firing a puck at Bill Cleary years ago as posted on USCHO?

"It just rings hollow when some of you folks trash Clarkson players and coaches for what you find to be classless behavior when you really ought to direct your ire at the clear offenders in your own house first. I'll make that statement about anyone's arena."

OK. Then when will we see your comments on the Round Table about the crap that goes on at Cheel and the now infamous penis man that Clarksy told us about? Why does your statement above apply to us but not to you?

And, I see you've resurrected on the Round Table the already debunked myth about Cornell's "clutching and grabbing. That whine is vintage 2001.

Grow up. Learn how to lose graciously. We put six in the net; you put three. We won. Learn how to say "nice game, maybe we'll get you next time." Must be tough to have a hockey loss rock your life so deeply. Get some self-esteem, fer chrissakes.

Will someone please tell Al the score of Saturday night's game?

Did beating the team you love to hate "rock your life" so positively that you forgot how to count? or to read?

Not unexpected, but that post is about as petty as going to the rink manager for being punched in the leg by a student usher. I'm pretty sure that's why Ben didn't pursue it.

He never said the score was 6-3, he said Cornell put 6 in the net, which it did but the one was waived off.

Right...It was after the whistle so it doesn't count. Except for Al, of course!

Talk about "petty".

Thanks Age

Mr. RichS. . .may I direct your attention to my reply and subsequent apology for my overgeneralization regarding the classless behavior of this year's contests.

"Calling the entire program classless was an overstatement on my behalf. . .apologies for that broad brushed inference. It upsets me that in our two contests this season, I have either witnessed or been the target of (student ushers) misguided Clarkson aggression upon the conclusion contest. So. . .b/c my experiences this season have not been pleasant, I'll be more careful when throwing my $.02 into the conversation. "

I think it would be beneficial if you would read all of the posts here before you rip into people. . .give them a chance to redeem themselves (who knows maybe they already have and you just didn't read that post). . .Just a suggestion. I'm not trying to cause any dissention here, not with you or anyone else for that matter. Next time please don't bite my head off for something that I had already taken care of. I would appreciate it, thanks.

For an incident you guys now describe as "petty", you sure are mentioning it a lot.

That "incident" was one of the cornerstone's of his earlier statement that Clarkson's program and team was "classless"...and yes, I know he later softened the remark.

No, the incident with the usher was classless and significant. Going to the powers that be to have the guy fired or otherwise reprimanded would be petty. I'd like to think we're above that, even if their ushers aren't.

Does it count in terms of the score? No

However, if you were to ask any individual who has ever played team sports at a competitive level if a waived off goal has a psychological impact, I suspect you would be hard pressed to find someone would said no.

Note that this impact can swing both ways; occasionally a trailing team that dodges a bullet may rally and answer the non-goal with one of their own, causing momentum to shift. However, more often than not, the non-goal will only serve as another nail in the coffin for the losing team. Likewise, if a trailing team has a goal waived off, it may serve to either catalyze them to make a comeback or take the wind out of their sails. These results are had to quantify given that box scores don't include this information, thereby preventing any meta-analysis.

Thus, can we predict what effect a non-goal has? Not really. But to simply say "it doesn't count" is rather simple minded.

Just let it go RichS. . .let it go. My comments have been rescinded and there is no need to refer to me as "him or he" I have a name. . .it's Ben THANK YOU very much! A little respect for the people on this board would be greatly appreciated!!!

Rich S,
I enjoy your contributions to this forum. You seem to be deeply endowed with hockey knowledge, and positively contribute to many discussions, but this thread is not a good example. Don't you have anything better to do? You should leave well enough alone, and stop provoking everyone on this forum. You are whining. By definition, whining is, " to complain in a childish way - n ". Nobody likes whining, sooooooo, STOP WHINING!

No, you're the dodo who can't read. We put six pucks in the net. The ref that all of you on the Round Table claim stole the game from you took one of them away from us. Weren't you there to see it?

Typical cheapshot from a master. RichS reads an anonymous one sentence posting on USCHO and immediately it's gospel. If RichS wants to believe it, then it must be true. He's probably repeated it on at least ten different fora already as a way to purge his grief over Saturday night's loss.

Why don't you tell us, RichS, why you give all of us the third degree for daring to attack Willie Mitchell's unnecessary shot into our bench, but, given no information whatsoever about the incident, you repeat something that some other smarmy goofball writes anonymously? Because you'd like to believe it? Because it makes you feel good to write it? Because it's something negative about Cornell, which we know you love to hate? Or simply because you're a jerk.