Clarkson fight clip @ eLynah

The clip of the fight and the puck-at-Schafer-launching incident is up at eLynah. Click the Clarkson link in the schedule.

I imagine the original video is much clearer than the quicktime video because it's really hard to tell where Schafer is and where the puck is for the most part. There is definitely a pair of bare hands that shoot up in the air and it almost positively looks like the shot into the bench is intentional.

Age, Mike mentioned on coaches corner that, because the "official" tape of the game ran out before the celebrated fight, he had gotten a tape from "a fan" to review. Was that fan, by any chance, you?

It was clear on the live broadcast that Scuderi shot it intentionally into the bench area. All he needed to do was keep it on his stick for two seconds and the game would have been over.

Tufford's comment about O'Flaherty "throwing butt-ends into Palahicky's jaw" is interesting. Didn't hear about that from our on-the-scene un-biased observer buddy.

Well, the big clip looked quite good. A bit dark perhaps, but much much better than I'd expected it to be, and certainly clear enough to get an idea of what was going on.

I should probably point out that this is the first time I've viewed a clip on ELynah in about 2 years. Very impressive.

Well done, Age! Thanks again!

Its pretty damn obvious that Scuderi shot that puck intentionally. Did cornell send that clip for review?

As I said before, I'd give him some serious penalty because of this. Intent to injure is a terrible, terrible thing. If I was in charge, all obvious intent to injure things would be automatic removal of the league for the full season. If its 'clear' intent to injure but there could be some wiggle room, then I'd do the DQs.

As for the fight. It seems that Palahicky just went nuts out there... And Poapst got away from him without fighting, then tried to hit Paolini instead. Given that the punching was fairly mild in return, I may consider the DQ to be too harsh.

So.. In summary if I was in charge:
Palahicky gets a game DQ for fighting like an octopus in heat.
Poapst gets a 10 minute Major for fighting*
O'Flagherty gets a 10 minute Major for fighting.
Scuderi gets kicked out of the league for the remainder of 2001-2002

* Does not include possible Colgate intent to injure hit. I didn't see it, so I can't really comment.

Now all I need is someone to appoint me ECAC president....

10 minute majors? or do you mean the NCAA's automatic 5 min major for fighting, game dq combo?

After the viewing the clip, I'm surprised any of that warrented fighting penalties. I never saw the gloves come off, and I've seen plenty of worse scrums in college hockey that ended in only roughing double minors/10 min misconducts as opposed to fighting majors/DQ's.

Could be

Ben F - In the NCAA (all sports) Punches = Game DQ's, that's the strict interpretation of the rule, in hockey or lacrosse the gloves do not have to come off to be considered a punch that warrants a DQ. Generally hockey officials will take the liberty to relax this rule b/c the 5min mjr/Game DQ is quite harsh. . .this is why you will mostly see double minors for roughing and/or possible a 10 min misconduct.

The clip defiantly shows Palahicky giving quite a shot to one of the Clarkson players and then Sammy gets clocked pretty good by Poapst. . .both of which deserve a Game DQ. As for the other ejection, I couldn't really tell who it was on the clip but I think the calls were fair and punished those who needed to be.

that may be, but I'm still surprised that fighting majors were handed out for that - I've seen much worse get only matching minors and they're right back at it 2 minutes later.

I'm pretty sure the WCHA used to have a special penalty called "punching" which they could give out to avoid having to hand out fighting DQs. And I'm pretty sure I've also seen incidents in college games where players punched each other without drawing fighting penalties.

As poor a job as he may have done during the previous fifty-some minutes, I think Kotyra was trying to avoid exactly that situation. The history with these teams is not exactly G rated. Last years game at Lynah ended with the same kind of scuffle, he may have know that and did not want it to happen again. Just my $.02.

Ben,

If he was concerned about avoiding another such affair, he should have taken control...or at least NOT lost control of the game much earlier in the game. He had ample opportunity to make calls on both sides and did not! By getting tough when he did... he avoided little, if anything! And the result is that 3 guys get DQ'd at a critical point in the season...for Clarkson anyway. Yes, the players are still responsible, but the officials are responsible for maintaining control. As I think I posted before, my brother officiated D1 and D3 lacrosse for years...a very similar game, incl many games at Schoelkopf (sp?), btw, and he commented from almost the beginning that the officials were letting too much go and that it would get out of control at some point.

As one who played the game, albeit too many years ago, I know that players, at every level, push the envelope with officials to get away with as much as they think a guy will allow. And they have a "book" on the refs in their minds from past experience.

When a ref lets a lot of grabbing, stick work, (including e.g., the "stay down" stick checks as some have called what Murray got away with) go uncalled, it sends the message that it will be tolerated. So, players continue to do it, until a call "encourages" them not to. Now, of course they know logically that fighting, or "punching" will be called but what often happens is that because they are allowed to get away with the other crap all game long, the stuff escalates, emotions run higher, and then something happens to ignite the fire and they lose control as took place last Saturday.

I was at the opposite end ...standing on the floor in front of Section O. I saw Cook swinging sticks in front of the net with a Clarkson player I could not see (I have read both O'Flaherty and Poapst here) but was obscured from seeing the actual punches thrown.

Someone posted on the other thread that Palahicky was clearly the instigator. Anyone know what caused that? For some reason, I can't view the clips. Does the NCAA have an "instigator" penalty? It would have made no difference in the game of course, but it seems that since the penalties for a fighting DQ are so severe, there should be an additional price to pay for instigating.

Also Ben, I think you commented that you could not tell who the second Clarkson player was who was throwing punches, Poapst being the first. And you added that the proper people were penalized. That's not the exact quote but it sounds inconsistent if you could not tell who the second guy was deserving the fighting DQ...at least to me. Also, I do know that one of the points of appeal by the Clakson coaches is that O'Flaherty was not throwing punches. Not sure if they could tell from their vantage point but I agree with the comments of others here. From what I did see, it seems like overkill to call DQs at that point. Too late by Kotyra!

Yes, I also have seen a number of "punching" incidents that went unpunished by a major or DQ. For example, two years ago, Stathos, the goalie for Princeton, landed a roundhouse on a Tech skater in front of the ref after the whistle...while his team was on a power play, no less!...He got off with a 2 min unsportsmanlike conduct call. I'll just attribute that one to the special kinships refs have with us netminders!


Sorry for the length...tried to cover a few points here.

As if it weren't plastered all over eLynah enough, you need Quicktime 5.0.2 to view the clips...

down boy!

Can't disagree with anything Rich said. On the hockeycam, you really couldn't see clearly enough to tell just how it happened. Only clue I can add was Tufford's comment (color guy on the radio and former Cornell forward from late '60s) that O'Flaherty was "throwing butt-ends into Palahicky's jaw." But I sure couldn't see well enough to confirm or deny, and Rich was in the front row on the same side but opposite end of the rink--about the worst place from which to see it.

Whatever it was, it's now over, and I'm guessing Clarkson will still handle UVM pretty easily.

Well, I'll just add this. If anybody was butt ending, seems to me that merits as serious a penalty as a punch. Don't know if the rule reads that way but can't the ref exercise judgement and issue a DQ for whatever he deems appropriate?

Among hockey players, butt ending is right up there with "slew footing"! and high on the list for possible injury also. The Flyers Bobby Clarke was a master of the sneaky, disguised butt end!

All I could see was a mass of humanity in the corner. I'll try to view the clips later but it sounds like it might not add much for me given what's been said.

Great quality clip. Thanks Age.

I'm glad to see that after a few days everyone's emotions have calmed down enough that we can discuss events reasonably. Rich, I think Ben's point about the right penalties being called despite not being able to see who the other Clarkson player was that from where he stood, two Clarkson players deserved to be DQed, although he couldn't say for sure which two. This is just the sort of thing they like to use video for, to determine who the participants in a fight were.

The player in front of the net trading slashes with Cook was *definitely* O'Flaherty. If you can manage to keep an eye on him, you may see whether or not he was the one that threw the extra punches, but from the pressbox angle it's tough to tell who's throwing punches and who's just pushing and shoving.

I have also seen worse altercations that didn't result in DQs (see the Harvard game), but by the rules DQs are exactly what should've happened here. Was it a brutally strict application of the rules? Sure was, but the players all know those rules and can't complain much over it.

I believe that there is an instigation penalty in the NCAAs, although as far as I know it's just a 2 minute minor. I guess it could be upped to a major/misconduct on the official's discretion.

My guess is that whatever started the fight happened long before the play and built up, just like in the Harvard game, and I doubt that any official would be willing to claim instigation just because one player lost his cool first. That probably has something to do with the relative lack of instigation calls in general, too.

RichS, Like Al said the tight camera work on the clip Age has does not allow you to see some of the other action outside of the frame. . .hence my comment regarding the "other player" who turned out to be O'Flaherty. Saturday night, at the game I could defiantly see others throwing what appeared to be punches. . .the main parties were subsequently penalized .

As for Kotyra and the horrible officiating in both directions, I completely agree with all you said in regards to what he did not call all game. I was simply trying to say that the end of game stuff from last year may have been on his mind. If he hadn't made the calls as he did, I could easily have seen a ten or twelve man brawl breaking out. That would have been extremely bad for both teams. So. . .you were correct on all counts, I was just stating that albeit waywayway to late he was attempting to take some semblance of "control."

Okay, I finally had a chance to see it, and it looked like Palahicky, O'Flaherty and Poapst probably got what they deserved. Palahicky starts the whole thing by levelling Poapst; that brings Bahen skating in to have a go at Palahicky, but Paolini puts him in a bear-hug; Palahicky then starts punching Bahen. At this point, two things happen. Cook and O'Flaherty, who've been duelling behind the goal, join the fracas and Poapst, who has by now gotten up, skates past and blindsides Paolini with a punch to the head. While Kotyra tries to separate Paolini and Poapst, O'Flaherty reaches around the linesman and clubs both Palahicky and Cook in the cage with the butt end of his stick.

So based on that, DQing Palahicky and O'Flaherty definitely seems like the right call. I could see giving Poapst 4+10 for his sucker-punch (and Paolini and Bahen each a roughing minor for their conduct), but I don't see how you could appeal the DQ as inappropriate. (Especially since I suspect, given the ferocity with which Palahicky went after Poapst, that it must have been triggered by something that happened earlier on.)

As for Scuderi's dump into the Cornell bench, it's hard to imagine what he was trying to do if it was an accident.

ok a few things...just watched it...
palahicky went nuts and definitely deserves a DQ. The other two didn't do nearly as bad as he did, but by rules they also deserve a DQ. i honestly dont fault them for throwing punches. dont know what got into palahicky's head though, could have been something i didnt see or maybe he just reacted irrationally. i have no clue. strange.
as for the puck drop. that was AWEFUL. that is the worst thing I have seen in a long time in hockey. it was calculated, it was pre-planned, it was outrageous. suspend him big time

Tom Lento wrote:

I believe that there is an instigation penalty in the NCAAs, although as far as I know it's just a 2 minute minor. I guess it could be upped to a major/misconduct on the official's discretion.

Instigation is a minor penalty in the NHL as well; I'm pretty sure that it can only be assessed on top of a fighting major. (Which would in the NCAA also carry a mandatory DQ, presumably resulting in 2 + 5 + DQ for the instigator and 5 + DQ for the other combatant.)

Edit: Instigation is, as far as I've seen, RARELY given, and seems to me to be reserved for when one player is clearly the aggressor, and the other player is clearly minding his own business. Think Marty McSorley and Donald Brashear, THAT'S Instigation. (Or, would've been if that hadn't turned out so messed up.)

No one has mentioned that Pete's broadcast comments might have been concerning butt ending that occurred before the fight broke out. If Shane was baited into this by something that happened before the tape it would make sense. I surely don't have a clue...just curious.

Given that Palahicky went after Poapst, while O'Flaherty was the one Pete said was butt-ending him, I presume he's talking about the butt-end clubbing which O'Flaherty can be seen delivering to the facemasks of Palahicky and Cook near the end of the fight, and not about anything that happened anywhere. Otherwise, why would Palahicky have gone after Poapst and not O'Flaherty (who was already in a stick-battle with Cook at the time)?

Butt-ending, or even a butt-end "gesture" with no contact made, gets an automatic DQ according to the rulebook.

The hell with it, I can't get the stupid link to work. See [www.nihoa.com] if you're interested in the actual wording.

Number 8, Chris Bahen, should have also been DQ'd. It is obvious if you watch the clip close enough. He dropped his stick, hit Palahicky with a hard right, then bent over and picked up his stick.

A butt-end is when a player uses the shaft of the stick above the upper hand to jab or attempt to jab an opposing player.

What's the definition of "jab" for the purposes of the rule? Does it include hitting someone with the side of the upper shaft of the stick, or only a "reverse spearing" where the instrument of contact is the end of the knob?

Coming from an extensive lacrosse background. . .any use of the upper part of the shaft that is not directly related to the playing of the ball/puck and is directed in anyway at another player is considered a "butt-end." This rule translates directly to hockey and therefore the side of the stick or the knob on the end of the stick if used to strike an opposing player constitutes a penalty (if seen by the official, usually it is not). I've been the recipient of many a butt-end and I have also given my fair share. . .they are worth the penalty, trust me they hurt. It's cheap, I know I just confessed to having done this myself but it's just one of those things that happens in the heat of the moment. It is not right, but it happens and should be called (as it was) when it occurs in a blatantly obvious instance such as last weekend.

Ben '03 wrote:

Coming from an extensive lacrosse background. . .any use of the stick that is not directly intended to play the ball/puck and is directed in anyway at another player is considered a "butt-end." This rule translates directly to hockey and therefore the side of the stick or the knob on the end of the stick if used to strike an opposing player constitutes a penalty (if seen by the official, usually it is not).

Ben, I'm a little confused... I haven't seen much lacrosse, but I could swear that there's a Cross-Checking penalty in lax as well as in hockey. Is that the case?

Josh - There is a cross-checking penalty in lacrosse just as in hockey. I was attempting to describe the use of the upper end of the stick used in a spearing motion or used as an extension of a players fist. It allows a player to throw a punch with out actually using your fist. If you slide you hand down the shaft you'll have a few inches of exposed shaft and that can be used as a weapon. I hope this helps to make what I was trying to say a bit clearer.

I have a few things to add to Ben's comments. I have had too much experience in this area, and coming form the king of cheap hits, crosschecking gets called because it is so obvious; butt-ending usually never gets called because it is either behind the play, or in a scrum for a ground ball. Usually butt-ending is called as unsportsman like conduct, because it carries a heavier penalty. In my experience it never gets called. The retaliation is what the ref usually sees.

OK... sorry, I must've misread your original post, that's why I was confused.

oh wow, didnt see those butt-endings.
better watch it gain
ok, well lemme change my statement here after watching it again. the clarkson players did some stick action and i do not condone that...pretty messy. that puck drop incident looks worse and worse each time.

Except that in Lacrosse, at least with our old NYS Section 3 refs, you could hit a guy with the buttend of your stick if your glove was on or near the end. This meant you could go to hit a guy with your butt hand, slide your hand up at the last second, poke the guy and then slide your hand back down. This works particularly well for getting past an attackmen's pads and into his ribs.

The more that I think about it, I've also seen clean stick on stick checks with end opposite the head that were not called.

Also, one should be careful about extrapolating rules between hockey and lacrosse. In lacrosse, it isn't a crosscheck if your hands are together on the shaft. My habit of pushing off in this manner cost me plenty of warnings and a few penalties in IM hockey at Cornell.l

So I finally had time to view the clips:
One thing to question: What was the orginal penalty Kotyra was calling? He wasn't calling the slashing between Cook and O'Flagherty because you can still see him in the camera shot when that is going on. However, O'Flagherty punches Cook right before the whistle is blown. That might be the penalty he was calling.

Of course he could have been calling a penalty for cross-checking on Palahicky.

DQ's for Punching go to:
O'Flagherty for the punch against Cook and the "butt-end" shots to Cook and Palahicky later: Of course the butt-ends really look like "throwing a punch with the hand your stick is in"

Poapst for nailing Paolini

Palahicky: Three times over

Bahen: The hard right to Palahicky

Good thing Murray staid on the bench even though he was half over jawing with the Clarkson skaters, Francis is too funny waving goodbye.

yeah. i know that some people thought that the waving was uncalled for, classless, etc but it was damn funny (at least when watching it on the video).

Besides: There's just been a fight involving several players. And someone's concerned that waving is classless??

Beeeej

Funny story: While BU was blowing us out on 11/21/95, Tony Bergin waved goodbye to Bob LaChance, who had punched bergin in the face and was getting taken to the BU dressing room for a punching major and game disqualification. Moments later, the officials sent Bergin to the showers because he also received a punching major and DQ.

You beat me to the Bergin reference. I thought he only got a game misconduct for that, but I just checked Kyle's box score at [www.hockey.cornell.edu] and it's listed there as a DQ.

I was finally able to view the clips a few times. I see O'Flaherty and Cook going at it against the end boards after they moved behind the goal and it looks like a weak punch or swipe by O'Flaherty. Can't see well what Cook did but it appears he got his glove into the face of Kevin O. Cook is lucky he did not also get tossed.

Perhaps its the quality of my video but I can't spot O'Flaherty butt ending...I think he was on the far side of the scrum...I do see him pulling Paolini, I think, away from the scrum near the end.

As for Palahicky, who, as was posted earlier, really escalated things, it looks like he got 3 clear shots in at Poapst, at least one of which was with his hand on the stick to Matt's face. I think thats as much a "butt end" as anything I can see O'Flaherty did. Palahicky's third shot dropped Poapst to his knees. I'd love to know what set him off...he joined the melee from quite a distance.

As I said before, given the severe treatment on "fighting" the NCAA has, I think the aditional punishment for instigating, as Palahicky did in this case, should be more than 2 minutes.

Of course, in this case, the officials may not have been able to tell or decide who the instigator was!