The actual GAME against Harvard

Because the server crashed (and most of the usual suspects were in LP anyway), there wasn't any discussion about the game on the board. (By the way, thanks to Age for getting it back up so quickly.)

OK, so we are in the tournament and the past is the past but. . .

We were outplayed on Saturday. I thought that we were lucky to last as long as we did, and it was very disappointing to see. We have a very solid D, but the offense never seemed in synch at all. We didn't move the puck with what looked like a coherent goal, we seemed to dump-without-chase when there was very little pressure on the puck and our goals came from defensive breakdowns rather than well-played passing. We made it to OT with Harvard, but I thought that they were the better team for the first 3 periods. And we let a shitty goalie beat us by keeping the pressure off. It was as if we were constantly looking for the perfect shot when we were playing a goalie who will get beat with far less than perfect.

We started to play well in the first OT, but couldn't cash in. Disappointing, but understandable. The breaks don't always happen. And then we lost on what was a pretty soft goal. Underhill looked like he had Moore in his sights, and he got beat anyway. Blech.

I'm glad that we have Quinnipiac to get our sea legs back, but we are going to have to play much better to compete with UNH.

i'm surprised that you didn't mention any of the officials' calls. ultimately, as i saw it (@ placid), three factors were instrumental: 1) harvard's tying goal with 15 seconds left in per two, 2) some of the most disgraceful and ridiculous breaks in officiating through the two overtime periods, and 3) our offense on breakaway mode instead of a full press. as per the first one, from row 4 in the cornell section (as underhill was on our side in per 2), it looked like he was hit by a harvard player with 30 sec left, and his stick was jerred from his hands. after making a save, the action was still around the goalmouth, and as soon as he had a spare moment to grab his stick, harvard shot. with regards to the officiating, i was, along with every other cornell fan there, incredibly stupefied by the blatant bias in referree hansen's calls. i dunno what those of you listening to the game heard the commentator say, but i saw hornby get tackled numerous times, and he didn't retalliate, hoping for a call. this was the story of the night- these penalties were right in front of the refs, and they acted like it was clean hockey. paolini was also laid out by a nasty cross check, etc. however, as soon as murray taps a harvard player on the rush with a minute left in the third, the ref calls him for roughing...the calls were absolutely ridiculous and ruined numerous chances for a cornell power play, and thus a scoring opportunity. lastly, i do not agree with those who have said we were outclassed, or slow, or the game was harvard's to win (i.e. USCHO news). we didn't look magnificent like we did against rpi the night before, but our players only started dragging into the overtimes, as theirs did. i dont think we exhibited any less hussle getting to the puck. in fact, our defense and underhill were phenomenal. however, we seemed content to hope for a breakaway score, as opposed to sending rushes like harvard kept doing, hoping we would screw up once. ultimately, the game was well-played in my opinion. i am gonna get up early and see what i can do with student sect tix to the ncaa's baby!

ps did anyone else see harvard's Welch give the crowd the finger in the second OT?

-mike

LETS GO RED!

I thought that the problems with our play outstripped the officiating problems. But, if you want to know what I thought of the officiating, I thought they were generally very hands off. There was a lot of mucking around that didn't get called on either side, and Harvard got a slight advantage from it. There were two bad calls that clearly went against Cornell, but it would be unfair to say that either one cost us the game.

The first was the no-call when Paolini got a stick in the throat. The only Harvard fan who showed up at the Park Ave. CC to watch the game was shocked by the no-call. Yes, Harvard scored during a time that Cornell should have been on the power play, but there really isn't a cause/effect relationship it was just an unfortunate coincidence.

The second was the insane call against Murray at the end of the third. Murray was molested as he crossed the blue line, he shook off the defender, and he got 2 minutes for his troubles. He knocked off the Harvard player's helmet, and I'm sure that was all the ref saw. But I think a penalty against Harvard would not have been warranted, and so this penalty really didn't effect the game much either.

Every game has bad calls. The reffing in this game was not bad enough to bear the blame for the loss.

As for the refing, yes, it was pretty damn bad, but it didn't loose us the game, we did that all on our own. Except for that Murray call, the ref was horrible both ways, ignoring everything. He decided to swallow his whistle way too early and way too extremlye that night. Why he pulled it back out to give Hahvahd a last second opportunity I have no idea.

What bothered me even more is what seemed like the lack of conditioning on our part. I'm not insulting out boys (they're a million times stronger than me any day), but it seemed clear that we had no legs by the end and Hahvahd (sucks) was still going pretty strong for a second OT. And *they* were the ones that had played an OT game the night before!! I just don't get that and am probably most disappointed for that.

As for Quinnipiac, we don't want to overlook them. Maybe I'm a MAAC apologist (too many friends at UConn?), but this is hockey and any team can beat any other on any night (see Brown over St. Cloud; Lake Superior over Mich (if that was the NCAA's LSSU would have advanced) ). We (the team nor the fans) should go into this game with a "warm-up" attitude. It's a real game just like any other. Don't make me mention Sacred Heart... yes, it's a different team and that was a different season and a fluke, but flukes can happen again...

All that being said, I will be there watching the MAACs hopes going down the drain as they take on a Cornell squad with something to prove (edit: so long as i figure out how to get tickets).

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

I agree with both of you..

The reffing in this game was AWFUL. It was hands off for the most part, but then he goes ahead and calls against cornell with a minute left on a penalty that simply did not happen. Harvard had some very nasty shots on the Cornell players that should have been called no matter how hands off you want to be.

And the team that should have won, did. The Red lost that game themselves with no help from the officials. I don't know what happened to Cornell's offense but it just wasn't there at all. It wasn't Harvard's D either, Cornell had the chances and just didn't set anything up correctly. On the other end of the ice, Harvard was setting some nice attacks all overtime long - one of them was bound to go in.

Its not over yet tho'. I won't care about the whitelaw if we take the NCAAs

I disagree with much of what has gone before.

(1) The officiating was not awful or biased. It was a clear case of hands-off except for two conditions: (i) intent to injure or (ii) impact on a legitimate scoring opportunity. Hansen help to both conditions all game except for the Murray penalty -- presumably he may have considered that intent to injure; I respectfully disagree.

(2) Oh, but it definitely was a penalty. Doug was reaching for the puck, got his hand around the Harvard skater's head, and when he yanked back... he looked a lot like the new Cornell bear logo.

(3) We were out-hustled. Cornell put a good effort together for most of the game, and at times they played inspired hockey. Harvard, however, had more intensity than any other Crimson squad I've ever seen.

(4) Speed kills. With the whistle in Hansen's pocket, Harvard's far faster skaters continually broke up Cornell's rushes by skating in from behind and draping all over them. Cornell's skaters couldn't catch Harvard's rushes, so at best there were wide poke checks as the Crimson forwards broke away from their defensive zone. As they entered the Red D-zone, the Cornell defenseman steered them outside but then *they* couldn't really catch them, so Harvard had lots of chances to set up on the perimeter. They also got to far more free pucks. Our size is great, but it was terrible to look on when we didn't have a single speed merchant to send out when we couldn't afford to allow Harvard to control the puck.

(5) The Red won just 2 or 3 faceoffs in the offensive zone in the entire game. You're always going to lose a majority of O-zone faces, but this was lopsided. Grumet-Morris froze the puck *a lot*, and that was equivalent to a turnover.

(6) Even with all that, this was a 50-50 game; it only seemed to be "Harvard's game to lose" because the previous night Cornell just erased RPI, and many (way too many) Cornell fans assumed they'd do the same to Harvard. Didn't happen, because the Crimson had that extra jump.

i saw the game on nesn at a sportsbar in atlanta, and came out thinking how eerie the similarities were between this lake placid game against harvard and the one played at cambridge exactly four months earlier. not only were the outcome and sequence of goals identical, but both harvard's third (and tying) goals came with little time left on the period, with the cornell defense facing tremendous pressure. i had nightmares just thinking about the first game, and the fact that it happened again on saturday really depressed me...
so the rivalry lives.

any thoughts on how will the team react in the ncaa tourney? do you think some of the team's confidence is gone? what strategies will coach schafer introduce (to win more face-offs, to stop opposing team from scoring in the 19th minute or later, etc.)? is the team's OT record worrisome, or is it only a freak occurrence?

I thought that the amount of grabbing of the Cornell players once in their offensive zone was unreal. Harvard seemed to drape themselves all over the Red players. It looked like the NHL and is exactly what college hockey fans like about the NCAA - the lack of grabbing.

Mike, Welch did not give us the finger.....there was something on the ice, and he picked it up & flipped it into the crowd....

I pretty much agree with Greg. Speed Kills, but I don't think that was the whole problem. I spent the whole game yelling "HIT SOMEBODY" at the TV. On practically every single Hahvahd(still sucks) rush up ice, the Cornell defense was completely passive, letting the puck handler coast into the zone along the boards, sometimes all the way around behind the goal, then come out the other side without being crushed.

I would love to blame a lack of speed, but I don't buy it. We just consistently chose NOT to play the body, and this was in a game where the ref was letting everything go from the 3rd period on.

It was hard to believe that the same team that bottled up RPI the night before could completely disappear vs Hahvahd(will always suck).

Agree 100%, Neil.

I was yelling the same thing. We had a Cornell couple over to watch the game, and I think they were ready to hit me for repeating it over and over and over...

The ref didn't affect the result at all. I think we should drop that discussion. Whining gets us nowhere and all we do is look bad for doing it.

It looked to me that Downs's stick barely tipped Kolarik's game-winner which knocked Matt's timing off just enough for the puck to tick off the underside of his glove. What are you gonna do? They took the action to us, generated far more chances, and that usually--although not always in hockey; see the PIG--earns a win.

I'll be in Worcester; hope we play back to Friday night's form.

I agree with Neil and Al; instead of using the body to negate Harvard's speed, Cornell let Harvard dictate too much.

As one of the radio announcers put it (I forget which one), in most games, there is at least one 10 minute stretch where the losing team has control. There was no such stretch for Cornell.

That said, the fact that Cornell kept it close and had a legitimate chance to win speaks to the talent level of the team plus the experience gained this year from playing so many close games, which we typically were able to pull out. I hope the team doesn't look past its opening game in the NCAAs.

One problem I think was that Harvard as much more talent than we do if not more. They get the east's top recruits year in and year out. Watching the game their overall skill level up and down the roster is at least equal to Cornell -- it's just unbeleivable with the players they have that they were a .500 team. I dont know what their problem is this year, some of it apparently has been goldtending, but when they put it together we're going to face a very tough fight.

Hey, hey, hey. The server didn't crash. The power went out.

Let me preface this by saying that the officials did not cost Cornell the game. I'm not trying to pin it on them. HOWEVER, Hansen was atrocious. It's not for the ref to decide that only intent to injure should be called in important games. The rules are there to be enforced and they're there to make the game better, cleaner, and fairer, and he should have done his job. And if he was purportedly only calling intent to injure, what do you call the stick to Sammy's throat? A love tap? Spare me Greg. I was sitting 2 seats in front of you and you were bitching about the refs just like everybody else during the game.

I've really got nothing new to add to this except to put in my own two cents. I have not seen Cornell play so passive in a game this year. Harvard fought and won most of the loose pucks and I haven't seen opposing players get so much room along the boards in our defensive zone either. Sure, Moore looked fancy weaving all over the place, but I didn't see him get checked hard once. Harvard has great talent on their forward lines, but they only skate three of them, I don't think they're any more talented that we are considering our depth at all positions, I think they just wanted it more, plain and simple. Here's to success in Worcester (having gone to high school in Worcester I never EVER thought I'd be saying that about Cornell hockey, or anything else for that matter).

Chalk it up to my ignorance and accept my apology. As far as I am concerned "server crashed" = "power outage" = "underpants gnomes stole my connection cable for profit (stage 3)."

Sorry, it's just that I pride myself on my servers' stability and if the server crashes, it's potentially my fault. If the power goes out, it's Cornell's and I can't really do anything about that. I suppose possibility 3 would be my fault, too, if I don't set the underpants gnome traps right.

I saw it too. First he threw a little piece of plastic or something up into the crowd, then as he was skating away, proceeded to flip us off behind his helmet. I'm planning on tormenting Welch next year when Hahvahd (sucks) comes to Lynah.

Mike

Let's Go Red!

I know someone (2 ppl) already said he gave us the figner and he did. And he prob thinks he's cool. But that's the kind of thing that gets pro athletes in trouble so if he has any brains he won't be doing it often. then again look where he goes to school.

I would have to say (and i'm still hoarse ) that I was screaming for US to hit someone all game and only Hornby listened .

The reffing was god awful, but he let everything go, so it's Cornell's fault that they didn't take advantage of that. If he's letting stuff go isn't that to our advantage as we like to be more physical.

I also agree with whoever posted about hu draping themselves all over the backs of our forwards on rushes.

I must say that the I thought just about everyone played off their best, except the checking line. And that I beleive that was the best hu has played all season. So in an attempt of positive thinking: their best for 5 periods is better than our averageness for 5 periods.

That said I feel bad for Undy...I've never seen him display any emotion on the ice before he accosted the net with his stick at the end.

NCAA = redemption. i hope hu does well for ECAC credibility, but not too well

Nice of you to call me out, Age, but it would be nicer still if you got your facts right. What I *was* doing was quivering in fear on every Dom Moore-on shot and wondering why people couldn't just shut the ef up about the reffing and watch a championship game. On the positive side, at least I know you aren't focused on me during the games, which is probably better for both of us.

Reffing is *always* subjective, and the ref does have to make judgment calls. What planet do you come from where everybody always agrees instantly what's a penalty and what isn't? The need for judgment implies the need for a referee -- hence the clever name.

Fans have seizures every freaking time their team loses -- it's mind-numbingly predictable. Say it with me, now. We were outplayed, not screwed.

To sum up: losing sucks as 24 of our opponents have discovered thus far and no doubt they've all ascribed it to bad officiating, stop blubbering, and let's go Red.

Before this turns into a fight, I just want to say I don't think anyone is disagreeing here.

We *were* outplayed - we were not screwed by the ref. I don't think a single person has disagreed with that.

That doesn't mean the reffing still didn't suck though. I think everyone's on the same page on that too.

Right on Delta. But no matter how hard we all try, we all can't just get along as the ELF polls showed

Age and I don't fight. He just acts like a dick and I call him on it.

That was a joke, in case the smiley face doesn't come across. Age and I are friends and also tied for a *distant* second on the arrogance scale among current road Faithful, so we are allowed our little pissing contests (though personally I prefer them offline, as I'm sure you all do).

Actually I don't think we're all on the same page regarding the officiating. From my perspective Hansen did a reasonable job over all. Yes, there were a couple of calls/non-calls that I didn't like. But that always happens. Pretty much I think he did a good job. I know I didn't make very comments about the officiating for most of the game so he must've been OK from my perspective.

I don't travel, so who finishes in first?

yeah, greg. i am curious too. who wins the pissing contest?

To paraphrase Road House, "nobody wins a pissing contest."

<VENT>My vote: the guy who was sitting in the Cornell student section this weekend, row G. At first, it seemed like he had a reasonable excuse - he had little kids who wouldn't be able to see...

That is until you realize (which I noticed) that his kids did nothing but read and color and sleep all game. He was also one of those "this is my rightful seat" people, as some Clarkson fans were described before. All we asked him to do Friday was slide over 4 seats so some more of us could stand. He put up a real fight, but then did.

Saturday he was nicer, moving down a row, so we could stand together and paint our chests (yes, I was one of them ), but he had a really harsh attitude at first ("I paid for this seat and I don't have to move!" - dude, it's just down one row!).

That being said, I have no idea who Greg was referring to , just had to bitch at least once about that guy. </VENT>

Back to the original topic:

Hansen did a reasonable job overall, except for the third period. Hahvahd (sucks) players were hanging all over us, a stick hit Paolini up high, crosschecked majorly at least once, and no call. You could say he was just being a hands off ref (which I would argue is very bad in a title game, but reasonable I guess).

So it was a "typically poor" refing job... that is until the Murray call. When after letting 10 worse things go, he calls something which was virtually incidental contact, with a minute left in the championship game. Just ridiculous (it reminded me of the first BU game's penalty call with 2 minutes to go in the third, thankfully with a different result).

Luckily he returned to his sad but even "hands off" format after that (he did nothing about a HU player slugging a down on the ice Cornell player on the back of the head 5 minutes into the first OT - which he was not 5 feet from).

I'm rambling, but what I'm saying is if it weren't for the Murray call it would have only been a poor reffing style. With it, it was a very bad period, which just shouldn't happen in that important of a game.

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

So long as the referee keeps control of the game (which Hansen did on Saturday night), I do not believe that calling the game by the book and creating a parade to the penalty box is preferable to a hands-off approach to officiating the game.

Of the two examples you gave ("by the book/penalty box parade" or "hands-off", I think they're both pretty bad approaches. It's not good to send a player to the box for bumping or some light grabbing or light tapping - nor is it good to ignore persistent clutching and tripping and slashing and *punching in the back of the head*.

There's definitely a happy medium in there with most refs hit most of the time. Saturday wasn't one of those times. I think the main reason the game stayed in control was because no player was going to risk getting a serious penalty for something in such an important game. Had the game been wider open or less important for both teams, I really feel the way Hansen called it would have led to a brawl quite early.

-Fred, DeltaOne '03

I can't seem to edit on the new eLynah, so I just wanted to say that I'm not bitching. As I said before, I don't blame the ref for the outcome. I'm just sharing my honest opinions on the way Hansen conducted himself that night.

While there certainly is a continuum between "parade to the penalty box" (see Bill Doiron, at Brown, 11/98) and "hands-off" I don't believe that the happy medium is necessarily far from the way the games were called or that most refs hit that spot most of the time. John Murphy (who called Friday's game) is known for being very hands off. I can't remember what Hansen's rep is but that leads me to believe that it is the same (since I tend to like that style). Now, aside from my opinions about reffing styles it's interesting that these were the two guys selected to do the tournament. For all I know they were picked from a hat by Phil Butafucco, but I suspect it somehow reflects the league's feeling about their ability and style.

I don't think Harvard played a dirty game. They may have clutched and grabbed some, but I think it's interesting that the team that IMO outskated and outhustled us is accused of clutching and grabbing. I didn't see that. I did see Harvard play a nice trap which we couldn't seem to beat except for a couple of occasions. You may not like that style - and I've never heard anyone say they loved to watch a great trap work - but it's legal and can be very effective.

Hansen presumably called it hands off because 1) it may be his style (again I can't remember and don't want to look at boxes right now) 2) it was a championship game and 3) there really was very little roughhousing going on that I could see so the game was never close to being out of control. (maybe attributable to #2).

If anything, we needed to play a more aggressive game. Hit harder, play tighter defense. Where were the hits like Murray's on Conrad Barnes on Friday? If Hansen was allowing stuff then we should probably have clutched a bit more to slow down Moore and Petit. Maybe Harvard's speed, energy and execution on their first power play opportunity created a little worry, conciously or unconciously. I don't know.

I'll close my comments on this issue by saying for the record that I thought the games this weekend were generally well officiated. I realize and accept that other disagree with me.

God I HATE losing to F*$%!^@ Haravrd.

We needed to be more

I agree with what you said for the vast majorty (believe it or not). We absolutely should have taken advantage of Hansen's swallowed whistle and we didn't. The difference between the reffing style being "good" and being "bad both ways" is subjective and overall it's unimportant.

I think it was the Murray call which just blew it for me. It took him from a ref who was letting the boys play to a ref who made a call with a minute left in a championship game after ignoring 10 other things. I guess that's what really got to me. Other than that the difference is subjective. He just broke his own rules for that 1 second and/or thought he saw something very different than the way most people remember it.

So, hey, look, we agree, or at the least agree to disagree on something opinion based. Everybody's happy ). Can you give me that the Murray call was just wrong based on his style/what he ignored/timing, or are we gonna actually have to disagree there?

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

Okay, so here's my take on Saturday's game:

1) We played like crap for the first two periods and were lucky to be leading 39 minuted in and tied at the break. We were outshot 16-8 according to the announced saves, but Dov let in three of the eight shots. Presumably there was a decision to lay off the forecheck to avoid getting beat by Harvard's speed on the large ice (which may mean that all the Cornell-will-be-done-in-by-Olympic-ice naysayers may finally have been right for once), but there also seemed to be a general lack of hustle, with the exception of Hornby.

2) We picked it up markedly in the third, but were thwarted by Hansen swallowing the whistle and Harvard using that to their advantage to smother any offensive chances.

3) Hansen was basically being John Murphy, swallowing the whistle in the third, which made it absolutely unbelievable that he called Murray for anything short of involuntary manslaughter with a minute to go in the third period of a tied championship game. Thank G-d we killed that one off, or we would have spent the next six months rightfully whining about how he cost us the game. We were further flabbergasted when Hansen passed up the many opportunities Harvard gave him to make a make-up call. (Not that we were not also taking advantage by that point; Palahicky hauled a Crimson skater to the ice by the facemask at some point, but I think it was one of the many infractions that Hansen wasn't looking at.) We might in principle have cashed in if we had gotten the make-up call, but we can't blame the loss on Hansen.

4) Both teams had some amazing chances in the first OT. I was much more confident of Cornell having a shot of pulling it out then than I was after two periods.

5) We ran out of gas in the second OT.

It hurts like hell to lose a title game to an arch-rival (obviously even more for the players than for us), but on that night, Hahvahd played exactly the game they needed to beat us, and we didn't play our best. (BTW, I disagree entirely with the idiot PA announcer who said at the end of the second period "Isn't this a great game?" It got better, but it was a very crappy game up to that point.)

When Hansen called Murray for roughing I was screaming at the TV screen just like evryone I was watching with. I was shocked that he made the call for that at that point in the game. When they showed the replay a minute later I understood the call a little better - Doug did wrap his arm around the guy's neck and pull a bit as he twisted to go around the Harvard player. I still didn't think the call was warranted at that point.

What probably made Hansen's arm go up was the fact that the Crimson's helmet came off, which made it look bad. You could probably make a case that that was consistent with how Hansen wanted to call the game. He could have thought that this was real rough housing with possible intent to injure ad could cause the game to escalte out of control. If that's what Scott thought then I think he was reading the situation wrong, but it could well be considered consistent. (I think I just rambled on saying exactly what Greg said about this a while ago...)

Agreed though. Bad call.

A couple people have noted the problem with faceoffs against Harvard. We were atrocious through most of the game. Or else Dom Moore was amazing. It was really amazing to see him win almost every faceoff after we had won all of them the night before against RPI. That was a big difference in the game. If we win an even or better share throughout the game it would've greatly helped our puck movement and would likely have led to a lot more hard shots from the point. I can only remember a couple of good shots from the point all game compared with a bunch and two goals by Cook on Friday.

> there also seemed to be a general lack of hustle, with the exception of Hornby.

Francis, Palahicky, and Wieckowski really worked their asses off. I'm amazed at how much Palahicky has improved as a player.

Cornell tired faster than Harvard (which is bad news considering they have to do the equivalent of winning the PIG and then beating the #1 seed in Worcester). You expend a lot more energy dragging around a 6-3 225 frame for 90 minutes than a 5-8 175 frame. Cornell started to get really tired by the middle of the game; Harvard started to get really tired by the end of the first overtime. The second overtime was just a matter of which punch-drunk fighter would land the lucky jab first -- it could as easily have been us.

Bleech. Raul Julia was right. "Whatsa behind me is not important."

Keith K '93 wrote:

A couple people have noted the problem with faceoffs against Harvard. We were atrocious through most of the game. Or else Dom Moore was amazing. It was really amazing to see him win almost every faceoff after we had won all of them the night before against RPI. That was a big difference in the game. If we win an even or better share throughout the game it would've greatly helped our puck movement and would likely have led to a lot more hard shots from the point. I can only remember a couple of good shots from the point all game compared with a bunch and two goals by Cook on Friday.

I noticed that too. It was really just Moore being amazing... there was a stretch where he won like eight or ten defensive zone faceoffs in a row, tremendously frustrating. I didn't keep track, but it felt like we fared better against Harvard's other centers.

I got home Sunday evening just in time to watch the replay of the 2nd OT on Comcast. At one point, they showed a stat that there had been 100 faceoffs to that point in the game, and that Harvard had won 60 of them. It's not a big difference, but considering that a "good" faceoff man will only win about 55% or so, it points out a not insignificant advantage.

I also think that Moore had our guys psyched out. How many times did the Cornell man get tossed from the faceoff? More than I can count, and certainly more than the Harvard man did.

OTOH, right now I am watching the SF, and Cornell won the first *11* faceoffs, including those in the O-zone.

I agree: Moore is the best faceoff man I've seen in the ECAC since Karl Williams. He beat the Cornell C's like so many redheaded stepchildren. Hate the bastid, but he's a good player.

since Karl Williams?

Actually, I overheard a couple of RPI bandies on the way to the Men's room saying just that: the helmet coming off made it look a lot worse than it was, from where Hansen was staning. I still think he should have given us a makeup call when one of our guys got PUNCHED IN THE HEAD right in front of him.