NCAA Game 2: UNH

Game's just starting now. Score updates go here.

Dammit! UNH scores.

Bâby ties it up! 1-1

What the..."Bâby" (typed in with a normal 'a') gets autocorrected? Kickass!

Bâby from McRae and palihicky (?)

at 431 1st period

PP GGGGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

PAOLINI

Cornell takes the lead 18 seconds into the first PP of the game!!!! 2-1

Crap...2-2 on the UNH PP.

DAMN

UNH scored on PP

We definitely don't want a shoot out

Bloody hell! UNH is going to have a two-man advantage.

Argh...UNH takes the lead again, 3-2.

UNH leads 3-2 at the end of the first period. Argh.

3-2 after 1 is fine against these guys. With the notable exception of the Hahvahd game, we've played our best hockey in the 2nd period. Those two high sticking calls were VERY questionable. Looks like he's a penalty happy ref. Let's come out fighting for the puck the whole rest of the game. We're definitely still in this game.

Jordan

What's the latest in the second period?

Help out those of us who are stuck in the library all day without headphones to listen to the game.

Thanks

VERY questionable.

THAT'S AN UNDERSTATEMENT, YOU DON'T GIVE A 5 ON 3 UNLESS SOMEONE IS BLEEDING!

IF THEY LOSE BY ONE GOAL, WELL DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT YEAR THE REF GRADUATED UNH?

I've heard that this ref isn't all that great, even from the UNH fans on USCHO. He seems to be making better calls in the second period (still 3-2 UNH, BTW).

Still 3-2, end of the second.

Second period was definitely more Cornell than UNH. Cornell played a physical period and held UNH to far fewer shots. I think they had like only 1 till about 5 minutes left in the period, then got a couple on a PP.

GGGGGOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
tie game

Palihicky scored on a scrum in front

Assist to Bell

Game over. UNH advances 4-3

well played. very well played...

I watched the game on YES. Great, amazing, terrific, entertaining game. I couldn't have asked for a better loss. We took the #1 team in the nation to the last 2 minutes. Incredible season, incredible year, incredible team - and it'll only get better next year...

LGR!!

Our team has absolutely nothing to hang their heads about. They played an outstanding game and had the #1 team in the country tied with under 3 minutes to go in the game. Underhill wasn't at his strongest in the first, but settled down after that, and we played our style of hockey for the remaining 50 minutes of play.

Hopefully we made a few people stand up and notice that the ECAC is NOT an easy conference, and that we are one of the best teams in the nation. I think we could have beaten most any team in the country with our effort tonight, but UNH was just a bit better, and made the most of thier opportunities.

Thanks Red on a fantastic season! 25 wins is an amazing accomplishment, and almost knocking off the nation's #1 in the NCAA's is nothing to be ashamed of. Great season.

Jordan

I have to highly agree on one thing. Take away the first 10 minutes and the style was all our game... well, for the most part. I'm amazed at how well the boys controlled and fought with UNH today. I knew they had it in them, but they brought it to the surface when it really mattered.

UNH is an amazing team, especially offensively, and that was much of the difference. Great job, Cornell (geez, I'm overflowing with pride ).

So, when's the parade? (I'm oddly quite serious)

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

I was very happy to come back and see that the folks watching at home had the same impression of the game that I did. After the first period I was ready to blow up at anyone who said that the speed disadvantage wasn't going to hurt Cornell. UNH had us back on our heels in the first period, but we still managed to score two goals and stay right in it with them. (Great persistence from Bâby for the goal, and a fantastic set-up and tip on the goal from Paolini. Underderhill gave up a weak goal (the 2d) and completely lost the puck during the 5 on 3 allowing the 3d.)

What also became obvious in the first period is that while UNH is a GREAT forechecking team, and a very efficient offensive team, they are not nearly as good defending in their own zone. Cornell realized that, and they really started taking it right to the net. We had some very good scoring chances even though we couldn't get one over the line. The second period was definitely Cornell. The trade-off of strength for speed was made crystal clear in the second. We were generating scoring chances because we controlled the boards, and we were able to break up the UNH attack. It was beautiful.

The third period was also beautiful when it started. If I weren't watching the game in a bar with the Maryland-UConn game blasting, I am sure that I would still hear that post ringing in my ears. Palahicky's goal was spectacular. Dogged determination, and a perfect chip. The 8 of us at PACC went completely batshit, and the whole bar (who appeared to have been bussed in from Aberdeen) stopped watching the basketball game for a second to see why we were screaming. The Faithful always impress.

Alas, the fourth goal was a weak one. Undy made his share of great saves today (can't say the same for Carney), but he also let in some soft goals. The defense bailed him out on some dangerous rebounds as well. Not his best effort, but a great season, a great career, and that is the last I will complain about Underhill.

This season has been a thrill. To the ECAC and the NCAA, re: 2002-03 ---

BE AFRAID. BE VERY AFRAID.

LET'S GO RED!!!

The second goal was weak-ish, yeah. The third was bang-bang. I guess you could say Undy lost the puck, but you could also say UNH set up a great play with an amazing, quick, against-the-flow pass that just beat him. That's why they have a 30% power play.

As for the 4th? Soft? I dunno. It was a hard shot from close range and excellent five-hole aim. They're a great offensive team and that showed through even when we controlled much of the style. You give 'em an inch and you pay for it.

Undy wasn't quite himself today, but who is against that kind of team? He has 43+ minutes without a goal according to the YES announcers. That's our Matty.

Somebody stop me before I say I love them and offer Bud Lights all around (I *am* 21 and 1 day afterall ).

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

Edit: And, yes, be very afraid...

First of all: THANK YOU SENIORS! Despite the disappointment of only getting two of the three expected banners, you had a great season, and impressed the hell out of everyone this weekend. (And Dougie Murray, please don't turn pro. Greatness awaits, and we want to practice your national anthem.)

Okay, now, if anyone finds themselves stranded in Baton Rouge for a key Cornell game, may I recommend Damon's, just off Corporate Drive (College/Constitution exit on I-10). I've watched the last two Cornell seasons end there and while they moved me into the bar after the Maine-BU game so they could put LSU baseball on the big screen, they now have these great individual speaker boxes which actually let you hear the sound from your game (like, for example, Bob Norton singing the praises of the Big Red).

Emotional, exciting game. When Palahicky tied it up, I think the other patrons were ready to call the guys in the white coats.

TV Faithful sightings: Heather Nichols, Mark and Jeff Anbinder, Larry Weintraub, David Craine, Josh Herman and Jim Hyla.

As an aside, this is the first time I saw Cornell live on TV this year. The first five TV games, I happened to be there in person, and yesterday I was tied up in my meeting.

BRA, Hughes's crossbar rang very loud in my bar.

Enough random thoughts for now; hope everyone in Worcester enjoyed the weekend, and I'm sorry we won't be meeting in St. Paul.

MY HEART US BROKEN, BUT MY HANDS ARE SORE FROM ALL THE CLAPPING THIS TEAM RIGHTFULLY DESERVES!!!!

Yeah, it was great. A lot of people were coming up to us and talking hockey, it was excellent. Not too many idiots and drunks and whatnot.

Anyway, I have to say that while I never took great note of McMeekin, I have to say that he was absolutely amazing during the UNH game. If there was ever any question as to why he won the DD award.. well, he was absolutely amazing. A Scott Stevens if I ever saw one (well, minus the hits, and the Devils stigma that I'm sure you all have )

Will wrote:

MY HEART US BROKEN, BUT MY HANDS ARE SORE FROM ALL THE CLAPPING THIS TEAM RIGHTFULLY DESERVES!!!!

Apparently your caps lock key is broken too.

Fourth UNH goal was not only not weak, but it wasn't five-hole. It very clearly went through the tiny little space between Undy's left side and the post (under his arm, making it three-hole, right?), and he was screened. There's not much you can do about a screen other than put yourself where you think it might go and pray.

Beeeej

sounds like maybe he wasn't "hugging the post" as us goalies say...

It sure looked five-hole from the replays on YES. And Underhill did not look screened (although Abbott himself may have been screened from seeing it go in, on the replays from behind Underhill, you could see the shot all the way). Whether he should have had it is a different matter, as Abbott really hit it hard and from fairly close range.

I read a quote from Abbott in the Manchester Union Leader in which he said he shot through a screen, so I will take back what I said about it being a soft goal. The behind the goal camera angle they showed on the replay made it appear that Undy was looking right at Abbott and saw the puck all the way, but what I was seeing certainly could have been different from what the players saw, and the puck may have just come out of a forest of legs and sticks.

I didn't tape the game, so I will have to trust others on this but I have a very clear memory that the last shot went 5-hole, and I saw it replayed many times.

It didn't look 5-hole live, look like it snuck over the leg pad, under the glove, and inside the post.

Sitting 2 seats over from Ben, it also looked to me exactly as he has described it.

And Ben F., John H., and I had probably the best (or worst, if you will) view of it from an in-person standpoint; it was basically right in front of us.

Not to say it's impossible that we're wrong, but it's quite unlikely.

Beeeej

"Quite unlikely"? I hear the sounds of hubris . . .

Everyone who watched at home (with replay) says 5-hole, everyone with good seats in Worcester says not. Someone has to have a tape. End this debate.

I watched from home, and from one angle it looked like it wasn't five hole. but then they showed the behind the net view and that was five hole.

I have the game on tape ... I'll watch tonight and let you know tomorrow fellas.

I taped it and watched it last night and specifically looked for whether it was a screen. As Dave '02 said, there is a replay from behind Underhill that clearly shows it was five-hole, despite what the "live crew" may think they saw. It also looked to me like Underhill should have seen it all the way, although I'll have to re-watch it to make sure. What might have happened is that after Abbott shot it, someone crossed into his line of sight, but between him and the puck (not Underhill and the puck) so that Abbott was screened on the goal.

If people are going to watch the tape, can anyone see if that rush that resulted in this Abbott goal that's being discussed so much was originally off-side? Watching it live I thought it was, and I think I saw the Cornell players pause for a breif second as if they thought it was too, which played a part in UNH getting Abbott such a great shot. And can you also see if there was any time left when that puck crossed the goal line (icing)?

If the assistant referees did not wave off icing at the end of yesterday's game, there would have been approximately two seconds remaining to try to score off the offensive-zone draw.

Watching the game at home, I was positive that there were at least 2 seconds left, maybe 3.

I remember Cornell scoring in 2 (3?) seconds against Harvard off of a face-off to send a game into OT. Vanini in 1991, IIRC - but I have no confidence that I do.

It was Tim Vanini who tied the game in the final minute against Harvard in February 1991.

Ok, sorry, another question. They waived off an aweful lot of icing calls throughout the game as I remember, why would they waive off icing in the last few seconds when any Cornell player is obviously going to do his very best to not let that puck get down ice? I guess that's not really a question that can be answered since I doubt the assistant ref is going to come in here and explain himself, or the incredible amount of penalties in the first period which were questionable for both teams. The only reason I can see for waiving off so many would be to keep the game flowing, but then why call so many penalties. Ah well, I should let it go, it was a great game

WAVE off!! "Waive" is something you do to your rights; "wave off" is something a ref does by flapping his arms in a particular manner.

Nobody should take that personally; it's just been driving me batshit, and IMHO not having Cornell in the semis in St. Paul is a good enough excuse for me to take my frustrations out on you for a few moments.

Anyway, I believe I saw the puck go three-hole, but if a clear view on replay shows five-hole, no biggie. I'm not sure why it matters so much that we're having a "debate," anyway.

Move along, nothing to see here,

Beeeej

Ok, chill, I'm home sick today, no need to get nasty

And could you have a longer host name?! Geez!! And those shoes!!



Beeeej

Peace man. It sure would've been nice for Cornell to win yesterday...

And I will make sure to only describe it as WAVING off icing forever more

I assume we're having a "debate" because you so rarely admit that you're wrong, so people jump at the chance to prove you wrong

Charles:

I rarely am factually wrong. But when I'm factually wrong, I admit it. For instance I predicted a few years ago that 2002 would be Cornell's next Frozen Four appearance. We came close but I was still wrong. "Debates" about facts aren't of much use - as I said, if the tape shows five-hole it was five-hole.

If you want to talk about differences of opinion or style, then all I have to say is:

Thanks, Pot, I'll try to acknowledge my failings more often.

Kettle

A favorite saying you should adopt, when rarely wrong :

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

Alright. Who pissed in Anbinder's wheaties?

Must have been Jim Abbott (the hockey player, not the former baseball pitcher).

Sorry. Thought they were a Sno-Cone...

Your welcome, but who is this "Charles" person?

Beth: Might a better quote be, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts"?

Just to clarify, "Your" in my above post was intentionally misspelled, just to cause a little trouble.

Quick, change it to "You're" before he throws another hissy-fit!

Edit: Sorry. Didn't read the follow up before posting

Whoa, Beeeej. I asked for a tape review to avoid this. I don't know CULater's name, but the fight you are picking shouldn't be with me.

Of course if you want me to give you two minutes for nitpicking (correct though it is) for the whole wave/waive thing I can be tempted . . .

so sayeth the Pot.

CUlater '89 wrote:

Your welcome, but who is this "Charles" person?

That would be me.

The goal was scored five hole, based on what I saw on the replay. Under the stick, right through the pads, and into the net.

At full speed I also thought it went in because Underhill didn't really seal off the post, just under the arm or possibly just outside of his left pad. The replay surprised me, and everyone else I was with, since none of us thought it had gone in *through* Underhill.

Unless there was a touch, or a Cornell player right near the puck or something, that icing should not have been waved off. There would have been approximately 2 seconds left in the game if icing had been called.

Perhaps the play on the GWG was offsides, but it wasn't a goal scored on a rush. The puck went into the corner, Abbott got it down low, and Cornell recovered into position but didn't pick up the puck carrier. If the play was offsides, fine, but I don't think that it had much of an effect on the end result. Great play by Abbott, and a great shot to beat Underhill.

ROTFLMAO.

Tom Lento wrote:

The goal was scored five hole, based on what I saw on the replay. Under the stick, right through the pads, and into the net.

At full speed I also thought it went in because Underhill didn't really seal off the post, just under the arm or possibly just outside of his left pad. The replay surprised me, and everyone else I was with, since none of us thought it had gone in *through* Underhill.

Unless there was a touch, or a Cornell player right near the puck or something, that icing should not have been waved off. There would have been approximately 2 seconds left in the game if icing had been called.

Perhaps the play on the GWG was offsides, but it wasn't a goal scored on a rush. The puck went into the corner, Abbott got it down low, and Cornell recovered into position but didn't pick up the puck carrier. If the play was offsides, fine, but I don't think that it had much of an effect on the end result. Great play by Abbott, and a great shot to beat Underhill.

Finally got a chance to look at my tape last night (and a chance to post something today). The goal was definitely five hole, and through a screening player who looked to be moving across Underhill's field of view.

The GWG wasn't offsides, a player crossed early but then touched up (and he was RIGHT in front of the linesman) a split second before the puck came in.

I don't see, though, why the clear at the end of the game wasn't icing. As someone said earlier, obviously any of the Cornell players would've done anything possible to get to the puck, so if they didn't, they couldn't have. According to the color commentary, Schafer apparently was arguing that it should've been icing as well.

I disagree that Cornell necessarily wanted to catch up to the puck. They probably wanted to give the appearance of chasing the puck so that icing wouldn't be waved off, but with less than 10 seconds left when UNH sent the puck into the Cornell end, I would think that Cornell would prefer having the clock stopped and an offensive zone faceoff to chasing the puck and bringing it back up ice.

I can't bring myself to make a big deal out of the lost 2 seconds, but the ref certainly should have called UNH for icing.

There was a post on HOCKEY-L (by a UNH fan) which said that while the icing wave-off looked mysterious at the game, on the replay it was clear that Haydar's clear had gone off a Cornell skate. Anyone with a tape want to check on that?

Here's a link to the post:

[lists.maine.edu]

Gibber's usually a straight-shooter.

I don't really feel like watching the last two minutes again, but in watching the tape the first time it appeared to me like the puck did hit something right after it left his stick.

I recall one of the Cornell fans (Jim Hyla?) also mentioning something about UNH having too many men on the ice late in the game.

But...it's over...and, we, sadly, are out.

Out? I dunno...

Brooding and waiting for next year is more like it

Whoops! See? I was wrong again! That's twice in three days!

Beeeej

Sure, go ahead - I could probably use the sin-bin time to cool off. )

Beeeej