Harvard at Cornell post-game thread

Losing to Harvard took the wind out of our sails. Post volume seems nothing like it was last week. No postgame thread.

So why did Harvard win? Cam Abbott's it's-so-unlike-him five minute major? David McKee's not slidimg over in time to save one of the goals? Our failed 5x3 PP late in the third? Jared Seminoff's untimely trip turninig a 2-on-1 into a 2-on-0 breakaway?

We're still looking good for the playoffs and playoffs seeding. Would you rather be Colgate and be 1 point behind Cornell going into he final weekend? Dartmouth is also 1 point back but it finishes up vs. St. Lawrence (2 back) and Clarkson, which is going to be tougher than our Union/RPI weekend (on paper).

[edit adding] Maybe this gives Cornell incentive against Harvard in what is likely to be a meeting somewhere in the ECACs, perhaps the semis or the finals in Albany. (A best 2 of 3 quarterfinal in Lynah is unlikely but so delicious to ponder even if it would deplete offshore fisheries out to the 200 mile limit.) And it would generate 100% [what sportswriters and coaches call 110%] effort on the part of Cam Abbott.

I want the title game to be Cornell-Harvard or Cornell-Colgate. Yes, Colgate -- support upstate hockey. Colgate is one of those Colorado College of the East kinds of schools. You could say that about Union, too, except I think the CC administration honors hockey rather than treating it like an unwanted growth.

I would certainly rather be Dartmouth this weekend, and have the home-ice advantage. Every team in the ECAC has a better home record than away, and only Cornell has a winning record on the road.

But the burning question that I didn't find answered in the game thread... did you all throw the fishies?

I wouldn't normally make statements this definitive about the precise reason for how a game went... but in this case, I'll say what I've said to several people over the past day: if not for Cam's 5 minute major, Cornell would almost certainly have won that game. That's too bad. Especially ugly as it came on senior night: a loss at home is never the way you want to end the regular season.

It was also the only Cornell loss to Harvard at Lynah that I have witnessed in my 11 years following the program, there having been no internet video in 1999, which is a personal letdown.

But there's still plenty of hockey to be played this season. I'll be in Albany next weekend to cheer our guys on as they battle RIP and Union, and---praise the woofing gods---if Cornell manages to make it past the quarterfinals, I'll be in Albany for the tournament. LGR!

Cheers,
Kyle

billhoward
Losing to Harvard took the wind out of our sails. Post volume seems nothing like it was last week. No postgame thread.

Shhhh, Bill. Sometimes I want to wallow in my misery.

I agree with Krose.

Surprisingly, there doesn't seem much to analyze here. For everyone who saw the game, there is no big question as to why we lost. We weren't bad, we weren't great, and the Abbott penalty didn't help (big understatement). Nonetheless, our subsequent 4 on 5 penalty kill could have done a better job with that. Furthermore, giving up the other 4 on 4 goal was inexcusable too. Unfortunately, the team seemed to look as deflated as the crowd was after the penalty. Props to the team effort in the last few minutes, though, but it was just a little too late. At least there's still more hockey to look forward to.

billhoward
Yes, Colgate -- support upstate hockey. Colgate is one of those Colorado College of the East kinds of schools. You could say that about Union, too, except I think the CC administration honors hockey rather than treating it like an unwanted growth.

Come now Bill!

Clarkson has a lot more in common with Colorado College than Colgate ever will!

Once you acknowledge that, I hope you'll root for a Clarkson-Cornell final in Albany.

i'm with rich on that one... clarkson cornell would be a cool final

Rich S

billhoward
Yes, Colgate -- support upstate hockey. Colgate is one of those Colorado College of the East kinds of schools. You could say that about Union, too, except I think the CC administration honors hockey rather than treating it like an unwanted growth.

Come now Bill! Clarkson has a lot more in common with Colorado College than Colgate ever will!

Once you acknowledge that, I hope you'll root for a Clarkson-Cornell final in Albany.

Richard, you and your alma mater actually flipped through my mind when I wrote the note. So did RPI (and I'm intrigued that you weren't concerned on their part). But I was thinking, which one or two Empire State schools -- not every bleeping possibility on the list whose feelings might be hurt in my spirit on non-inclusionism -- would service the argument (or in the present case, create one). So I went with two selective liberal arts colleges that map closely to the CC profile. More seriously if only for a moment, I wouldn't be unhappy to see Clarkson, RPI, or St. Lawrence (or at some future point RIT) in the NCAAs, although how they'd get in would be a challenge with a Cornell-Harvard or Cornell-Colgate final.

One can puruse an engineering degree at CC, intriguingly, by going to CC for a couple years and then transferring to RPI or Columbia. But not to Sodom on the St. Lawrence. Didn't Cornell loan you a president for a couple years, but when he retired, he got the hell out of town?

Or is this the link you're thinking of?
Q: What do Colorado College and Clarkson have in common?
A: It's possible to get a respected engineering degree. You just have to transfer to RPI.

canuck89
For everyone who saw the game, there is no big question as to why we lost. We weren't bad, we weren't great, and the Abbott penalty didn't help (big understatement). Nonetheless, our subsequent 4 on 5 penalty kill could have done a better job with that. Furthermore, giving up the other 4 on 4 goal was inexcusable too. Unfortunately, the team seemed to look as deflated as the crowd was after the penalty. Props to the team effort in the last few minutes, though, but it was just a little too late. At least there's still more hockey to look forward to.

Yep, that accords with what I saw.

There were several points in the game where you just knew Cornell would take off and run Harvard out of the rink.

(1) Early emotion. The Red came out hard and outplayed Harvard in the first.
(2) Pre-Cam. Just at the moment of Cam's penalty, everything was going Cornell's way and they were really stepping it up.
(3) The final moments. They threw everything they had at Daigneau in the last two minutes.

In the first case, they just couldn't get a huge second goal. The latter two were defined by the Abbott penalty, which stunned them, and then left them too little time to mount a successful comeback.

The consolation is that Schafer is a great coach and he will use this to teach and motivate, and the team may be better for it when the "win-or-go-home" games begin.

billhoward
Or is this the link you're thinking of?
Q: What do Colorado College and Clarkson have in common?
A: It's possible to get a respected engineering degree. You just have to transfer to RPI.

daredevilcu
But the burning question that I didn't find answered in the game thread... did you all throw the fishies?

I threw a fishie! I was really proud of myself b/c I was kind of scared to touch it, but I sucked it up and held it with my bare hands while waiting for the toss. My other reasons to be proud of myself at Harvard were that I finally got up the nerve to start a Harvard Sucks cheer, and I made a sign that got featured on TV

My biggest disappointment with the game was the lack of goals in the 5x3. My thinking was: Schafer should have pulled Dave just for the 5x3 and put him back in after. Having 6x3, there's no way they could have made it to our net, and having DOUBLE the number of men on the ice would surely have led to a goal in that critical powerplay. Assuming the rest of the game went the same (which I realize is a big assumption), we would have at least made it to OT. But goals generally boost our morale and deflate theirs to give us the advantage, so we might even have scored another goal in regulation and won. Disappointing.

las224
But goals generally boost our morale and deflate theirs to give us the advantage, so we might even have scored another goal in regulation and won. Disappointing.

Of course, there's a good question as to whether we actually scored that third one at all. Not that it matters in the end.

That's below the belt, bill, try to keep the gloves up next time. Oh, wait... you go to Cornell. Sorry, I'm sure the refs didn't notice the hit.

daredevilcu
I'm sure the refs didn't notice the hit.

They were distracted by the Clarkson band's drumming during the play.

Touchè.

Quote:
[q]daredevilcu
But the burning question that I didn't find answered in the game thread... did you all throw the fishies?
[/q]

Fish were thrown (as las224 mentioned). Enough so that Pelle compained about it during his interview shown on CSTV. He mentioned that the Harvard team was told that there would be no fish and that the Cornell administration lied. (I don't remember the exact quote, so feel free to correct me.)

I thought it was hilarious that the students kept chanting "ugly" throughout his entire interview. Classic.

Quote:
[q]las224
Having 6x3, there's no way they could have made it to our net, and having DOUBLE the number of men on the ice would surely have led to a goal in that critical powerplay.
[/q]

I would have loved to see this too, but I kept thinking back to the Maine/Denver championship game in 2004 where Maine had about a minute of 6x3 at the end of the game and couldn't score.

daredevilcu
That's below the belt, bill, try to keep the gloves up next time. Oh, wait... you go to Cornell. Sorry, I'm sure the refs didn't notice the hit.

My grandmother, bless her D.A.R., Women's National Republican Committee, Nelson Rockefeller/Kenneth Keating/Jacob-Javits-loving heart, said a gentleman never picks on those unfortunates who, because of their circumstances, were unable to speak out or defend themselves. For that, I should apologize.

You sit a Cornell man and a Clarkson man at similar QWERTY keyboards, and already it's like the Big Red having a five-on-three.

But seriously. You guys have been great sports. Including both times in the 1970 playoffs. Did Clarkson really give up three goals in the third period of the title game to a single Cornell defenseman?

Bill, what the hell is wrong with you?

Why are you being an ass in your usual obscure way?

Well, I'll disagree with the part about the Big Red having a five-on-three automatically simply by sitting down next to me, but I don't want to get into THAT discussion again, so I'll just leave it at that. By me posting on eLynah though, you've got home ice, so I'm forced to spot you a goal, at least.

Bio '04
Quote:
Quote:
[q]las224
Having 6x3, there's no way they could have made it to our net, and having DOUBLE the number of men on the ice would surely have led to a goal in that critical powerplay.
[/q]

I would have loved to see this too, but I kept thinking back to the Maine/Denver championship game in 2004 where Maine had about a minute of 6x3 at the end of the game and couldn't score.

Or the disastrous loss to Providence at Lynah in 2000 where we blew an early lead and managed not to score on a long 6-on-3 in the 3rd.

One thing I haven't seen anybody mention for a reason why we lost was the incidental minor to Carefoot (I think) at the end of the game. When we were out there 6x5, we were getting everything to the net and really doing a great job of pressuring Harvard. Unfortunately, we didn't get much going at all with a normal 5x4 power play. Once Carefoot got sent off, it didn't look good for us. If we had kept the 6x5 advantage instead I think we may have been able to put another one on the board.

Also, I agree that Schafer should have at least considered pulling McKee for a 6x3 advantage. That extra attacker would have been hard to stop. Hell, they could barely stop our 6x5. If Harvard had miraculously been able to score an empty netter there, the game's over. But we needed a goal to keep it a game anyway at that point.

DeltaOne81

las224
But goals generally boost our morale and deflate theirs to give us the advantage, so we might even have scored another goal in regulation and won. Disappointing.

Of course, there's a good question as to whether we actually scored that third one at all. Not that it matters in the end.

It's moot, too be sure, but it looked to me like what the goal judge saw wasn't the is-the-puck-over-the-line goal, but after the Sucks D-man swept it out, it apparently bounced off someone and back into the goal. You can clearly see the netting bulge, though this is not what the replays focused on, which surprises me.

jimmy
One thing I haven't seen anybody mention for a reason why we lost was the incidental minor to Carefoot (I think) at the end of the game. When we were out there 6x5, we were getting everything to the net and really doing a great job of pressuring Harvard. Unfortunately, we didn't get much going at all with a normal 5x4 power play. Once Carefoot got sent off, it didn't look good for us. If we had kept the 6x5 advantage instead I think we may have been able to put another one on the board.

Really? Generally a 5x4 gives you better scoring chances than a 6x5 because there's more open ice and the penalty killers each have more work to do.

I was thinking maybe we should pull McKee for a 6x3, but honestly, Harvard is much faster than we are. Someone gets even the slightest hint of a break, and they score. In my opinion, the risk of this outweighs the advantage of a sixth man against three, as we were able to dominate the 5x3 well, and just failed to put the puck in the net.

Now, when the first penalty let up, leaving us with about 50 seconds of 5x4, I would've pulled McKee, no question.

Anne and I were talking about the merits of a 6x3. We seemed to be tripping all over ourselves badly enough on 5x3, but I could see subbing another D in and stationing him between the circles. On a Harvard clear, he could skate the play back up with another D dropping back to his place.

But I wouldn't want another Cornell forward in the scoring mix. It's crowded enough, and they never practice it.

Darren Leung

DeltaOne81

las224
But goals generally boost our morale and deflate theirs to give us the advantage, so we might even have scored another goal in regulation and won. Disappointing.

Of course, there's a good question as to whether we actually scored that third one at all. Not that it matters in the end.

It's moot, too be sure, but it looked to me like what the goal judge saw wasn't the is-the-puck-over-the-line goal, but after the Sucks D-man swept it out, it apparently bounced off someone and back into the goal. You can clearly see the netting bulge, though this is not what the replays focused on, which surprises me.

Hmmm, wish I'd remember to record it.

jimmy
One thing I haven't seen anybody mention for a reason why we lost was the incidental minor to Carefoot (I think) at the end of the game. When we were out there 6x5, we were getting everything to the net and really doing a great job of pressuring Harvard. Unfortunately, we didn't get much going at all with a normal 5x4 power play. Once Carefoot got sent off, it didn't look good for us. If we had kept the 6x5 advantage instead I think we may have been able to put another one on the board.

Also, I agree that Schafer should have at least considered pulling McKee for a 6x3 advantage. That extra attacker would have been hard to stop. Hell, they could barely stop our 6x5. If Harvard had miraculously been able to score an empty netter there, the game's over. But we needed a goal to keep it a game anyway at that point.

Like JTW said, a 5x4 is a bigger advantage than a 6x5 because there is more open ice. A team would much rather have a 4x3 than a 5x4 and I tend to think they are almost as deadly as 5x3's particularly in the NHL where there is so much talent.

DeltaOne81
Hmmm, wish I'd remember to record it.

Am I nuts or did they show a brief snippet of Dan Lodboa scoring against Clarkson in the 1970 national championship game? That would have been reason enough to have wanted to record it. I'd pay good bucks for a tape/DVD of that game.

I agree. There are only so many forwards you can have crashing the net. Additionally, I think if there was another pile up around their goal at the end, the ref. may have called something on us, or at the very least, taken the puck out of the zone.

But at the college level where mistakes are made, 6x5 has some insurance benefits. If the puck is mishandled, due to the clutter, we have a greater chance of getting the puck back without getting scored on (Actually, keeping it in the zone is easier).

There are trade-offs to both, and if you asked me I would prefer a 5x4 over a 6x5 for the same reasons previously stated. However, I don't think it (5x4) is absolutely better than the other. There are a few pros and cons for both.

Well it is pretty depressing to lose to Harvard on home ice for the first time in 6 years in a nationally televised game to boot. Since Saturday was my birthday and I'm still in a full leg brace from knee surgery, watching the game on TV was to be the highlight of my day. Oh well.

Maybe I've watched too much NHL and Olympic hockey this year, but our team sure looked slow. Given that we don't quite have the size that we used to and can't dominate the corners with long cycles like in the past several years, I guess I expected the team's speed to be close to par with Harvard's. The sad reality is that Cornell looks to be a long shot to make the Frozen Four, and might even miss the NCAAs. Yes the ECACs will be exciting and we'll have a good shot at winning another championship, but unfortunately the ECAC is still not that good of a conference. Cornell has the league's best Krach ranking at 13th. Harvard is next at 22nd. As good as the sweep of Colgate felt, they are only ranked 26th, which is fairly average.

Sorry to dampen the mood, but it's hard to be positive when the pre-season goal was a National Championship. Maybe O'Byrne's return will improve things.

Steve M
Maybe I've watched too much NHL and Olympic hockey this year, but our team sure looked slow. Given that we don't quite have the size that we used to and can't dominate the corners with long cycles like in the past several years, I guess I expected the team's speed to be close to par with Harvard's.

You are the second person to suggest that our team speed doesn't compare to Harvard. Am I the only one that disagrees with this sentiment?

redhair34

Steve M
Maybe I've watched too much NHL and Olympic hockey this year, but our team sure looked slow. Given that we don't quite have the size that we used to and can't dominate the corners with long cycles like in the past several years, I guess I expected the team's speed to be close to par with Harvard's.

You are the second person to suggest that our team speed doesn't compare to Harvard. Am I the only one that disagrees with this sentiment?

No.

redhair34

Steve M
Maybe I've watched too much NHL and Olympic hockey this year, but our team sure looked slow. Given that we don't quite have the size that we used to and can't dominate the corners with long cycles like in the past several years, I guess I expected the team's speed to be close to par with Harvard's.

You are the second person to suggest that our team speed doesn't compare to Harvard. Am I the only one that disagrees with this sentiment?

I just finished this week's column and it touches upon this exact subject. I think Cornell has become a lot more of a skating team and is definitely the fastest Cornell team I've seen in the last five years. Seeing as how it's a pretty different style than the one the team has thrived off of the last couple of years, they are going through a transition, attempting to get a hybrid between the physical, cycling game and the speed and skill game. Just because they lose races to pucks for stretches during the game doesn't mean they are slow.

redhair34
You are the second person to suggest that our team speed doesn't compare to Harvard. Am I the only one that disagrees with this sentiment?

I thought we were as fast as Harvard at the Lynah East game. We certainly had more transition chances. I find it hard to judge watching on TV. Getting to loose pucks can be a matter of hustle and desire, not just speed.

Al DeFlorio

DeltaOne81
Hmmm, wish I'd remember to record it.

Am I nuts or did they show a brief snippet of Dan Lodboa scoring against Clarkson in the 1970 national championship game? That would have been reason enough to have wanted to record it. I'd pay good bucks for a tape/DVD of that game.

They sure did, Al. It was incredibly poor quality, and lasted all of about 2 seconds. I zipped through my recording of periods 1 and 2, but didn't see it. Disc 3 died a horrible death, so maybe someone else has it.

Also, Cornell's style lends itself to focus more on size as opposed to Harvard's which lends itself to speed.

Cornell still likes to bring the puck in the zone along the boards and cycle the puck for as long as it takes to create a 2v1 etc.

Harvard plays much more of a transition game and hates cycling the puck along the boards. Thus, it is much easier to notice Harvard's speed. Cornell may be just as fast, but the cycle strategy doesn't leverage that size.

I am very intrigued as to how this will play out next year. While there is no question that Cornell's incoming class is scary legit, they are small and I'm guessing speedy as a result. These are not the type of forwards that will thrive in the corners. It will be interesting to see how Mike Schafer's system will have to evolve to leverage these new assets because the system that Cornell employs now, will stifle some of the gifted and speedy playmaking that a Gallagher, Milo, or Romano thrive on.

To be determined I guess....

From Adam Wodon at CHN

[q][Cornell] got credit for one of the biggest phantom goals in hockey history. Folks, I was standing right there in the corner by the Harvard goal, along the goal line, and the puck wasn't close to going in.[/q]

The CSTV replay made it seem much closer...

Bill,

You expected me to be concerned about RPI in response? Yeah I suppose I should have mentioned them because quite honestly as another tech school, which Colgate clearly is not, both RPI and Clarkson are closer to CC than either Colgate or Union.

I believe that Union granted the first engineering degree in NYS many years ago, right? But do I recall that they gave up the Engineering programs years ago? Now they're considered a liberal arts school? Oh how the mighty have fallen. LOL.

I'll take the "Sodom on the St. Lawrence" comment as a compliment I suppose. And it's compliments you should be doling out rather than the poor joke about CC or Clarkson students having to transfer to RPI. I can't speak for the CC crowd but why on would a Techer want to transfer for the privilege of going to school in Troy?

As for the Clarkson president who had a cornell background, I do recall him but not his name and like most Tech alumni, I have generally forgotten his short-lived tenure in Potsdam. Suffice to say it was not a good fit and when he left town, I don't think many tears were shed.

For what it's worth, our previous President, Denny Brown, he of Morris-firing fame, was married to a woman, whose first name I have forgotten, who had earned her Ph D high above Cayuga's waters. I recall seeing them sitting a few rows behind me at Lynah in the late 90s. Denny wore Clarkson colors and his wife wore red. I magine had she done that at Cheel she'd have been roundly booed.

Rich S
Bill,

You expected me to be concerned about RPI in response? Yeah I suppose I should have mentioned them because quite honestly as another tech school, which Colgate clearly is not, both RPI and Clarkson are closer to CC than either Colgate or Union.

Uh, CC is a liberal arts college, and I think that was Bill's point.

Rich S
I can't speak for the CC crowd but why on would a Techer want to transfer for the privilege of going to school in Troy?

Ummm, because it's a better school?

They have, or at least use to and I presume still do have, a very good reputation in the sciences, much like Clarkson and RPI.

That's certainly debateable (but please let's not do that here again) so given that, I stand by my question....Troy? Ugh.

Potsdam may not be the greatest town in the state (and Ithaca isn't either) but at least it's not ugly like Troy.

Rich S
That's certainly debateable (but please let's not do that here again) so given that, I stand by my question....Troy? Ugh.

It's not debatable. Look up rankings of engineering programs. RPI is a better school than Clarkson.

ebilmes
From Adam Wodon at CHN

[q][Cornell] got credit for one of the biggest phantom goals in hockey history. Folks, I was standing right there in the corner by the Harvard goal, along the goal line, and the puck wasn't close to going in.[/q]

The CSTV replay made it seem much closer...

Adam should take another look at that replay, a split second after the disputed couple of frames before making that kind of statement. From what I saw, Harvard scored on their own goalie.

Rich, you guys take this so seriously. (Or you rise to the bait so quickly.) Clarkson is better, academically, than say 95% of colleges in America and Cornell is better than, what, 98%, 99%? Big deal. And no matter how much we make fun of Harvard, it will still have a bigger endowment and loftier reputation than Cornell or Clarkson. That's life.

And as one has seen by the comments posted by pep band members (Section A Banshee), no one can attempt to insult the band and come away unscathed. They could probably hold their own against Rodney Dangerfield. Especially recently.

I'd say truce ... but you know that only means until one of us says something inflammatory a week from now and we're at it again.

It's fun to have you on the forum.

Darren Leung

ebilmes
From Adam Wodon at CHN

[q][Cornell] got credit for one of the biggest phantom goals in hockey history. Folks, I was standing right there in the corner by the Harvard goal, along the goal line, and the puck wasn't close to going in.[/q]

The CSTV replay made it seem much closer...

Adam should take another look at that replay, a split second after the disputed couple of frames before making that kind of statement. From what I saw, Harvard scored on their own goalie.

Well, at the very least, the puck was on the line (if not over). And if its "on the line" I'd say that qualifies as "close to going in".

jmh30
It's not debatable. Look up rankings of engineering programs. RPI is a better school than Clarkson.

And clearly Harvard, Duke, Northwestern, and Penn are better undergrad colleges than Cornell.

Citing rankings, even in jest, and EVEN against Rich, is reaching.

Kyle

billhoward
They could probably hold their own against Rodney Dangerfield. Especially recently.

I dunno. Apparently Rodney did the last thirty years of his career stoned to the gills every day. He could probably do "Caddyshack 3" from the grave. (Hey, it would be better than Caddyshack 2"....)

krose

jmh30
It's not debatable. Look up rankings of engineering programs. RPI is a better school than Clarkson.

And clearly Harvard, Duke, Northwestern, and Penn are better undergrad colleges than Cornell.

Citing rankings, even in jest, and EVEN against Rich, is reaching.

Kyle

True sentiment, although it's much less of a reach to cite department rankings as opposed to those silly monstrosities which purport to rank entire universities (Duke over Cornell? Please. Duke is roughly in the same ballpark as USC. Very nice place; very cute girls. Brains? Not so much.)

But it's probably bogus to ever try to compare undergrad rankings of anything. Grad departments really do have a superior-inferior pecking order which is all about faculty. Undergrad departments vary most greatly with the resourcefulness and seriousness of the student admitted, since the biggest library on the planet doesn't matter if the little bastards don't use it. On that theory, Brigham Young is probably the best undergrad school on the country. And pretty girls, too. Though very scary.

From my vantage point in Section O, my immediate reaction was that it didn't completely cross the line, but if Darren's analysis is correct that it bounced off an H player and in after being swept from the line (he had the benefit of TV), then I feel better knowing that we didn't get away with something.

Order of what I focused on:

Puck on line (not over), being swept out
flurry of bodies
Red light on
F Murphy frantically pointing to signal a good goal
Walsh absolutely losing it at the top of the circles
Walsh skating hard towards F Murphy
Walsh going all Earl Weaver in F Murphy's face and delivering a chest bump
Ass't Ref guiding Walsh against the boards

Given the passion and intensity of the game, I think the refs handled it right. Before assessing the penalty, they spoke with a calmer Walsh several times and gave him the 10-minute misconduct. I was calling for a Game Misconduct, but given everything that was going on, that was the cool-headed thing to do.

However, this is from the current NCAA rulebook:

[q]Rule 6, Section 1: Abuse of Officials

b. A player shall not challenge or dispute the rulings of any official before or during a game.
PENALTY—Misconduct.

m. A player shall not physically or deliberately make contact with an official before, during or after the game.
PENALTY—Disqualification.[/q]
I contend it was a deliberate bump, but it was indisputably a physical bump. By the book, that really should have been a Game DQ.

Rich S
why on would a Techer want to transfer for the privilege of going to school in Troy?

Electricity and running water?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

John Harvard
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...with eloquence befitting a Cantabrigian.

*points to standings and laughs*

CowbellGuy

John Harvard
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

...with eloquence befitting a Cantabrigian.

*points to standings and laughs*

ECACHL standings, natch.

Beeeej

What else is there?

Al DeFlorio

redhair34
You are the second person to suggest that our team speed doesn't compare to Harvard. Am I the only one that disagrees with this sentiment?

I thought we were as fast as Harvard at the Lynah East game. We certainly had more transition chances. I find it hard to judge watching on TV. Getting to loose pucks can be a matter of hustle and desire, not just speed.

Right, in fact getting to loose pucks first is almost always a function of those two factors along with the ability to read or anticipate the play. Get the first step or even half step and you will often beat a faster skater to the puck.

I think all coaches agree with that and that's why we/they often cite "winning the loose pucks battle" as a key factor in determining who wins a game.

The notable exception to the above is a flat out race up or down ice where e.g., an icing call is at stake.

RichH
From my vantage point in Section O, my immediate reaction was that it didn't completely cross the line, but if Darren's analysis is correct that it bounced off an H player and in after being swept from the line (he had the benefit of TV), then I feel better knowing that we didn't get away with something.

Order of what I focused on:

Puck on line (not over), being swept out
flurry of bodies
Red light on
F Murphy frantically pointing to signal a good goal
Walsh absolutely losing it at the top of the circles
Walsh skating hard towards F Murphy
Walsh going all Earl Weaver in F Murphy's face and delivering a chest bump
Ass't Ref guiding Walsh against the boards

Given the passion and intensity of the game, I think the refs handled it right. Before assessing the penalty, they spoke with a calmer Walsh several times and gave him the 10-minute misconduct. I was calling for a Game Misconduct, but given everything that was going on, that was the cool-headed thing to do.

However, this is from the current NCAA rulebook:

[q]Rule 6, Section 1: Abuse of Officials

b. A player shall not challenge or dispute the rulings of any official before or during a game.
PENALTY—Misconduct.

m. A player shall not physically or deliberately make contact with an official before, during or after the game.
PENALTY—Disqualification.[/q]
I contend it was a deliberate bump, but it was indisputably a physical bump. By the book, that really should have been a Game DQ.

Ah yes, they didn't show this part on TV, which stinks. I would love to have seen a Sucks player accosting a ref.

I don't think we were particularly slow when compared to Harvard... (I did have similar sentiment after watching Rangers/Isles/other NHL games just about every day over winter break). We just played mediocre at best, and didn't seem to give total effort until it was too late.

I think the water in Troy runs brown. The Raquette River in Potsdam is sparkling clear.

Rich S
The Raquette River in Potsdam is sparkling clear.

Better be. Only bathing facility in town.

(I know, that's a cheap shot. Typically, Potsdamians do not bathe.)

Trotsky

Rich S
The Raquette River in Potsdam is sparkling clear.

Better be. Only bathing facility in town.

(I know, that's a cheap shot. Typically, Potsdamians do not bathe.)

You're showing your ignorance...lol

Potsdam folks are called "Sandstoners." Clarkson students are "Techers" and I assure you that they all (or most of us/them) bathe.

As freshmen we were known to take a dip in the Raquette to "paint the rock" downtown but not necessarily bathe.

Rich S

Trotsky

Rich S
The Raquette River in Potsdam is sparkling clear.

Better be. Only bathing facility in town.
(I know, that's a cheap shot. Typically, Potsdamians do not bathe.)

You're showing your ignorance...lol
Potsdam folks are called "Sandstoners." Clarkson students are "Techers" and I assure you that they all (or most of us/them) bathe. As freshmen we were known to take a dip in the Raquette to "paint the rock" downtown but not necessarily bathe.

When was the sand prefix added?

I always get a kick out of my little sister's uniforms. Her sweatshirts for swimming and hockey just say "Stoners" on them. When she was in DC on a field trip last year, someone on the street was trying to get her or her friend to sell them their sweatshirt.

Another article about the Lynah Faithful, this time by a visiting Penn student...

[www.uscho.com]

and he knew that Dryden didn't play on the '70 team!

Mike Schafer should put the story in his recruiting packet. Thank you, Daily Pennsylvanian.

Before I forget, props to the people in section A heckling the Harvard player during the TV interview. You could hear "Ugly!" clearly on the TV, and the announcer even broke away saying it was hard to hear over the students in the background.

nr53
and he knew that Dryden didn't play on the '70 team!

And that the phrase is "you goon" and not "you lose"!