This doesn't have anything to do with tonight's game, but what the heck. From the article on Matthew Nuttle: (http://cornellbigred.com/news/2015/11/18/MICE_1118150043.aspx)
QuoteQ: Canisius and Niagara are in that area, but Buffalo isn't exactly a huge college hockey town yet. Did you have exposure to college hockey as a kid?
A: Actually, my first exposure to college hockey was when the Frozen Four was in Buffalo in 2003 when Cornell was in the Frozen Four. I went and saw Cornell play, and Michigan and Minnesota played the other game, which I went to too. So that was actually my first taste of Cornell hockey. I actually remember the band being there and everything. It was pretty cool.
Q: So did that stay with you through the years, or is it kind of a coincidence that you ended up here?
A: Yeah, I would say it stuck with me throughout the years. Obviously at the time, I was 8 years old, so I didn't know much about college hockey or anything. But I remember all the fans and everything, so that's something that's kind of always stuck with me.
So play and cheer like hell.
Fiegl added to the injured list.:`-(
Quote from: Jim HylaThis doesn't have anything to do with tonight's game, but what the heck. From the article on Matthew Nuttle: (http://cornellbigred.com/news/2015/11/18/MICE_1118150043.aspx)
QuoteQ: Canisius and Niagara are in that area, but Buffalo isn't exactly a huge college hockey town yet. Did you have exposure to college hockey as a kid?
A: Actually, my first exposure to college hockey was when the Frozen Four was in Buffalo in 2003 when Cornell was in the Frozen Four. I went and saw Cornell play, and Michigan and Minnesota played the other game, which I went to too. So that was actually my first taste of Cornell hockey. I actually remember the band being there and everything. It was pretty cool.
Q: So did that stay with you through the years, or is it kind of a coincidence that you ended up here?
A: Yeah, I would say it stuck with me throughout the years. Obviously at the time, I was 8 years old, so I didn't know much about college hockey or anything. But I remember all the fans and everything, so that's something that's kind of always stuck with me.
So play and cheer like hell.
also, that was no high stick on that goal against UNH
Quote from: underskillQuote from: Jim HylaThis doesn't have anything to do with tonight's game, but what the heck. From the article on Matthew Nuttle: (http://cornellbigred.com/news/2015/11/18/MICE_1118150043.aspx)
QuoteQ: Canisius and Niagara are in that area, but Buffalo isn't exactly a huge college hockey town yet. Did you have exposure to college hockey as a kid?
A: Actually, my first exposure to college hockey was when the Frozen Four was in Buffalo in 2003 when Cornell was in the Frozen Four. I went and saw Cornell play, and Michigan and Minnesota played the other game, which I went to too. So that was actually my first taste of Cornell hockey. I actually remember the band being there and everything. It was pretty cool.
Q: So did that stay with you through the years, or is it kind of a coincidence that you ended up here?
A: Yeah, I would say it stuck with me throughout the years. Obviously at the time, I was 8 years old, so I didn't know much about college hockey or anything. But I remember all the fans and everything, so that's something that's kind of always stuck with me.
So play and cheer like hell.
also, that was no high stick on that goal against UNH
Howie was a rock, the best tailgunner in the outfit.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: underskillQuote from: Jim HylaThis doesn't have anything to do with tonight's game, but what the heck. From the article on Matthew Nuttle: (http://cornellbigred.com/news/2015/11/18/MICE_1118150043.aspx)
QuoteQ: Canisius and Niagara are in that area, but Buffalo isn't exactly a huge college hockey town yet. Did you have exposure to college hockey as a kid?
A: Actually, my first exposure to college hockey was when the Frozen Four was in Buffalo in 2003 when Cornell was in the Frozen Four. I went and saw Cornell play, and Michigan and Minnesota played the other game, which I went to too. So that was actually my first taste of Cornell hockey. I actually remember the band being there and everything. It was pretty cool.
Q: So did that stay with you through the years, or is it kind of a coincidence that you ended up here?
A: Yeah, I would say it stuck with me throughout the years. Obviously at the time, I was 8 years old, so I didn't know much about college hockey or anything. But I remember all the fans and everything, so that's something that's kind of always stuck with me.
So play and cheer like hell.
also, that was no high stick on that goal against UNH
Howie was a rock, the best tailgunner in the outfit.
But, we lost Howie the next day!!
How many on IR for tonight?
::help::
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: underskillQuote from: Jim HylaThis doesn't have anything to do with tonight's game, but what the heck. From the article on Matthew Nuttle: (http://cornellbigred.com/news/2015/11/18/MICE_1118150043.aspx)
QuoteQ: Canisius and Niagara are in that area, but Buffalo isn't exactly a huge college hockey town yet. Did you have exposure to college hockey as a kid?
A: Actually, my first exposure to college hockey was when the Frozen Four was in Buffalo in 2003 when Cornell was in the Frozen Four. I went and saw Cornell play, and Michigan and Minnesota played the other game, which I went to too. So that was actually my first taste of Cornell hockey. I actually remember the band being there and everything. It was pretty cool.
Q: So did that stay with you through the years, or is it kind of a coincidence that you ended up here?
A: Yeah, I would say it stuck with me throughout the years. Obviously at the time, I was 8 years old, so I didn't know much about college hockey or anything. But I remember all the fans and everything, so that's something that's kind of always stuck with me.
So play and cheer like hell.
also, that was no high stick on that goal against UNH
Howie was a rock, the best tailgunner in the outfit.
Afraid not. We lost Howie the next day...
we are really walking wounded this weekend
Quote from: Al DeFlorioFiegl added to the injured list.:`-(
Knisley back in the lineup, at least.
Great to see Cornell get a win over a top 20 team! Record against the current top 20 in the USCHO poll is a more than respectable 1-1-2.
After the game, the Cornell Hockey twitter feed posted a picture of Dwight Schrute jumping in the air and pumping his fist. I couldn't help but think that if they wanted to illustrate celebrating a Cornell win, they picked the wrong character from "The Office".
St. Lawrence pulled its goalie at least a minute later than it was supposed to.
Quote from: BearLoverSt. Lawrence pulled its goalie at least a minute later than it was supposed to.
¿Where is the goal pulling rule found? Are you pulling my leg or....?
Quote from: martyQuote from: BearLoverSt. Lawrence pulled its goalie at least a minute later than it was supposed to.
¿Where is the goal pulling rule found? Are you pulling my leg or....?
Hayton went off with only 36 seconds to go. From the radio it didn't sound like we pinned him in net by controlling the puck either. That's probably 30-60 seconds later than typical I think.
Since when can the refs award penalty shots based on reviewing video to determine if a play resulted in a goal or not? Is that a recent rule change?
The following is from the game recap here: http://cornellbigred.com/news/2015/12/4/MICE_1204152520.aspx
"But the lead would stand up, mostly because of a wild sequence with 11:01 to play in the third. Gillam made a save on a long shot from Nolan Gluchowski, then Woody Hudson's whack at another rebound was blocked. One last effort came from Lough who had Gillam beat, but Cornell defenseman Ryan Bliss made the stop on his knees in the crease and swiveled his legs around to keep the puck from crossing the line. Video review was inconclusive to overturn the original on-ice ruling of no goal, but Bliss was also deemed to have played the puck with his hands in the crease — resulting in a penalty shot. Lough took the attempt and made a move to his forehand which Gillam stopped."
So the play is ruled a no-goal on the ice, and no penalty is called. But after reviewing the play the refs decide to award a penalty shot. I had no idea they could do that.
The box lists the Bliss penalty that led to the penalty shot as "Handling Puck with Hands". I think I know what happened (he covered the puck in the crease) but I don't think I've ever heard that term before. Am I just clueless?
Quote from: andyw2100So the play on the ice is ruled a no-goal, and no penalty is called. But after reviewing the play the refs decide to award a penalty shot. I had no idea they could do that.
From the radio broadcast it sounded like they had decided to award a penalty shot before going in to look at the video to determine whether a goal had been scored.
The way I saw it, the ref signaled (emphatically) for the penalty shot before the review. The review was to make sure there wasn't a goal before the penalty was called. During the review the puck was at center for the shot and both teams were on the bench.
Quote from: djk26Great to see Cornell get a win over a top 20 team! Record against the current top 20 in the USCHO poll is a more than respectable 1-1-2.
After the game, the Cornell Hockey twitter feed posted a picture of Dwight Schrute jumping in the air and pumping his fist. I couldn't help but think that if they wanted to illustrate celebrating a Cornell win, they picked the wrong character from "The Office".
He did consider applying once though; I think our role in the development of modern cabbage impressed him.
Quote from: djk26I couldn't help but think that if they wanted to illustrate celebrating a Cornell win, they picked the wrong character from "The Office".
I think they also posted a video of a "Jim" reaction after the Brown win, so they may just be setting it up for later.
Quote from: Chris '03The way I saw it, the ref signaled (emphatically) for the penalty shot before the review. The review was to make sure there wasn't a goal before the penalty was called. During the review the puck was at center for the shot and both teams were on the bench.
I agree with this. I didn't explicitly see the standard signal for a penalty shot (wrists crossed above the head), but the pointing was emphatic and clearly not at the puck.
Quote from: KeithKFrom the radio broadcast it sounded like they had decided to award a penalty shot before going in to look at the video to determine whether a goal had been scored.
Quote from: Chris '03The way I saw it, the ref signaled (emphatically) for the penalty shot before the review. The review was to make sure there wasn't a goal before the penalty was called. During the review the puck was at center for the shot and both teams were on the bench.
Interesting, then, that the recap got it wrong.
I saw the ref behind the goal kind of pointing and gesticulating wildly out toward the front of the goal, which confused me. He clearly wasn't indicating a goal, but he also didn't put his hands over his head to indicate a penalty shot. (If he did, I completely missed it, and I'm pretty sure most people at Lynah did as well, because there was no reaction typical of a penalty shot being awarded to the opposing team.)
Quote from: andyw2100I saw the ref behind the goal kind of pointing and gesticulating wildly out toward the front of the goal, which confused me. He clearly wasn't indicating a goal, but he also didn't put his hands over his head to indicate a penalty shot. (If he did, I completely missed it, and I'm pretty sure most people at Lynah did as well, because there was no reaction typical of a penalty shot being awarded to the opposing team.)
He was pointing to center ice, not the front of the goal: that's the NHL-style signal for a penalty shot. I think college officials do occasionally skip the crossed-arms signal. It was pretty clear to me that penalty shot was the indication before they even reviewed anything.
Quote from: sah67Quote from: andyw2100I saw the ref behind the goal kind of pointing and gesticulating wildly out toward the front of the goal, which confused me. He clearly wasn't indicating a goal, but he also didn't put his hands over his head to indicate a penalty shot. (If he did, I completely missed it, and I'm pretty sure most people at Lynah did as well, because there was no reaction typical of a penalty shot being awarded to the opposing team.)
He was pointing to center ice, not the front of the goal: that's the NHL-style signal for a penalty shot. I think college officials do occasionally skip the crossed-arms signal. It was pretty clear to me that penalty shot was the indication before they even reviewed anything.
That's exactly right. He pointed to center ice and then down to the player in the crease.
Quote from: sah67He was pointing to center ice, not the front of the goal: that's the NHL-style signal for a penalty shot. I think college officials do occasionally skip the crossed-arms signal. It was pretty clear to me that penalty shot was the indication before they even reviewed anything.
Quote from: Jim HylaThat's exactly right. He pointed to center ice and then down to the player in the crease.
It's good that so many of you were properly able to interpret what was going on. I was confused by trying to discern the subtle differences (made by a ref standing behind the net) between pointing into the goal, pointing towards center ice, and pointing to the crease. With at least half a dozen players also obstructing my view, it was less than crystal clear what the ref was indicating. I was confused. Apparently quite a few other people at Lynah were also confused, including whomever it was that wrote the recap for the Cornell web site. That recap probably wound up confusing a lot more people, who, like me, then questioned a rule they thought they understood. (I really didn't think refs could look at a replay of a goal to decide goal or no-goal, and then call penalties after the fact, based on something they saw when reviewing the video, but that's exactly what the recap indicated had happened. I assume I am still correct about that.)
What would have eliminated much, if not all of the confusion would have been the very clear and correct hand gesture indicating penalty shot from the ref. For whatever reason he chose not to make it, and it's water under the bridge at this point, but it really would have been a lot clearer than all the pointing.
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: sah67He was pointing to center ice, not the front of the goal: that's the NHL-style signal for a penalty shot. I think college officials do occasionally skip the crossed-arms signal. It was pretty clear to me that penalty shot was the indication before they even reviewed anything.
Quote from: Jim HylaThat's exactly right. He pointed to center ice and then down to the player in the crease.
It's good that so many of you were properly able to interpret what was going on. I was confused by trying to discern the subtle differences (made by a ref standing behind the net) between pointing into the goal, pointing towards center ice, and pointing to the crease. With at least half a dozen players also obstructing my view, it was less than crystal clear what the ref was indicating. I was confused. Apparently quite a few other people at Lynah were also confused, including whomever it was that wrote the recap for the Cornell web site. That recap probably wound up confusing a lot more people, who, like me, then questioned a rule they thought they understood. (I really didn't think refs could look at a replay of a goal to decide goal or no-goal, and then call penalties after the fact, based on something they saw when reviewing the video, but that's exactly what the recap indicated had happened. I assume I am still correct about that.)
What would have eliminated much, if not all of the confusion would have been the very clear and correct hand gesture indicating penalty shot from the ref. For whatever reason he chose not to make it, and it's water under the bridge at this point, but it really would have been a lot clearer than all the pointing.
Agree with all of this, it was confusing at the time and a definite penalty shot indication would have made it clearer.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: sah67He was pointing to center ice, not the front of the goal: that's the NHL-style signal for a penalty shot. I think college officials do occasionally skip the crossed-arms signal. It was pretty clear to me that penalty shot was the indication before they even reviewed anything.
Quote from: Jim HylaThat's exactly right. He pointed to center ice and then down to the player in the crease.
It's good that so many of you were properly able to interpret what was going on. I was confused by trying to discern the subtle differences (made by a ref standing behind the net) between pointing into the goal, pointing towards center ice, and pointing to the crease. With at least half a dozen players also obstructing my view, it was less than crystal clear what the ref was indicating. I was confused. Apparently quite a few other people at Lynah were also confused, including whomever it was that wrote the recap for the Cornell web site. That recap probably wound up confusing a lot more people, who, like me, then questioned a rule they thought they understood. (I really didn't think refs could look at a replay of a goal to decide goal or no-goal, and then call penalties after the fact, based on something they saw when reviewing the video, but that's exactly what the recap indicated had happened. I assume I am still correct about that.)
What would have eliminated much, if not all of the confusion would have been the very clear and correct hand gesture indicating penalty shot from the ref. For whatever reason he chose not to make it, and it's water under the bridge at this point, but it really would have been a lot clearer than all the pointing.
Agree with all of this, it was confusing at the time and a definite penalty shot indication would have made it clearer.
Since Schafer's veins stayed inside his neck I assume that it was clearer on the ice.
Quote from: KeithKQuote from: martyQuote from: BearLoverSt. Lawrence pulled its goalie at least a minute later than it was supposed to.
¿Where is the goal pulling rule found? Are you pulling my leg or....?
Hayton went off with only 36 seconds to go. From the radio it didn't sound like we pinned him in net by controlling the puck either. That's probably 30-60 seconds later than typical I think.
We didn't pin him--the puck was in our end for nearly all of those 30-60 seconds.
marty: Most teams pull their goalie with over one minute remaining, and studies have shown they should pull their goalies much earlier than that: http://people.stat.sfu.ca/~tim/papers/goalie.pdf
(EDITED back to original post)
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: KeithKQuote from: martyQuote from: BearLoverSt. Lawrence pulled its goalie at least a minute later than it was supposed to.
¿Where is the goal pulling rule found? Are you pulling my leg or....?
Hayton went off with only 36 seconds to go. From the radio it didn't sound like we pinned him in net by controlling the puck either. That's probably 30-60 seconds later than typical I think.
We didn't pin him--the puck was in our end for nearly all of those 30-60 seconds.
marty: Most teams pull their goalie with over one minute remaining, and studies have shown they should pull their goalies much earlier than that: http://people.stat.sfu.ca/~tim/papers/goalie.pdf
Wasn't there a neutral zone faceoff some time during that 30-60 seconds before he was pulled? As I've demonstrated in another thread, apparently my memory sucks, but I don't recall thinking they were pulling him late. My recollection is that they pulled him as soon as they gained control in our end after there was less than a minute to go.
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: KeithKQuote from: martyQuote from: BearLoverSt. Lawrence pulled its goalie at least a minute later than it was supposed to.
¿Where is the goal pulling rule found? Are you pulling my leg or....?
Hayton went off with only 36 seconds to go. From the radio it didn't sound like we pinned him in net by controlling the puck either. That's probably 30-60 seconds later than typical I think.
We didn't pin him--the puck was in our end for nearly all of those 30-60 seconds.
marty: Most teams pull their goalie with over one minute remaining, and studies have shown they should pull their goalies much earlier than that: http://people.stat.sfu.ca/~tim/papers/goalie.pdf
Wasn't there a neutral zone faceoff some time during that 30-60 seconds before he was pulled? As I've demonstrated in another thread, apparently my memory sucks, but I don't recall thinking they were pulling him late. My recollection is that they pulled him as soon as they gained control in our end after there was less than a minute to go.
On the radio they seemed surprised that SLU was taking so long to pull the goalie.