The return of Mad Max & etc.
Gave up a weak goal there.
This team can't sit on a lead when it matters.
Quote from: Scersk '97This team can't sit on a lead when it matters.
Locking down leads used to be or trademark
guh
Good thing we're not a bubble team.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: Scersk '97This team can't sit on a lead when it matters.
Locking down leads used to be or trademark
Scoring down low and outmuscling teams also used to be our trademark.
This is a very different Cornell team. We've traded our usual strengths for speed and firepower.
Ugh. Any team that employs that goon Emeliofonwu is just so frustrating to lose to.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: scoop85Quote from: Scersk '97This team can't sit on a lead when it matters.
Locking down leads used to be or trademark
Scoring down low and outmuscling teams also used to be our trademark.
This is a very different Cornell team. We've traded our usual strengths for speed and firepower.
Even speedy teams should know how to be strong with the puck, clear the zone with authority, and not give up odd man rushes.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: scoop85Quote from: Scersk '97This team can't sit on a lead when it matters.
Locking down leads used to be or trademark
Scoring down low and outmuscling teams also used to be our trademark.
This is a very different Cornell team. We've traded our usual strengths for speed and firepower.
I actually thought about adding to my last post exactly that point.
Somebody else please do the game threads from now on. I have a shitty record. :-/
Quote from: TrotskySomebody else please do the game threads from now on. I have a shitty record. :-/
No Trotsky, this is my fault. The hockey gods didn't like me wearing my Cornell sweatshirt while walking around Lake Placid this afternoon.
Cornell should have won this game 5-3. Puck was literally sitting on the Union goal line or Union crease on three separate occasions at least. Union is another one of those classic ECAC bush-league teams that can't ever seem to play a clean game.
Quote from: BearLoverCornell should have won this game 5-3. Puck was literally sitting on the Union goal line or Union crease on three separate occasions at least. Union is another one of those classic ECAC bush-league teams that can't ever seem to play a clean game.
I do think this team struggles to put away those chances more than bigger stronger Cornell teams of years past. For all our speed and firepower, we don't get as many good looks in transition as I'd like.
I didn't think Union was THAT dirty, other than that one guy whose name sounds like a dorky musical instrument and somehow ends in -wu.
really though there were probably 5 times the puck did everything but go in, the goalie had no idea and it hit things or we just missed the puck. at least twice we were putting it in the net when we were tackled too.
a little too cute cost as as well. but still some really nice passing and great corner work for the entire game. what is it about albany teams. thats 3 games where we dominated rpi/union and got 2 losses and a tie out of it.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: Scersk '97This team can't sit on a lead when it matters.
Locking down leads used to be or trademark
Still is.
"It marked the 21st time in 30 games this season that the Big Red entered the third period with a lead (https://cornellbigred.com/news/2019/3/15/mens-ice-hockey-mens-hockey-vs-union-game-1-recap.aspx) – and the only loss to date was Nov. 16, when Quinnipiac took advantage of a fluke goal that came from the neutral zone via the glass behind the net and Galajda's back."
Funny thing about stats.
Quote from: BearLoverPuck was literally sitting on the Union goal line or Union crease on three separate occasions at least.
On that note, there was one that was cleared off the goal line (or out of the goal?) by a Union player. It was reviewed at the next stoppage, which was several minutes later. The refs returned to the ice, ruling no-goal very, very quickly--probably in under a minute, and possibly under 30 seconds. I definitely had the sense that there must not have been video, for whatever reason, as I didn't think they would even have been able to find what they needed to see on the video that fast. Was anything said on the ESPN+ broadcast about this? Was there a replay shown that did show the puck not crossing the line? If so, how close was it?
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: BearLoverPuck was literally sitting on the Union goal line or Union crease on three separate occasions at least.
On that note, there was one that was cleared off the goal line (or out of the goal?) by a Union player. It was reviewed at the next stoppage, which was several minutes later. The refs returned to the ice, ruling no-goal very, very quickly--probably in under a minute, and possibly under 30 seconds. I definitely had the sense that there must not have been video, for whatever reason, as I didn't think they would even have been able to find what they needed to see on the video that fast. Was anything said on the ESPN+ broadcast about this? Was there a replay shown that did show the puck not crossing the line? If so, how close was it?
Of the two replays they showed, only one camera (top of section F) was in a good position to see anything, and IIRC, a goal pipe was in the way, obscuring the goal line. There was a ref very close to the net and was looking right at it and waved it off immediately. Personally, judging from where the defender's stick was, I felt the puck probably didn't have enough room to completely cross the goal line, and for that matter, didn't have enough speed to cross either.
My guess with the non-reviewed review, the refs headed to the room and the one ref who waved it off said, "it didn't cross the line, I was right on top of it, let's not waste any more time, and cripes the band's Jeopardy thing is really annoying." (sic)
Quote from: RichHQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: BearLoverPuck was literally sitting on the Union goal line or Union crease on three separate occasions at least.
On that note, there was one that was cleared off the goal line (or out of the goal?) by a Union player. It was reviewed at the next stoppage, which was several minutes later. The refs returned to the ice, ruling no-goal very, very quickly--probably in under a minute, and possibly under 30 seconds. I definitely had the sense that there must not have been video, for whatever reason, as I didn't think they would even have been able to find what they needed to see on the video that fast. Was anything said on the ESPN+ broadcast about this? Was there a replay shown that did show the puck not crossing the line? If so, how close was it?
Of the two replays they showed, only one camera (top of section F) was in a good position to see anything, and IIRC, a goal pipe was in the way, obscuring the goal line. There was a ref very close to the net and was looking right at it and waved it off immediately. Personally, judging from where the defender's stick was, I felt the puck probably didn't have enough room to completely cross the goal line, and for that matter, didn't have enough speed to cross either.
My guess with the non-reviewed review, the refs headed to the room and the one ref who waved it off said, "it didn't cross the line, I was right on top of it, let's not waste any more time, and cripes the band's Jeopardy thing is really annoying." (sic)
This is exactly how I felt at the time.
Is there any way to explain to the band that their inside jokey Jeopardy thing is monumentally stupid and worthy of a junior high school? It's not winky funny. It's not meta. It's just fucking inane and makes them look like talentless morons.
Everything else they do is awesome or funny. But Jesus Fuck, that is worthy of Union.
Quote... there was one that was cleared off the goal line... Was anything said on the ESPN+ broadcast about this? Was there a replay shown that did show the puck not crossing the line? If so, how close was it?
Grady and partner seemed pretty sure it was a good clear and the ref signaled no goal very quickly and definitively on the ice from the best possible angle.
We don't get goals on breakouts because nobody is ever looking to make the pass. Last night we had one opportunity and it looked like a great save at first but tbh the pass was so late that the passer had no shot at the goal and the goalie was able to slide over to the shooter early. I can't think of a single time that the guy leading a break has dropped the puck to a trailing teammate rather than rushing into traffic.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: scoop85Quote from: Scersk '97This team can't sit on a lead when it matters.
Locking down leads used to be or trademark
Still is.
"It marked the 21st time in 30 games this season that the Big Red entered the third period with a lead (https://cornellbigred.com/news/2019/3/15/mens-ice-hockey-mens-hockey-vs-union-game-1-recap.aspx) – and the only loss to date was Nov. 16, when Quinnipiac took advantage of a fluke goal that came from the neutral zone via the glass behind the net and Galajda's back."
Funny thing about stats.
I realize mine is a pessimistic perspective, but that game at RPI looms large in my mind. You've outshot a team by nearly three to one and finally eke out a goal, but then you don't shut them down afterward? Just boneheaded play by Green, leaving a man absolutely free in the crease, getting the puck back somehow, and then not clearing with authority. Every one else skating around like chickens with their heads cut off. And then there's Clarkson... And last night... And the two overtime losses...
When leading after two, they've blown four games; they haven't once come back when down after two having had six "opportunities," for all the vaunted scoring prowess. Last year's team blew exactly
zero games when leading after two; they won once and tied once having also had six opportunities to come back in the third. This year's team has two overtime losses; last year had zero.
It's as if this year's team thinks that it's last year's team. To use one of my favorite pairs of seasons for an analogy, it's as if 1997 had thought that it was 1996. That '97 team would never have won a championship if it hadn't figured out that the offense was gone. Get a lead? Shut the other team down and win.
I fervently hope this year's team resolves its identity crisis now. No excuses.
Quote from: TrotskyIs there any way to explain to the band that their inside jokey Jeopardy thing is monumentally stupid and worthy of a junior high school? It's not winky funny. It's not meta. It's just fucking inane and makes them look like talentless morons.
Everything else they do is awesome or funny. But Jesus Fuck, that is worthy of Union.
Speaking as a pep band alumnus, there is very little that anyone seems to be able to explain to the current band. They make a lot of "unusual" choices. They can't tune for shit. The percussion plays far too loud all the time. They seem to be unable to cover two events at once or to cover events over breaks. Doing so was just assumed "back in the old days." And there is one particular section that shall remain nameless that sucks constantly—horribly, loudly, crassly so.
I continue to hope they get their act together. What if we did make a run to the Frozen Four? I'd be embarrassed.
EDIT: I'm glad to hear that they've been able to scrap together bands for both today's women's basketball tournament game and the Union game. They'll be at the women's Final Four, but I don't know if they'll make the Placid trip as well, if there's a Placid trip to be made...
That would be disappointing: Clarkson's band will be there, since Yale's not winning that series; Harvard's will show as their team's only fans, if 2016 is any indication; and both Quinnipiac and Brown are likely to send bands, I would say. For us not to have a band? Not cool.
You know things are going bad when comments about the band, good or bad, begin to replace comments about team performance in playoff games.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: RichHQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: BearLoverPuck was literally sitting on the Union goal line or Union crease on three separate occasions at least.
On that note, there was one that was cleared off the goal line (or out of the goal?) by a Union player. It was reviewed at the next stoppage, which was several minutes later. The refs returned to the ice, ruling no-goal very, very quickly--probably in under a minute, and possibly under 30 seconds. I definitely had the sense that there must not have been video, for whatever reason, as I didn't think they would even have been able to find what they needed to see on the video that fast. Was anything said on the ESPN+ broadcast about this? Was there a replay shown that did show the puck not crossing the line? If so, how close was it?
Of the two replays they showed, only one camera (top of section F) was in a good position to see anything, and IIRC, a goal pipe was in the way, obscuring the goal line. There was a ref very close to the net and was looking right at it and waved it off immediately. Personally, judging from where the defender's stick was, I felt the puck probably didn't have enough room to completely cross the goal line, and for that matter, didn't have enough speed to cross either.
My guess with the non-reviewed review, the refs headed to the room and the one ref who waved it off said, "it didn't cross the line, I was right on top of it, let's not waste any more time, and cripes the band's Jeopardy thing is really annoying." (sic)
This is exactly how I felt at the time.
Is there any way to explain to the band that their inside jokey Jeopardy thing is monumentally stupid and worthy of a junior high school? It's not winky funny. It's not meta. It's just fucking inane and makes them look like talentless morons.
Everything else they do is awesome or funny. But Jesus Fuck, that is worthy of Union.
Except getting rid of Gonna Fly Now
I was sitting in J and had a really good view and it was definitely not in. It was agonizingly close though. It felt like it was sitting on the line forever even if it was just 1-2 seconds.
Speaking of reviews, anyone else think that Union's no-goal for goalie interference was a textbook call? I was very confused to hear the announcers thinking it was a tough call. They kept saying the wrong things, too, talking about the Union player's intent and how there wasn't that much contact. The rule (I think) is that it's interference if you deny the goalie an opportunity to make a play.
Didn't have a great view of it from my seat but assuming that the Union player wasn't pushed into G, then yeah it was probably text-book. Intent is only important when determining major penalties ie: DQ vs game misconduct. See Priskie's incredibly stupid kick.
Quote from: cozDidn't have a great view of it from my seat but assuming that the Union player wasn't pushed into G, then yeah it was probably text-book. Intent is only important when determining major penalties ie: DQ vs game misconduct. See Priskie's incredibly stupid kick.
He wasn't pushed in the slightest. The contact wasn't huge, but there wasn't any pushing.
Quote from: DafatoneSpeaking of reviews, anyone else think that Union's no-goal for goalie interference was a textbook call? I was very confused to hear the announcers thinking it was a tough call. They kept saying the wrong things, too, talking about the Union player's intent and how there wasn't that much contact. The rule (I think) is that it's interference if you deny the goalie an opportunity to make a play.
Every time they showed a replay I thought it was a clear, textbook interference call. The contact wasn't much and I don't think there was any intent but neither of those things matter - the Union skater's leg tangled up with Galajda's and kept him from making a play on the rebound attempt.
Cornell got lucky - I think that would've been a goal if the interference didn't happen - but the refs made the right call.
Quote from: LGR14Quote from: TrotskyEverything else they do is awesome or funny. But Jesus Fuck, that is worthy of Union.
Except getting rid of Gonna Fly Now
Is it totally gone? I was trying to figure out if/how they were massacring it the other night. I know it can sometimes be hard to follow if you're sitting in the wrong place and the drums drown out the trumpet (although that shouldn't happen in section O). In any event, it seemed like the brand new drum line did a bunch of amphetamines right before the start of Gary Glitter, and couldn't wait to rush into it.
I'm OK with gradually fazing out old songs and replacing them with new ones. "Dr. Worm" and "Knights of Cydonia" are my favorite songs played by the band, now -- and even though those are "new" they're, what, 15-20 years old? Speaking as a Who fan I never really liked their version of "Pinball Wizard," and "Gonna Fly Now" was great but also something you could hear in a hundred rinks.
The one song they can never stop playing is "Sing, Sing, Sing." That's the signature song, AFAIC.
Obvs everybody's tastes are different, though.
Quote from: TrotskySpeaking as a Who fan I never really liked their version of "Pinball Wizard," and "Gonna Fly Now" was great but also something you could hear in a hundred rinks.
I've always thought of "Gonna Fly Now" as a constituent element of trying to induce "the Zone" in the team. Burst out onto the rink for a lap or two (which they don't do any more but really, really should), "Gonna Fly Now" (instead of the fight song), and then (although it was a later add-on) transition into "Rock and Roll Part 2"——all these things in this pattern were part of signaling that something about the third period is very different and worth getting absolutely crazy about.
Lynah psychological warfare, for our team and against the others.
What happened? The team started just ambling onto the bench, the band butchered "Gonna Fly Now" for years by rushing it as they do everything these days, and, for some unknown reason recently, the band started thinking that playing all of "Rock and Roll Part 2," instead of having the fans sing parts of it (which always sounds very, very cool), is the most important thing on earth, i.e., all what I've said earlier about making very "unusual" choices.
But what do I know? Try to interest anyone in the current band (except the Bones) about well over thirty years of tradition sometime and how change is not always essentially good. I dare you.
It's all been shite since we lost the washboard.
Quote from: Scersk '97What happened? The team started just ambling onto the bench ...
This was an NCAA rule change. Only players who are going to start the period are allowed on the ice.
Quote from: WederQuote from: Scersk '97What happened? The team started just ambling onto the bench ...
This was an NCAA rule change. Only players who are going to start the period are allowed on the ice.
Fuckin NC$$: always trying to screw Cornell.
Quote from: SwampyQuote from: WederQuote from: Scersk '97What happened? The team started just ambling onto the bench ...
This was an NCAA rule change. Only players who are going to start the period are allowed on the ice.
Fuckin NC$$: always trying to screw Cornell.
Yeah, that's beyond stupid. Too many administrators with not enough to do trying to justify their existences by creating new rules.