Haiskanen back. IINM we are at full strength.
Quote from: TrotskyHaiskanen back. IINM we are at full strength.
Except no newspapers or Snickers. I stupidly forgot my bag, which also has my jersey.
On a better note, the band is going to MSG & Allston.
Q has their nice road thread. Good font.
Great first shift by Stienburg.
Harvard 2 RPI 0 in the first 3 minutes in Troy.
RPI has tied that game up 2-2.
Not a stellar 1st period by any means, and Galajda had to save our bacon when we forgot there was a game going on. Malinski had a rough go on our only power play, fumbling the puck a few times.
Quote from: TrotskyRPI has tied that game up 2-2.
RPI let a late goal spoil the tie, but has looked good against a polished, fast pretty passing Sucks.
Donato's head is well polished too.
2-1 Cornell through 2.
good win. some difficulty corralling passes and q seemed to be very disruptive in the offensive and neutral zones. got away with some really bad turnovers but finished just enough chances. i'll take it.
Quote from: ugartegood win. some difficulty corralling passes and q seemed to be very disruptive in the offensive and neutral zones. got away with some really bad turnovers but finished just enough chances. i'll take it.
Yeah, certainly our least impressively performance of the season, but as Topher was saying Q does a good job of getting in your grill and disrupting your attack in the neutral zone. But except for when we were shorthanded we did a good job limiting Q's chances, and Galajda was really good when he had to be.
It was great to see that Galajda could deliver a blue chip performance when the team needed it. Not a lot of saves but some were stellar. Now let's not have to see that again. :-)
Who would have thought the team would be 7-0 and Galajda would not have a shutout.
Galajda was virtually perfect; he had no chance on the Q goal. Q goalie probably should have stopped Locke's goal. And that decided the game. Hard to argue that Q isn't one of the top 4 teams in the ECAC after how good they looked defensively tonight.
Quote from: JasonN95It was great to see that Galajda could deliver a blue chip performance when the team needed it. Not a lot of saves but some were stellar. Now let's not have to see that again. :-)
Who would have thought the team would be 7-0 and Galajda would not have a shutout.
Good point. But with our "new" style of play that features our defensemen being more active offensively, we do see more odd man opportunities against us, so shutouts would seemingly be less prevalent.
Quote from: BearLoverGalajda was virtually perfect; he had no chance on the Q goal. Q goalie probably should have stopped Locke's goal. And that decided the game. Hard to argue that Q isn't one of the top 4 teams in the ECAC after how good they looked defensively tonight.
That would seem to be the case. Brown, Dartmouth and even RPI seem best like the next best, but I'd be surprised if any of them are better than Q.
It's nice to be toasty warm (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Warmth_ECAC.html). Let's stay that way.
the flurry in the first where we have it away 2-3 times in a row and a bit on the pp were about all the offense Quin created.. they really pressured on the forecheck at times and we threw those away a few times.. when they didnt forecheck they were in trouble was we were able to get around the D on rushes all night.
the late miss major really messed up the rest of the game instead of a 5 min PP we had a 4x4 that almost lead to a Quin goal and then Barron got to near the goalie who flopped well and that almost spoiled the game
i think that the story teams will have to use all year to really try to pressure our D to give up some soft goals because our transition passing is pretty good and when we cycle we will wear teams out with the 4 lines
Quote from: upprdeckthe flurry in the first where we have it away 2-3 times in a row and a bit on the pp were about all the offense Quin created.. they really pressured on the forecheck at times and we threw those away a few times.. when they didnt forecheck they were in trouble was we were able to get around the D on rushes all night.
the late miss major really messed up the rest of the game instead of a 5 min PP we had a 4x4 that almost lead to a Quin goal and then Barron got to near the goalie who flopped well and that almost spoiled the game
i think that the story teams will have to use all year to really try to pressure our D to give up some soft goals because our transition passing is pretty good and when we cycle we will wear teams out with the 4 lines
Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties? This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?
Quote from: martyCan someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties? This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?
I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?
Quote from: upprdeckthe story teams will have to use all year to really try to pressure our D to give up some soft goals
That is a prayer more than a strategy. It maybe works in a Hallmark movie where single hockey mom Lori Loughlin's kid and a golden retriever ["the rulebook doesn't say anything about dogs not playing"] save the day for the underdogs and win the heart of the just-widowed coach. (In a Hallmark movie, the coach is probably not female. That'd be a nice twist.)
Announcers only clarified that a non-call could not be turned into a minor, but yes it could be for a major.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: JasonN95It was great to see that Galajda could deliver a blue chip performance when the team needed it. Not a lot of saves but some were stellar. Now let's not have to see that again. :-)
Who would have thought the team would be 7-0 and Galajda would not have a shutout.
Good point. But with our "new" style of play that features our defensemen being more active offensively, we do see more odd man opportunities against us, so shutouts would seemingly be less prevalent.
if we had a PK, Galajda would probably have 3 shutouts by now....
Quote from: billhowardAnnouncers only clarified that a non-call could not be turned into a minor, but yes it could be for a major.
Which is bizarre and can result in a 5 minute major for interference which I am fairly certain is the only way interference would be called a major penalty.
And this make sense why?::screwy::
Quote from: andyw2100Quote from: martyCan someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties? This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?
I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?
i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.
since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: martyCan someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties? This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?
I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?
i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.
since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.
why are we walking about a interference being changed to a major? why would that happen?
Quote from: martyBut this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.
Was it "contact to the head"? I thought any minor could include that and the inclusion made it a major.
yes it was contact to the head that was called.
"Delay of game -- contact to the head." ;-)
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: martyBut this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.
Was it "contact to the head"? I thought any minor could include that and the inclusion made it a major.
I think what's essentially happening - and what some of you have alluded to and danced around, but not come right out and said - is this:
The refs miss a call, they look at it on replay and find that it was a pretty obvious call that they're embarrassed to have missed, and their only two options are: 1) No call, because the rule doesn't allow them to call a minor based on a replay, or 2) A major. So they call a major because a no-call makes them look like idiots who didn't get it right. Maybe the behavior wouldn't have justified a major if they'd seen it in real time, but it also wasn't accidental or innocent enough that they'll feel good about a no-call, so a major allows them to look at themselves in the mirror and sleep at night.
Y'know what? If that's what's going on, I'm pretty okay with that.
IINM the rule (or its guidance) says explicitly not to do that. That if the replay shows you missed the minor you say "sorry, eyes can't be everywhere" and let it go. That is what happened earlier in the game with our hit against the boards. Again, IMO. I don't think the refs issue explanations after the game.
Quote from: Trotsky"Delay of game -- contact to the head." ;-)
In the BU NCAA game in 2018? I thought it was interference.
i thought the replay on the first hit was caused more by their guy checking with his head down and the 2nd one as obvious live and on replay pretty clear he hit him in the head with a cross check in the face
What was the deal with what went on after the final buzzer? It looked to me like the Cornell player took a shot at the empty net (that just missed the outside post) perhaps half a second to a second after the buzzer, and was then attacked by at least two different Quinnipiac players. Were they just annoyed that he shot at an empty net after the buzzer? I've seen players go after players who take late shots with a goalie in net, but I always assumed that was a "protect the goalie" sentiment. This was not that, obviously, since the Quinnipiac goalie was on the bench.
Quote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: martyCan someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties? This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?
I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?
i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.
since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.
as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
Pecker often gets his team riled up with the old Sturm und Drang. I assume he'll pick another fight with Colgate tonight, especially if things go badly. It's nothing to pay attention to. Just his style, which is one reason Mike does not appear to regard him with esteem.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: martyCan someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties? This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?
I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?
i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.
since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.
as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.
And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.
yeah the first guy cross checked him as he just threw the puck at the net just after the whistle and the 2nd guy came out of no where pretty pissed off for some reason.
Quote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: martyCan someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties? This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?
I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?
i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.
since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.
as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.
And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.
The box score is here. https://cornellbigred.com/documents/2018/3/24//mih_032418_bu_box.pdf It was a clean game. There was a 2-minute interference call on BU and a 2-minute cross-checking call on Cornell. No other penalties.
Quote from: David HardingQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: martyCan someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties? This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?
I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?
i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.
since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.
as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.
And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.
The box score is here. https://cornellbigred.com/documents/2018/3/24//mih_032418_bu_box.pdf It was a clean game. There was a 2-minute interference call on BU and a 2-minute cross-checking call on Cornell. No other penalties.
No. There was a 5 minute major on us after a video review (after a no call). That box is wrong. I think the major went to the end of the 3rd or close to it.
Quote from: martyQuote from: David HardingQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: martyCan someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties? This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?
I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?
i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.
since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.
as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.
And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.
The box score is here. https://cornellbigred.com/documents/2018/3/24//mih_032418_bu_box.pdf It was a clean game. There was a 2-minute interference call on BU and a 2-minute cross-checking call on Cornell. No other penalties.
No. There was a 5 minute major on us after a video review (after a no call). That box is wrong. I think the major went to the end of the 3rd or close to it.
OK. I wasn't there. The Sun blogger (https://cornellsun.com/2018/03/24/live-blog-mens-hockey-faces-b-u-in-1st-round-of-ncaas/) didn't mention a major penalty.
Quote from: David HardingQuote from: martyQuote from: David HardingQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: martyCan someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties? This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?
I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?
i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.
since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.
as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.
And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.
The box score is here. https://cornellbigred.com/documents/2018/3/24//mih_032418_bu_box.pdf It was a clean game. There was a 2-minute interference call on BU and a 2-minute cross-checking call on Cornell. No other penalties.
No. There was a 5 minute major on us after a video review (after a no call). That box is wrong. I think the major went to the end of the 3rd or close to it.
OK. I wasn't there. The Sun blogger (https://cornellsun.com/2018/03/24/live-blog-mens-hockey-faces-b-u-in-1st-round-of-ncaas/) didn't mention a major penalty.
Yes I looked at that today too.
But the more I search the more I think my memory is faulty. The clip of the end of the game shows 6 Cornell players on the ice.
I did find one instance of a major for interference. I don't know if this was after a video review. But it does seem like a weird and uncommon call.
Starrett (https://gobobcats.com/sports/mens-ice-hockey/stats/2018-19/cornell/boxscore/10067)
Quote from: martyQuote from: David HardingQuote from: martyQuote from: David HardingQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: martyQuote from: ugarteQuote from: andyw2100Quote from: martyCan someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties? This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?
I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?
i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.
since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.
as a few people who i guess reply in threaded view and don't quote tweet have said, it was interference including contact to the head. so, a minor with aggravating circumstances.
But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.
And I can't find a 3/24/2018 box score that includes the 5 minute major that I am referencing. Not sure if I have the video or if this was the game that the DVR gods mercifully refused to record.
The box score is here. https://cornellbigred.com/documents/2018/3/24//mih_032418_bu_box.pdf It was a clean game. There was a 2-minute interference call on BU and a 2-minute cross-checking call on Cornell. No other penalties.
No. There was a 5 minute major on us after a video review (after a no call). That box is wrong. I think the major went to the end of the 3rd or close to it.
OK. I wasn't there. The Sun blogger (https://cornellsun.com/2018/03/24/live-blog-mens-hockey-faces-b-u-in-1st-round-of-ncaas/) didn't mention a major penalty.
Yes I looked at that today too.
But the more I search the more I think my memory is faulty. The clip of the end of the game shows 6 Cornell players on the ice.
I did find one instance of a major for interference. I don't know if this was after a video review. But it does seem like a weird and uncommon call.
Starrett (https://gobobcats.com/sports/mens-ice-hockey/stats/2018-19/cornell/boxscore/10067)
Proving I'm only half brain dead. Here is the box vs. Mass Lowell where McCarron had the five minute major for interference. Of course it made no difference because we were shut out. Though it was 3-0 when they called the major.
5-0 NCAA 2017 loss to Lowell (https://cornellbigred.com/sports/mens-ice-hockey/stats/2016-17/university-of-massachusetts-lowell/boxscore/22968)