ELynah Forum

[quote andyw2100]He's a journalism major but doesn't know when to use "fewer" instead of "less." Impressive.[/quote]

That's a non-error. See the M-W Concise Dictionary of Usage or any of like 15 posts on Language Log.

Me, I'm more concerned that he highlighted KEY COG for some reason. And now I can't stop saying KEYCOG. KEYCOG! KEYCOG! I wonder if the Vermont crowd chants KKKKKKKKKKEEEEEYYYYYYYYY CCCCCOOOOOOOGGGGGGGGGG at him.

"Scrivens went stick up and legs wide."

That about describes it, yeah.

All penalties called on our opponent are too lenient! All penalties called on us are atrocious!

Also I liked "Boy, I wish the Dartmouth fans would tell Scrivens it's all his fault. Because that would be cool."

[quote Jim Hyla][quote pat]Gah, nevermind.[/quote]OK, we won't![/quote]
Thanks!

Gah, nevermind.

[quote Beeeej]When I first started watching Cornell hockey, the PA announcer would mark the end of an unsuccessful Cornell power play with "[Opponent] returns to full strength."  The Lynah Faithful would follow that with a loud, synchronized, "And they still suck!"  Even when a successful Cornell penalty kill ended, he would announce, "Cornell returns to full strength," and we would follow that with a loud, synchronized, "And [opponent] still sucks!"

Those announcements stopped in early 1990s - and I've noticed they don't do it in most other arenas, either.  I always assumed Cornell's Athletics Dept. stopped it because they didn't like the response.[/quote]

I think it used to be mandated; it's still in the game script for the IIHF. I've always assumed it was taken out because every team has above average awareness.

[quote KeithK]
I don't think geography is a requirement when it comes to hosting.  One of the Alaska schools "hosted" the Anaheim FF a few years back.  Based on that standard, we could host in Philadelphia or DC.[/quote]

Based on that standard, WE could have hosted in Anaheim.

This is the lead story on the CBC Montreal 6 o'clock news. "The team has no plans to sanction the two players." So yeah, sounds like hazing.

Update: Second story is how effing cold it is. In conclusion, typical news day.

i just tuned in this second to the Quinnipiac audio:

"That's the second quinnipiac goal as a result of a shot taken toward net."

Dare I ask how they scored the other one?

[quote canuck89].I still say an unannounced quiz on cornell hockey would reward the best fans with better numbers, and it is SAFE.[/quote]

MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. When Cornell is on the power play, I should:
  a. Get up; now's the time to take a leak without missing anything.
  b. Cheer loudly and watch the play develop in the attacking zone.
  c. Yell "SHOOT" every time a Cornell player comes near the puck.

2. RPI forward Tyler Eaves makes a hand pass in his own defensive zone. I should:
  a. Answer my cell phone.
  b. Cheer loudly and watch the play develop through the neutral zone.
  c. Shriek "HAND PASS" at the top of my lungs.

3. Harvard defense Brian McCafferty is penalized for holding. As he's going to the box, I should yell:
  a. A pox upon your house, you gorbellied moldwarp!
  b. Ahhhhhh, see ya!
  c. Ahhhhhh, see ya; YOU LOSE.

ESSAY
Clap a steady beat for 4 bars and repeat without speeding up.

[quote Jim Hyla]Sorry, but can you rephrase your response. Which rule used to be, and which is current?[/quote]

For the 2003-04 rulebook, they deleted the paragraph which begins, "If, in the opinion of the referee, a player on a sweep or hook-check is unquestionably playing the puck and obtains possession of it..." and added the interpretation which says, "Minor for tripping must be called." This is described in the rule changes with "Interpretation for diving sweep check added."

As ugarte said, even before this change, the standard for "playing the puck and obtain[ing] possession of it" was high.

[quote Dart~Ben][quote CowbellGuy]My quote WAS from the NCAA rulebook, not NHL. If that's the case, then the rulebook completely contradicts itself. Wouldn't be the first time.[/quote]

Can I ask what section you got your quote from? I read both the actual tripping rule and the associated interpretation regarding "the diving sweep check" in back, and didn't see anything like what you quoted.[/quote]

They "changed" that rule in 2004, deleting the "unquestionably hook-checking" paragraph and replace it with a directive to see the interpretation already cited. USA Hockey still has the "unquestionably hook-checking" paragraph and has always had the interpretation that the situation described (player leaves his feet, trips opponent) is an infraction.

[quote David Harding][quote jtwcornell91]
Your story sounds reminiscent of the legend of Uris Hall's rust, which was supposed to turn appealing colors rather than just ... rusty.[/quote]That's a true one: http://ezra.cornell.edu/posting.php?timestamp=1135659600#question1[/quote]

*sigh*

Uncle Ezra asked the same people that run the tour guides, who have shown remarkable stubbornness in adhering to this myth.

Cor-Ten steel isn't supposed to turn pretty colors. It's supposed to rust. The idea is then that the rust doesn't flake off, so the structure doesn't weaken. Cor-Ten is US Steel's trademarked name; the generic name is "weathering steel."

The USX Tower in Pittsbugh, the Time-Life Building in Chicago, and the New River Gorge Bridge in West Virginia are all made of Cor-Ten steel, and none are even remotely "bluish yellow."

[quote KeithK][q]It would still be reasonable under NCAA, however, to consider a penalty for contact with a goalie outside of the privileged area who was not in possession and control of the puck.[/q]...which would be interference regardless of whether the player in question was wearing a goalie pads or not.[/quote]

Technically not necessarily; there's a difference between "possession" and "possession and control." What I was going for, though, was that it would be reasonable to apply a lower threshold for incidental interfering contact with a goalie than with a player.

The NCAA interpretations are uncharacteristically explicit about when and where the goalie can cover up the puck:
[q]
A.R. 1: A goalkeeper leaves the crease and rushes forward to a loose puck  inside the privileged area to beat a lone attacking player to the puck.
RULING: If the goalkeeper reaches the puck first and falls on it a minor penalty will be assessed.

A.R. 2: A goalkeeper dives on the puck outside of the crease area.
RULING: A goalkeeper can dive on a puck outside of the crease area, as long  as part of the goalkeeper's body is in contact with the crease when the goalkeeper makes contact with the puck.
[/q]

You are correct, Keith, about this being different under different governing bodies. Here's a chart: http://ihonc.com/LockerRoom/realindex.php3?msg=10441

The "privileged area" mentioned above is the rectangularish region with corners at the end zone face-off dots and the end boards. Within the privileged area, any contact with the goalie is prohibited and should be penalized. Outside of the privileged area, NCAA interpretation is as follows:

[q]
A.R.: The Team A goalkeeper skates with the puck beyond his end zone  face-off circle and is body-checked by a Team B forward. Should a penalty be assessed?
RULING: No. The Team A goalkeeper is beyond the imaginary line connecting the special spots in the end zone face-off circles, outside his privileged area, and is subject to the same playing rules as other players.
[/q]

This is also slightly different than the USA Hockey interpretation, which includes the specific language that just because a goalkeeper is outside of the privileged area he is not "fair game." It would still be reasonable under NCAA, however, to consider a penalty for contact with a goalie outside of the privileged area who was not in possession and control of the puck.

And as for the goalie beyond the center red line, the rule (4-7-c) is that he may not "participate in play."