ELynah Forum

My favorite quote:[Q] "The ball wasn't going in the basket," [Princeton coach Joe] Scott said...[/Q]Well, there's your problem.

(summary at bottom)

Despite all that wording about profanity and abusive language, I'm inclined to think that the key sentence on the ticket back is "This ticket is a revocable license which may be withdrawn at any time for any reason."  Assuming that whoever wrote that up in the first place knew what (s)he was doing, and it's legally sound, then they could (in theory) kick you out for, well, any reason.  In this case, the reason is he thought the usher saw/heard you say something, but the reason could just as well be that the usher felt flatulent, and wanted to evacuate an entire section to avoid embarrassment, and it would be within the terms of the ticket agreement.

As far as the JA thing, as long as you complied with the instructions of the usher, I don't see anything in the campus code of conduct http://www.policy.cornell.edu/CM_Images/Uploads/POL/campus_code_of_conduct.html that would make saying a profane word at a loud, crowded hockey game punishable.  The most relevant part (it seems to me) is Title 2, Article IIA, which makes it a violation [Q]To disrupt or obstruct or attempt to disrupt or obstruct any instructional, research, service, judicial or other University operation or function, or interfere with or attempt to interfere with the lawful exercise of freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of peaceable assembly, or other rights of individuals, by action including but not limited to the following:[/Q]Summarizing what follows, you can't threaten, be violent, get in the way, or incite others, and I don't think you did any of those things, nor were you otherwise disruptive or intending to be disruptive, in the context of the hockey game.  Of course, if you stood at the gate of Williard Straight Hall, and said "see ya, you goon" to each person as they exited, that probably would be disruptive.

The only other problem I could see is that, if you received the e-mail that ftyuv posted, it might be covered by Title 3, Article IIA, which makes it a violation[Q]To refuse to comply with any lawful order of a clearly identifiable University official acting in the performance of his or her duties or with a policy that has been duly promulgated by the University or any college, department, or unit thereof, whether or not the policy has been issued in the standardized University format[/Q]  You can make the points that 1) an e-mail doesn't constitute a clearly identifiable University official or that 2) getting into semantics, the e-mail only says there will be zero tolerance for profane or threatening language, it doesn't say that you are ordered (or instructed, told, commanded, whatever) to actually not use such language, but I doubt that either of these will be found convincing if Athletics decides to go down this road.

You can read about the JA process here: http://cuinfo.cornell.edu/Admin/judicial_system.html#ja4.  Among the highlights:
The level of burden of proof is "clear and convincing", which falls somewhere more than the 50/50 Janiga mentions for real world civil suits, but less than the "beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal cases.
The accused has the following rights (the ones I find relevant):
* the right to bring a friend or counselor (who is not connected to the case), including the Judicial Codes Counselor, to any meeting [I don't know whether there's a limit on the number of people]
* the right to take the case to the University Hearing Board and compel the Judicial Administrator to prove allegations against you by clear and convincing evidence
* the right to question witnesses
* the right to confront your accusers
* the right to present evidence and witnesses on your own behalf
* the right to appeal a University Hearing Board decision to the University Review Board
* the right to know the resolution of your case

In summary, I don't think you can make them give your season tickets back (although, if you're nice about it, you may get them to choose to give them back).  I do think that you should be able to get through the JA process without any actual punishment.

I read the NCAA hockey rulebook http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2006/2006_m_w_ice_hockey_rules.pdf, and couldn't find anything about the number of visiting band members (although just about all of the Championships rule books limit the number of band members to 25 on each side).  I tried looking through the various general NCAA rules, but there are just too many to look through (although I did find the section that talks about the rules for high-school age prospective athletes playing in rent-a-bands at college games).

Maybe someone more familiar with the topic can inform the rest of us.  ::help::

Ignoring the specific reasons given in the Michigan Daily, this rule change makes some sense to me, at least in the context of the various offsides rules for other sports.  As it was taught to me as a kid (which could mean that I misunderstood or was misinformed), the point of offsides is to prevent an offensive player who doesn't have the ball/puck from going behind the opposing defense, away from the focus of the play, then receiving a pass, after which he would be very difficult to stop.  Clearly, this is an unsporting tactic, and so the offsides rule is in place to prevent it.

With the rule change, the offensive zone doesn't expand until the blue line is crossed, so it still has the effect of stopping people from hanging out in the offensive zone and creating instant breakaways (I think the term is cherry-picking).

A second effect of the current offside rule is that the defense can disrupt ongoing offensive pressure by knocking the puck out of the zone.  The key question, for me at least, is: what would happen if the blue line weren't there (ie. if the rule were changed).  If the puck leaving the zone meant that there were an actual change of momentum, then the current offsides rule would make sense.  But I think that there are many times when, if the blue line weren't there, the offense would be able to bring the puck back in without missing a beat.  In these instances, the current offsides rule isn't preventing an unsporting play; it breaks up the natural flow of the game.

On the other hand, if the puck makes it all the way back to the redline (pulling the offense all the way back to their own half of the ice), I think it's harder to argue that the offense had ongoing offensive pressure the whole time.

In summary, as a spectator, it makes sense to me to at least give this rule change a try.

Where...?  How...?  Wha...?
I am entirely in awe.  This may be the best taunt I have ever seen/heard.

Re: the "Fighting Deertick"...they seem to be the Bobcats now.  I saw the Cornell @Q basketball game there a few weeks ago, and this picture of a hockey player seems to back it up: http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/quic/sports/m-hockey/auto_action/42302.jpeg

Somewhat off-topic, but living in Connecticut, it's local for me.  UConn's mens Hockey team got beaten so badly by Holy Cross last night, in UConn's holiday tournament, that the USCHO recap http://www.uscho.com/recaps/20042005/m/12/30/hc-uconn.php didn't even do it justice.  The Hartford Courant http://www.ctnow.com/sports/college/hc-uchockey1231.artdec31,1,1951386.story?coll=hc-headlines-sports-college includes a more accurate description of HC's fourth goal:[Q]Brian Kolb was then credited with his first goal at 11:17 when the Huskies swept a pass into an empty net with a delayed penalty called.[/Q]Man, that's just embarrassing.

It's cool to see Hot Truck/Shortstop listed in the same Top 10 as Spago in Bevery Hills and the original Uno in Chicago: http://www.epicurious.com/restaurants/best_eats/pizza

On a somewhat tangential note, spending this season watching UConn's home games, I've gained a new appreciation for seam-less glass, which I must say I'd taken for granted during my four years in Lynah.  The seams are at least 3 inches wide or so, and opaque.  Not only that, but they apparently stick out into the playing area (volume?) enough that the puck can take some really weird bounces.  Last night, a player in his defensive end tried to clear the puck, shooting it at about a 45 degree angle to the glass, and the puck nearly came back at him.  Crazy stuff.

Here are two pictures, one from harvardsucks.org, and the other from the Yale Daily News:
http://www.harvardsucks.org/images/harvard_poster.jpg
http://www.yaledailynews.com/photodisp.asp?PhotoID=7562

Judging from the positions of people on the field, they're not taken from exactly the same time/angle, but it's pretty close.  It seems to me that the harvardsucks.org one is much more legible than the YDN one.  Also, it seems that the last frames of the video look remarkably like the YDN photo.

My conclusion: either the person taking the video decided to stop rolling just before the picture got good, and the YDN photographer missed that moment as well, or the hardvardsucks.org still image is a little doctored.

Incidentally, this picture: http://pantheon.yale.edu/~pmf8/harvardsucks.html is a little bit different yet (look at the very left edge or the bottom edge of the 'S'), but closely resembles the harvardsucks.org photo.

Just my 2¢.
-Shorts

Is that a trick question?

As I've been looking for jobs in Engineering, a lot of companies list in the "Qualifications" section a minimum GPA of 3.0 for BS candidates, or 3.5 for Masters candidates.  I'd been wondering why someone with more education would also need a higher GPA.  I guess that explains it.

What, no Jay Leno-style 5 years notice?:`(

IMHO, Age, you did a great job.  Will you continue keeping up eLynah?

Perhaps Red-White hockey might serve as a competitive audition for the next Cowbell player.

Although this seems to be getting quite far off the title topic:
[Q]Clearly, the inspection process is not working.[/Q]As a Connecticut resident, I'd have to say that the NY inspection process works infinitely better than the CT inspection process.  Which is to say, we don't have one right now.

I experienced something somewhat similar: the status bar showed icye.org and unicef, and unicef and data.org (apparently an organization concerned with AIDS and national debt in Africa) tried to save cookies on my computer.  My best guess is that the Ivy League is participating in some sort of charity endorsing thingie, but it's just a guess.  At any rate, it's not just you.