Quinnipiac 5 Cornell 4, ot

[Trotsky]

I thought there was some stipulation that you can't have two goals on the same stoppage, and therefore a penalty causing a penalty shot following a reviewed and counted goal was always a power play.

Might be NHL only, though.

My memory of this comes from a WHL game from some time ago.  Portland gets a power play, gets another delayed penalty, scores with the extra man.  Penalty shot is awarded, Portland scores again, then resumes the original power play.  Portland coaches complain to the officials that the "resuming" power play should be for the full two minutes because the initial man advantage was caused by the first penalty, which should now be wiped out by the non-penalty shot goal.  Officials don't buy it, coach blows a gasket and gets ejected.  The box scores reads Portland scoring two goals and having their coach thrown out all occurring at the same moment.

[imafrshmn]

when a game turns in a PP fest anything can happen.

That's what she (/he/they) said.

[Give My Regards]

WE'll know soon enough, but my biggest worry after a game like this is that Somebody is going to decide, "See what happens when you try to open it up?" and by early January we'll be back to the 2-1 games, with the occasional 0-0 tie thrown in.

[BearLover]

How exactly did this game signify Cornell "opening it up"?  There was someone in the box basically the entire game--I think that accounts far more for the uptick in offense than any change in strategy.  Q was stunningly undisciplined for a top team in the 1st period.  Had they kept their heads in check, Cornell would not have even come close to winning this game.  Some of the Cornell penalties were stupid ones too, but the majority of them were smart ones, committed to prevent a clear path to the goal.  Cornell was outshot almost 2-to-1 in this game, and 3/4 goals came with a man advantage.  I don't see this game as anything other than a frustrating missed chance to luck out a win against a much better team.

[Tcl123]

How exactly did this game signify Cornell "opening it up"?  There was someone in the box basically the entire game--I think that accounts far more for the uptick in offense than any change in strategy.  Q was stunningly undisciplined for a top team in the 1st period.  Had they kept their heads in check, Cornell would not have even come close to winning this game.  Some of the Cornell penalties were stupid ones too, but the majority of them were smart ones, committed to prevent a clear path to the goal.  Cornell was outshot almost 2-to-1 in this game, and 3/4 goals came with a man advantage.  I don't see this game as anything other than a frustrating missed chance to luck out a win against a much better team.

+1 (+100 if possible)

[Jim Hyla]

It signifies "opening it up" because of the style of play that CU has shown. Although some may not want to acknowledge it, CU's style has changed. They carry it in much more than years ago. I'd even go so far to say that their first choice is to carry it in and only dump it as a last resort or line change. I don't have the stats to back this up, but it certainly looks that way. This has been evolving over a few years, but seems to be more successful (so far) this year. It may be hard to admit but Coach Schafer has changed his style.

I'll admit that the Q game was not the best example. They have decidedly better talent than we do. They are faster and better passers than we are, so we cannot expect to be as successful skating with them as with other schools. But even against them we didn't play a "dump and chase" game. I hope we can be somewhat successful, as it will allow us to attract more of the type of players that can be successful in the new style of play.

Seeing,and hearing, how well this team seems to play together, the notion that the departed class was a difficult one appears to fit. Just remember their sophomore season when we lead the ECAC in PIM/game. Nothing Coach Schafer did seemed to work.

So far I'm enjoying watching this team.

[Scersk '97]

Q may be the best team in the conference and one of the best in the country and we belonged on the same ice, so yes, this is very promising.

Yeah yeah...sacrifice some defense to score more. I get that. But even against a skilled team, these guys should be able to lock a big lead down better than that. This had all the makings of a hallmark game of the last few years and establish it as a real "statement game." Instead it's another one of those moral victories. Promising, encouraging, hope, &c.

You know I'm also concerned about blowing leads of any kind, but I think you have to remember that this is a profoundly young team. Willcox , the lone senior, played every game of his freshman and sophomore seasons and then was injured last year; Patrick McCarron, a junior, played every game of his freshman year and then was injured last year. Those are your top 2 D. Anderson is effectively a sophomore. Bliss is great, but he's only a sophomore too. We're playing two true frosh. That's one of the youngest, most inexperienced defensive groups that I can remember.

On the forward side, things aren't much different. Both Hilbrich and Knisley have really only played about 2/3rds of the games available over their careers; Tiitinen is, effectively again, a junior. This is a profoundly young lineup.

And (the) last year('s/s') team(s) didn't/haven't provided many object lessons in holding leads. This group is going to need to learn. Thankfully, they seem to be willing to do so. Whatever happens this year, I hope that experience carries forward well——if next year's group of frosh turns out to be similarly excellent, it could be a very successful season.