The actual GAME against Harvard

[DeltaOne81]

Of the two examples you gave ("by the book/penalty box parade" or "hands-off"), I think they're both pretty bad approaches. It's not good to send a player to the box for bumping or some light grabbing or light tapping - nor is it good to ignore persistent clutching and tripping and slashing and *punching in the back of the head*.

There's definitely a happy medium in there with most refs hit most of the time. Saturday wasn't one of those times. I think the main reason the game stayed in control was because no player was going to risk getting a serious penalty for something in such an important game. Had the game been wider open or less important for both teams, I really feel the way Hansen called it would have led to a brawl quite early.

-Fred, DeltaOne '03

[DeltaOne81]

I can't seem to edit on the new eLynah, so I just wanted to say that I'm not bitching. As I said before, I don't blame the ref for the outcome. I'm just sharing my honest opinions on the way Hansen conducted himself that night.

[KeithK]

While there certainly is a continuum between "parade to the penalty box" (see Bill Doiron, at Brown, 11/98) and "hands-off" I don't believe that the happy medium is necessarily far from the way the games were called or that most refs hit that spot most of the time.  John Murphy (who called Friday's game) is known for being very hands off.  I can't remember what Hansen's rep is but that leads me to believe that it is the same (since I tend to like that style).  Now, aside from my opinions about reffing styles it's interesting that these were the two guys selected to do the tournament.  For all I know they were picked from a hat by Phil Butafucco, but I suspect it somehow reflects the league's feeling about their ability and style.

I don't think Harvard played a dirty game.  They may have clutched and grabbed some, but I think it's interesting that the team that IMO outskated and outhustled us is accused of clutching and grabbing.  I didn't see that. I did see Harvard play a nice trap which we couldn't seem to beat except for a couple of occasions.  You may not like that style - and I've never heard anyone say they loved to watch a great trap work - but it's legal and can be very effective.

Hansen presumably called it hands off because 1) it may be his style (again I can't remember and don't want to look at boxes right now) 2) it was a championship game and 3) there really was very little roughhousing going on that I could see so the game was never close to being out of control. (maybe attributable to #2).

If anything, we needed to play a more aggressive game.  Hit harder, play tighter defense.  Where were the hits like Murray's on Conrad Barnes on Friday?  If Hansen was allowing stuff then we should probably have clutched a bit more to slow down Moore and Petit.  Maybe Harvard's speed, energy and execution on their first power play opportunity created a little worry, conciously or unconciously.  I don't know.  

I'll close my comments on this issue by saying for the record that I thought the games this weekend were generally well officiated.  I realize and accept that other disagree with me.

God I HATE losing to F*$%!^@ Haravrd.

We needed to be more

[DeltaOne81]

I agree with what you said for the vast majorty (believe it or not). We absolutely should have taken advantage of Hansen's swallowed whistle and we didn't. The difference between the reffing style being "good" and being "bad both ways" is subjective and overall it's unimportant.

I think it was the Murray call which just blew it for me. It took him from a ref who was letting the boys play to a ref who made a call with a minute left in a championship game after ignoring 10 other things. I guess that's what really got to me. Other than that the difference is subjective. He just broke his own rules for that 1 second and/or thought he saw something very different than the way most people remember it.

So, hey, look, we agree, or at the least agree to disagree on something opinion based. Everybody's happy :-)). Can you give me that the Murray call was just wrong based on his style/what he ignored/timing, or are we gonna actually have to disagree there? ;-)

-Fred, DeltaOne81 '03

[jtwcornell91]

Okay, so here's my take on Saturday's game:

1) We played like crap for the first two periods and were lucky to be leading 39 minuted in and tied at the break.  We were outshot 16-8 according to the announced saves, but Dov let in three of the eight shots.  Presumably there was a decision to lay off the forecheck to avoid getting beat by Harvard's speed on the large ice (which may mean that all the Cornell-will-be-done-in-by-Olympic-ice naysayers may finally have been right for once), but there also seemed to be a general lack of hustle, with the exception of Hornby.

2) We picked it up markedly in the third, but were thwarted by Hansen swallowing the whistle and Harvard using that to their advantage to smother any offensive chances.

3) Hansen was basically being John Murphy, swallowing the whistle in the third, which made it absolutely unbelievable that he called Murray for anything short of involuntary manslaughter with a minute to go in the third period of a tied championship game.  Thank G-d we killed that one off, or we would have spent the next six months rightfully whining about how he cost us the game.  We were further flabbergasted when Hansen passed up the many opportunities Harvard gave him to make a make-up call.  (Not that we were not also taking advantage by that point; Palahicky hauled a Crimson skater to the ice by the facemask at some point, but I think it was one of the many infractions that Hansen wasn't looking at.)  We might in principle have cashed in if we had gotten the make-up call, but we can't blame the loss on Hansen.

4) Both teams had some amazing chances in the first OT.  I was much more confident of Cornell having a shot of pulling it out then than I was after two periods.

5) We ran out of gas in the second OT.

It hurts like hell to lose a title game to an arch-rival (obviously even more for the players than for us), but on that night, Hahvahd played exactly the game they needed to beat us, and we didn't play our best.  (BTW, I disagree entirely with the idiot PA announcer who said at the end of the second period "Isn't this a great game?"  It got better, but it was a very crappy game up to that point.)

[KeithK]

When Hansen called Murray for roughing I was screaming at the TV screen just like evryone I was watching with.  I was shocked that he made the call for that at that point in the game.  When they showed the replay a minute later I understood the call a little better - Doug did wrap his arm around the guy's neck and pull a bit as he twisted to go around the Harvard player.  I still didn't think the call was warranted at that point.

What probably made Hansen's arm go up was the fact that the Crimson's helmet came off, which made it look bad.  You could probably make a case that that was consistent with how Hansen wanted to call the game.  He could have thought that this was real rough housing with possible intent to injure ad could cause the game to escalte out of control.  If that's what Scott thought then I think he was reading the situation wrong, but it could well be considered consistent.  (I think I just rambled on saying exactly what Greg said about this a while ago...)

Agreed though. Bad call. :-)

[KeithK]

A couple people have noted the problem with faceoffs against Harvard.  We were atrocious through most of the game.  Or else Dom Moore was amazing.  It was really amazing to see him win almost every faceoff after we had won all of them the night before against RPI.  That was a big difference in the game.  If we win an even or better share throughout the game it would've greatly helped our puck movement and would likely have led to a lot more hard shots from the point.  I can only remember a couple of good shots from the point all game compared with a bunch and two goals by Cook on Friday.

[Greg Berge]

> there also seemed to be a general lack of hustle, with the exception of Hornby.

Francis, Palahicky, and Wieckowski really worked their asses off.  I'm amazed at how much Palahicky has improved as a player.

Cornell tired faster than Harvard (which is bad news considering they have to do the equivalent of winning the PIG and then beating the #1 seed in Worcester).  You expend a lot more energy dragging around a 6-3 225 frame for 90 minutes than a 5-8 175 frame.  Cornell started to get really tired by the middle of the game; Harvard started to get really tired by the end of the first overtime.  The second overtime was just a matter of which punch-drunk fighter would land the lucky jab first -- it could as easily have been us.

Bleech.  Raul Julia was right.  "Whatsa behind me is not important."

[Josh '99]

Keith K '93 wrote:

A couple people have noted the problem with faceoffs against Harvard.  We were atrocious through most of the game.  Or else Dom Moore was amazing.  It was really amazing to see him win almost every faceoff after we had won all of them the night before against RPI.  That was a big difference in the game.  If we win an even or better share throughout the game it would've greatly helped our puck movement and would likely have led to a lot more hard shots from the point.  I can only remember a couple of good shots from the point all game compared with a bunch and two goals by Cook on Friday.

I noticed that too.  It was really just Moore being amazing...  there was a stretch where he won like eight or ten defensive zone faceoffs in a row, tremendously frustrating.  I didn't keep track, but it felt like we fared better against Harvard's other centers.

[Jeff Hopkins \'82]

I got home Sunday evening just in time to watch the replay of the 2nd OT on Comcast.  At one point, they showed a stat that there had been 100 faceoffs to that point in the game, and that Harvard had won 60 of them.  It's not a big difference, but considering that a "good" faceoff man will only win about 55% or so, it points out a not insignificant advantage.

I also think that Moore had our guys psyched out.  How many times did the Cornell man get tossed from the faceoff?  More than I can count, and certainly more than the Harvard man did.

[Greg Berge]

OTOH, right now I am watching the SF, and Cornell won the first *11* faceoffs, including those in the O-zone.

I agree: Moore is the best faceoff man I've seen in the ECAC since Karl Williams.  He beat the Cornell C's like so many redheaded stepchildren.  Hate the bastid, but he's a good player.

[RichS]

since Karl Williams?  ::rolleyes::

[jtwcornell91]

Actually, I overheard a couple of RPI bandies on the way to the Men's room saying just that: the helmet coming off made it look a lot worse than it was, from where Hansen was staning.  I still think he should have given us a makeup call when one of our guys got PUNCHED IN THE HEAD right in front of him. :-(