Harvard 2 @ Cornell 3 postgame thread (11/10/06)

RedAR · November 11, 2006, 11:39:12 AM

Not that it really matters, but in terms of stats, does scoring an EAG hurts your PP conversion percentage? That just doesn't seem right.

Jordan 04 · November 11, 2006, 11:53:47 AM

[quote RedAR]Not that it really matters, but in terms of stats, does scoring an EAG hurts your PP conversion percentage? That just doesn't seem right.[/quote]

No, since there is no PP recorded.

RedAR · November 11, 2006, 11:56:51 AM

Ah, thanks.

Dafatone · November 11, 2006, 12:27:01 PM

As pointed out, the disparity in faceoffs is pretty much solely because of Kevin Du. In three games I've seen, I think I've only seen him lose one faceoff.

Oh, and the officiating was beyond awful. I'm the sort that complains about refs a lot, but still. There was one play toward the end of the 1st period where a guy pretty much jumped on Sawada's back and dragged him down in front of the net. The puck was in the corner, and Sawada hadn't been involved in the play for a good 10 seconds. Clear interference.

scoop85 · November 11, 2006, 12:36:34 PM

A comment on the CSTV production: on a number of occasions CSTV adopted FOX's awful habit of showing crowd or coach shots while the action is ongoing. If they had missed any of the scoring because they were showing Donato, we'd be rather annoyed today.

Cactus12 · November 11, 2006, 12:47:42 PM

From our side (sec A), the Bitz trip was pretty blatant... While on the ground he extended his stick (trying for the puck?) and caught the Harvard guy's skate. It was a bad penalty to take with less than 4 min left in the game.

Cactus12 · November 11, 2006, 01:00:52 PM

Agreed... the PP was horrible (esp. first unit). I can never figure out why we refuse to set a big forward right in front of the net. College hockey goalies just don't appear to have the experience to stop much of anything through an effective screen. Also with the tight officiating, if they try to push us out, there's a good chance they'll take an additional interference or crosscheck call or w/e.

KeithK · November 11, 2006, 01:56:03 PM

[quote schoaff]After Kennedy broke out of the zone all that was between him and the goal was Harvard's McCafferty who was caught completely flat footed as Kennedy blew by him. Wonder what he was thinking.[/quote]Kennedy wasn't breaking out of the zone. He was coming from the bench replacing Bitz who had just gotten out of the box. It's possible that McCafferty didn't see Kennedy (or at least not quickly enough to react) so he started for the puck and was caught flat footed.

calgARI '07 · November 11, 2006, 01:57:26 PM

[quote KeithK]Kennedy wasn't breaking out of the zone. He was coming from the bench replacing Bitz who had just gotten out of the box. It's possible that McCafferty didn't see Kennedy (or at least not quickly enough to react) so he started for the puck and was caught flat footed.[/quote]

McCafferty was also at the end of his shift.

KeithK · November 11, 2006, 01:59:12 PM

[quote Beeeej]I've just watched that goal a few more times (okay, a few dozen more times), and I noted with amusement that if Kennedy had actually stickhandled "properly," and the pass had stuck to his stick as intended, McCafferty would still have been behind him. It's almost certainly only because the pass ricocheted off Kennedy's stick and kept its momentum that he was able to chase it past McCafferty and use the breakaway.[/quote]I'm not sure that was amishandled pass. In that situation if the puck ends up on Kennedy's stick then McCafferty has a chance to play the puck. Chipping it by him allowed Kennedy to blow by the defender. I can see that having been intentional (though I haven't seen the play since the replays last night).

KeithK · November 11, 2006, 02:05:00 PM

For the record, I thought that the referee was calling some pretty ticky-tack stuff penalties. In particular there was one hooking call on Cornell in the offensive zone that seemed very weak in my mind. I understand that the league is trying to crack down on hooking, but I think this is overboard. Hopefully this lightens up some as the season goes on. I think John Murphy called a pretty good game but it would've been better without the decree from on high.

(BTW I'm not saying Murphy was biased against or screwed Cornell.)

redredux · November 11, 2006, 02:10:19 PM

Great, lucky win. In the USCHO recap, Donato said the Red played a "bend but don't break" style for most of the game. That seems accurate if not a bit generous. I credit the win in large part to Troy Davenport. He looked great to me. I also thought the CSTV guys were giving Richter too much credit -- "playing like an upperclassman" blah blah blah. He didn't face many tough chances and when he did, they went in, especially the first and third goals. The second one he probably never saw. I wonder if this game will stick with him mentally -- he's got to be blaming himself for the loss since it's pretty clear the rest of his team outplayed Cornell thoroughly. Harvard looked very good but I am happy to say I think we have the better goaltender. Unless Richter or Tobe play better, the Crimson's impressive play may continue to be wasted. Need a better performance all around tonight from the Red. Could we see FOntas or Scali for Milo, Romano, or Gallagher?

evilnaturedrobot · November 11, 2006, 02:15:49 PM

[quote KeithK]For the record, I thought that the referee was calling some pretty ticky-tack stuff penalties. In particular there was one hooking call on Cornell in the offensive zone that seemed very weak in my mind. I understand that the league is trying to crack down on hooking, but I think this is overboard. Hopefully this lightens up some as the season goes on. I think John Murphy called a pretty good game but it would've been better without the decree from on high.

(BTW I'm not saying Murphy was biased against or screwed Cornell.)[/quote]

I have no problem with the ECAC enforcing NHL style obstruction rules, what I don't get is why they called hooking and Holding so tightly and let so much blatent interferance go.

The holding and hooking calls where pretty consistent: if you took a hand off your stick and placed it on an opponent you where going to be called. If you put a stick in the midsection of an opposing layer you got called, no matter how lightly you did it.

These calls where consistent and even handed.

However, how many forays into Harvard's zone where stopped when a Cornell player was blatently tied up? I saw this all game, and I don't get why you would call certain obstruction penalties (hooking, holding) and let so much interferance go. (I'm also not stating that Cornell didn't engage in it's fair share of this sort of thing, but the moments that stand out in my moind are the harvard noncalls.)

Beeeej · November 11, 2006, 02:18:35 PM

[quote Rich S]I didnt see the play so I cant comment on it specifically but the key to that situation is that the prone player has to make a clear attempt to play the puck. If not, in the ref's judgement, the call will be for either tripping or interference.[/quote]

Tripping and interference calls both require playing the other player's body in some way - which has nothing to do with lying down to block a pass or a shot.

evilnaturedrobot · November 11, 2006, 02:25:18 PM

[quote redredux] Could we see FOntas or Scali for Milo, Romano, or Gallagher?[/quote]

why? Have they made freshman mistakes? of course, but for the most part all three have played well, and they bring a helping of speed and skill that this team hasn't seen in years. If you sit them now because they havn't been perfect players (and did anyone expect them to be 5 games into they're NCAA carreers?) your going to stunt they're growth.

However, I would like to see Scali at some point, I really liked the brief glimpse of him that we got in the York game (yes I know it was only York.) Do we know if he's still injured, or if he just hasn't managed to crack the lineup since he went down?