Cornell vs. Clarkson 3-0 FINAL

[DeltaOne81]

I agree it's inconclusive, though if it was heading back with any speed, it would have gotten there.

Perhaps more importantly (though maybe not :-) ), it certainly explains why neither the ref (who, if I remember correctly, was on the A side of the goal) nor the goal judge could call it (even from the O side of the goal it'd be very difficult to call, with the post in the way). Give Lenny credit for stealing that one ::laugh:: .

[schoaff]

Actually the photo is pretty conclusive. Unfortunately the conclusion is that the puck is somewhere between the back of the net and the lens of the camera.

The only games I've seen this year are the two in Florida, but based on those I'd say we deserved a bounce or two going our way this year.

- Peter Schoaff '90

[nyc94]

I take your word.  Did the puck cross on the ice or was it in the air and Lenny pulled it back?  Refs and goal judges often miss the latter.

[Robb03]

In the online NCAA hockey rule book, page HR-61, Rule 16-6 (yes, I have no life) it says that "A goal is scored when the puck...passes...completely across the goal line".  Thus, it's possible some of it could have traveled over with Lenny clamping it before the entire thing was over the line.  And if he put that big glove on top, then no one could tell if it truly went all the way over.

[Ben Doyle 03]

Robb your reference to the ruling on a goal is correct. . . BUT approximately one second after Age took that picture the entire puck was over the line, the whole thing was in the goal, every centimeter was in the net, etc. . .;-)

We caught a break. . .probably a well deserved one at that.

[Shorts]

Robb may claim to not have a life, but if there's anyone out there who really has too much time, it might be interesting to try to replace depth perception by comparing the known sizes of the puck and post with their apparent sizes in the picture.

I wonder whether the RealOne College Sports Pass people would let us install video cameras inside the posts...

[peterg]

I've got to disagree on the phantom goal.  I was standing ten feet or so to Mike Teeter's right and had a good look at it.  The motion of the puck in the photo was straight down from the crossbar.  It landed on the line and was swept back into the crease.  I have to agree with Teets and Fulton on that one.  There was no goal to wave off.

[bigred apple]

Ben '03 wrote:[q]We caught a break. . .probably a well deserved one at that. [/q]

What the hell does that mean? Either it crossed the line or it didn't.  If it didn't, the refs made the right call. If it did, you are going to have to give me a reason why we "deserved" a bad call on a goal in our favor.

[Ben Doyle 03]

BRA. . .try the decaf;-)

My "reason" was in reference to a number of  bad calls we've gotten and the unlucky bounces, until now have gone against us. . .if you disagree that's your choice. I hope I've given you some insight into my thought process. :-)

[bigred apple]

For a team with three losses - none of which seemed undeserved - I'd be hard pressed to see how we've gotten shafted.  Nothing that we haven't overcome.  And I'm willing to bet that if we read the chat boards for our opponents, we'd find out about all the bad calls/no calls in our favor.

Decaf is a waste.

[Al DeFlorio]

Well, they did take a "good" one away from us in last year's Clarkson game at Lynah.;-)

[Greg Berge]

> When I think of a player who spent his time skating back and forth between bench and box it is Nikolic (sp?).

Or Crombeen.

[bigred apple]

I remember Nikolic getting a penalty when in the penalty box for grabbing the jersey/stick of a player that stopped in front of him.  Am I remembering that right? (I recall it being at the Garden, but that seems impossible.)

[RichS]

I saw Coach Parker ask Reid to come over to him and then motioned to him to speak with the ref.  He seemed to explain to Reid that the ref would talk with him, the captain,  but not with the coach.  Rather than "posturing", I think Reid was getting clarification,  probably of the end-of-game penalty calls.

Speaking of which, I believe it was #14, Abbott, who reponded to Genovy's check from behind against the glass by taking a quick punch at Genovy...no penalty for that??

As for the check from behind call on Genovy, I think it was marginal at best, given that he had not called any of the same types of hits, or worse,  earlier in the game, by both teams...notably a couple by Baby, including one right in front of us in Section O where he absolutely plastered a Clarkson player into the glass directly from behind.  Perhaps these refs are reluctant to call 5 min penalties in the midst of tight games...but are not reluctant to do so at the end where it has no impact on the outcome.

I think Fulton was lousy in his penalty calling.  We had a D3 coach sitting behind us who "critiqued" him the entire game...he had little good to say!  He also clearly missed the Clarkson goal that seemed to hit the underside of the crossbar, then drop staright down clearly behind the line.  I saw "white" between the line and the puck.  He made a near immediate "wash out" sign from the other side of the goal so he must have seen it differently...or not at all.  While it did not matter mathematically in the final score, it would have tied the game at 1-1, most likely after 2 periods...and would have set up a potentially different third period.

In any event, cornell played a near mistake free game defensively , allowing Clarkson perhaps three quality scoring chances and outworked Clarkson for loose pucks, etc.  The better team won, no doubt.

[RichS]

If you were to say that the "no goal" call was deserved because your team had gotten shafted on a similar call in the SAME game, I might buy it...but to say it was deserved to offset such a call in a previous game hardly seems right.   Different game, different ref....has nothing to do with that night's opponent.

And it was a goal! :-D