Cornell-Yale ECAC championship postgame

Trotsky · March 23, 2009, 01:21:30 PM

Cornell had the edge in play in the first; at times, by a lot. They had energy and got the benefit of some calls. Had they scored early, it would have been a different game.

I think Albany reflects the quality of the league this year. Yale was the best team and Cornell the next best; Princeton and SLU are tied, close behind. Too bad the numbers didn't quite work for the Saints.

If Yale can play next weekend the way they played against us in the 2nd and 3rd, they're going to be in DC. While I don't think it's likely Cornell will be there, one great thing about Schafer teams is that a shutout is not a rare event, and you can't lose if your opponent can't score.

HockeyMan · March 23, 2009, 02:49:18 PM

[quote Trotsky]Cornell had the edge in play in the first; at times, by a lot. They had energy and got the benefit of some calls. Had they scored early, it would have been a different game.

I think Albany reflects the quality of the league this year. Yale was the best team and Cornell the next best; Princeton and SLU are tied, close behind. Too bad the numbers didn't quite work for the Saints.

If Yale can play next weekend the way they played against us in the 2nd and 3rd, they're going to be in DC. While I don't think it's likely Cornell will be there, one great thing about Schafer teams is that a shutout is not a rare event, and you can't lose if your opponent can't score.[/quote]

Agree on all counts. OTOH, to win you've got to score yourself, and that's *not* a great thing about Schafer teams. Excellent goaltending and an airtight D therefore become all-important. Let's hope we have both next weekend.

Jim Hyla · March 23, 2009, 04:23:23 PM

One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.

KeithK · March 23, 2009, 04:35:42 PM

[quote Jim Hyla]One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.[/quote]
The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.

Jim Hyla · March 23, 2009, 05:09:31 PM

[quote KeithK][quote Jim Hyla]One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.[/quote]
The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.[/quote]But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.

ugarte · March 24, 2009, 11:18:35 AM

[quote Jim Hyla][quote KeithK][quote Jim Hyla]One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.[/quote]
The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.[/quote]But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.[/quote]
It's always about the cervical spine with you doctors, isn't it?

Josh '99 · March 24, 2009, 12:07:10 PM

[quote KeithK][quote Jim Hyla]One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.[/quote]
The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.[/quote]I thought two was the right call, but on the boarding spectrum it fell somewhere between two and five rather than somewhere between two and no call. I was slightly relieved that Riley didn't get a "seriously, the game is over, cut that shit out NOW" major.

Trotsky · March 24, 2009, 12:20:24 PM

[quote Josh '99]I was slightly relieved that Riley didn't get a "seriously, the game is over, cut that shit out NOW" major.[/quote]

If it had happened against us, we would be screaming for the guy's cervical spine. We had a perfect view of the hit from our section, and it was terrible. I'm sure it wasn't malicious, but da rules is da rules, and he should have gotten a 5 and an early start on the puck bunnies.

KeithK · March 24, 2009, 01:53:06 PM

[quote Jim Hyla][quote KeithK][quote Jim Hyla]One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.[/quote]
The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.[/quote]But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.[/quote]
I don't like injuries either. But there's always going to be a risk of injury in hockey. I don't think a hit that isn't intended to injure deserves 5 and 10. Especially since it seems like more and more players are turning their backs to checkers in order to draw the hitting from behind penalty. If what I think I'm seeing is true then you may actually be increasing the risk of injury by emphasizing the rule.

Apparently the referees agree with me that the rule is overkill because they very often call a boarding minor in situations that clearly qualify as hitting from behind.

lynah80 · March 24, 2009, 02:55:48 PM

[quote ugarte][quote Jim Hyla][quote KeithK][quote Jim Hyla]One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.[/quote]
The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.[/quote]But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.[/quote]
It's always about the cervical spine with you doctors, isn't it?[/quote]

Not Funny. Jim is making a very important point. The rule was tightened up because of what happened at BC a number of years ago. Have you ever met with a kid with a cervical spine injury?

Hockey is only a game.

Jim Hyla · March 24, 2009, 03:15:01 PM

[quote KeithK][quote Jim Hyla][quote KeithK][quote Jim Hyla]One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.[/quote]
The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.[/quote]But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.[/quote]
I don't like injuries either. But there's always going to be a risk of injury in hockey. I don't think a hit that isn't intended to injure deserves 5 and 10. Especially since it seems like more and more players are turning their backs to checkers in order to draw the hitting from behind penalty. If what I think I'm seeing is true then you may actually be increasing the risk of injury by emphasizing the rule.

Apparently the referees agree with me that the rule is overkill because they very often call a boarding minor in situations that clearly qualify as hitting from behind.[/quote]I don't think intent should enter. How do you judge intent to injure in a check. The point is that sometimes you just have to not do something because the risk is not worth the reward. Clipping is an obvious example. It's just not worth the kind of injury to block that way. And no, I'm not referring to the "don't hit the quarterback" penalties, rather the "we're not going to put this guy out for the season, or for life" type.

Likely the reason why they were not called is more in line with what Coach Schafer complained about, rather than them agreeing with you.:-O

CowbellGuy · March 24, 2009, 03:32:17 PM

It's hard to protect the players when they won't protect themselves. As Keith alluded to, players are intentionally turning their backs when they see a hit coming, hoping to draw the penalty, putting themselves in danger. If you start handing out 5s like candy, it's just going to further encourage it. And it seems to just be a problem in college. By the time players get to the pros, they either have the sense to protect themselves better, or maybe the players prone to doing it in college just never get there. Either way, you see boarding-type hits way more in the college game than you do in the NHL.

BCrespi · March 24, 2009, 04:00:58 PM

[quote lynah80][quote ugarte][quote Jim Hyla][quote KeithK][quote Jim Hyla]One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.[/quote]
The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.[/quote]But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.[/quote]
It's always about the cervical spine with you doctors, isn't it?[/quote]

Not Funny. Jim is making a very important point. The rule was tightened up because of what happened at BC a number of years ago. Have you ever met with a kid with a cervical spine injury?

Hockey is only a game.[/quote]

Not Serious. ugarte is making a very funny point. People use humor to lighten the mood and bring happiness to the world. Have you ever met a kid after he saw a clown show?

elynah is only playful banter.

Seriously though, I don't think anybody disagrees with you that it's a serious issue, and please forgive my snarky response. Having a little fun of my own.

Jim Hyla · March 24, 2009, 04:01:05 PM

[quote CowbellGuy]It's hard to protect the players when they won't protect themselves. As Keith alluded to, players are intentionally turning their backs when they see a hit coming, hoping to draw the penalty, putting themselves in danger. If you start handing out 5s like candy, it's just going to further encourage it. And it seems to just be a problem in college. By the time players get to the pros, they either have the sense to protect themselves better, or maybe the players prone to doing it in college just never get there. Either way, you see boarding-type hits way more in the college game than you do in the NHL.[/quote]Pro players have always been much more aware of injury to others. That's why many were not in favor of helmets and then masks; the idea that players would be more able and willing to use their sticks up. It's also why you throw off your helmet if you're fighting. If you both have yours off, hopefully you both feel the vulnerability and won't do something stupid. There are always a few goons, but most respect the others right to earn a living.

Now if they are too many players turning to get hit from behind, then deal with that, don't not protect others. Riley's check was certainly not one of those.

Jim Hyla · March 24, 2009, 04:08:19 PM

[quote BCrespi][quote lynah80][quote ugarte][quote Jim Hyla][quote KeithK][quote Jim Hyla]One thing I was very surprised about were that some of the boarding calls were not 5 min hitting from behind. Yale got 2 in second period. By the time Riley's came in the third I was glad none were called. His was quite blatant. Maybe they didn't want to eject anyone, but some were not so subtle.[/quote]
The league started the playoffs with a "let 'em play" philosophy (which sparked the Schafer outburst). Not handing out misconducts and DQ's is in line with that.

Nash's hit late wasn't subtle but I didn't think it was vicious. He certainly deserved two minutes but that seemed like the right call to me. But then I'm not much for automatic "protect the players" major penalties.[/quote]But I don't like concussions or cervical spine injuries either.[/quote]
It's always about the cervical spine with you doctors, isn't it?[/quote]

Not Funny. Jim is making a very important point. The rule was tightened up because of what happened at BC a number of years ago. Have you ever met with a kid with a cervical spine injury?

Hockey is only a game.[/quote]

Not Serious. ugarte is making a very funny point. People use humor to lighten the mood and bring happiness to the world.[/quote]That's expressly why there are emoticons. You can't always tell context from writing like you can face to face. Now I was not offended, as I considered the source,:-) but others might not be so sure. Just my statement "considered the source" can be interpreted with humor or sarcasm, a smiley helps.

Quoteelynah is only playful banter.

Not always.

QuoteSeriously though, I don't think anybody disagrees with you that it's a serious issue, and please forgive my snarky response. Having a little fun of my own.