Cornell Women - Olympic Hockey

jkahn · February 08, 2014, 09:38:55 AM

Rebecca Johnston has a goal and 2 assists as Canada leads Switzerland 5-0 after 2 periods. Rogeau, Fortino and Jenner also in the lineup for Canada. Lots of mentions of Cornell by the announcers, Kenny Albert, A.J. Mleckzo and Pierre McGuire.

TimV · February 10, 2014, 11:38:41 AM

After 2 periods Scoreless game between Canada and Finland. There was a major scrum with fighting around the crease, and it appeared to me that the Canadian player #24 got largely mugged by three or four Finns but somehow the result was a power play for Finland. Shot total after 2 periods something like 28-10 Canada.

Rebecca Johnston was part of a 3 on 1 breakaway, got the pass 1 on 1 with the goalie, lots of net available - and missed everything. :-/

She later scored a pretty tip-in on Canada's 3rd goal. Canada has not yet been scored upon in the Olympics and plays the US Wednesday morning.

ugarte · February 10, 2014, 12:16:33 PM

Johnston gets Canada's third in a 3-0 win.

billhoward · February 10, 2014, 01:01:53 PM

Canada vs. USA women Wednesday 2/12 7:30 a.m. EST gametime. (NBC lists it as 7 a.m., probably pregame.)

andyw2100 · February 12, 2014, 09:36:37 AM

Spoiler Warning--

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.

Jeff Hopkins '82 · February 12, 2014, 10:07:26 AM

Not gonna post a score, but it looks like none of the Cornell women had any points for Canada.

billhoward · February 12, 2014, 10:20:07 AM

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Not gonna post a score, but it looks like none of the Cornell women had any points for Canada.

Rebecca Johnston was a constant breakaway presence around Net USA.

scoop85 · February 12, 2014, 12:42:40 PM

Quote from: billhoward
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Not gonna post a score, but it looks like none of the Cornell women had any points for Canada.
Rebecca Johnston was a constant breakaway presence around Net USA.

Yes, RJ is much more of an offensive force than she was in Vancouver

Jim Hyla · February 12, 2014, 01:08:14 PM

Quote from: scoop85
Quote from: billhoward
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Not gonna post a score, but it looks like none of the Cornell women had any points for Canada.
Rebecca Johnston was a constant breakaway presence around Net USA.

Yes, RJ is much more of an offensive force than she was in Vancouver

I think she was interviewed at the end of the game, on CBC. However I just fleetingly saw it, at work. I don't see the interview on their replay, and don't have time to try and find it on the CDC website. Their replay is nice, on the timeline they highlight each penalty and goal and even when the US went on extra attacker.

billhoward · February 12, 2014, 01:44:03 PM

In a close game where the winner had a disputed goal, is the advantage to the winner (get last line change?) or to the team with something to prove?

The NBC commentator (Natalie Darwitz?) has amazing vision, seeing every uncalled foul by Team Canada.

Somebody get Doc Emrick a phone book to sit on. He's about six inches shorter than (?) Darwitz and every time he turns to talk, he's staring straight at her chest.

Josh '99 · February 12, 2014, 02:15:52 PM

Quote from: billhowardIn a close game where the winner had a disputed goal, is the advantage to the winner (get last line change?) or to the team with something to prove?

The NBC commentator (Natalie Darwitz?) has amazing vision, seeing every uncalled foul by Team Canada.

Somebody get Doc Emrick a phone book to sit on. He's about six inches shorter than (?) Darwitz and every time he turns to talk, he's staring straight at her chest.

5'3" Natalie Darwitz is in the studio with Liam McHugh and Jeremy Roenick; it's 5'11" AJ Mleczko (obligatory: Harvard sucks) towering over Mike Emrick.

ugarte · February 12, 2014, 02:31:07 PM

SPOILER DISCUSSION CONTINUES. ACTUALLY, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU FEAR SPOILERS.

Quote from: andyw2100What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.

I can't get mad at a bad call undoing a terrible whistle.

andyw2100 · February 12, 2014, 02:40:57 PM

Quote from: ugarteSPOILER DISCUSSION CONTINUES. ACTUALLY, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU FEAR SPOILERS.
Quote from: andyw2100What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.
I can't get mad at a bad call undoing a terrible whistle.

I don't disagree with that. I'm not saying Canada didn't "deserve" that goal.

But once the ref blew the whistle, there was nothing to review.

Josh '99 · February 12, 2014, 02:58:30 PM

Quote from: andyw2100
Quote from: ugarteSPOILER DISCUSSION CONTINUES. ACTUALLY, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU FEAR SPOILERS.
Quote from: andyw2100What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.
I can't get mad at a bad call undoing a terrible whistle.

I don't disagree with that. I'm not saying Canada didn't "deserve" that goal.

But once the ref blew the whistle, there was nothing to review.

If I'm not mistaken, I've heard an official use the explanation "the whistle was blown inadvertently" to allow the result of continuing play after a whistle to count. I don't really believe that that's the case here (I think it was just a quick whistle because the ref incorrectly believed Vetter to have the puck covered) but I think it could be used as a plausible justification if they were so inclined.

Rosey · February 12, 2014, 03:09:30 PM

Quote from: andyw2100
Quote from: ugarteSPOILER DISCUSSION CONTINUES. ACTUALLY, STAY OUT OF THIS THREAD IF YOU FEAR SPOILERS.
Quote from: andyw2100What the heck was the ref reviewing on the second Canadian goal? She knew she had blown the whistle, whistling the play dead (before the goal.) No goal. Nothing to review. What the hell was that? How could she review the play, and how could she rule it a goal? I would love to hear her explanation.
I can't get mad at a bad call undoing a terrible whistle.

I don't disagree with that. I'm not saying Canada didn't "deserve" that goal.

But once the ref blew the whistle, there was nothing to review.

Seriously. From experience, when the whistle is blown, I stop playing immediately. I stand up and relax. Respecting the whistle as the final arbiter of "is the play dead?" is necessary to maintaining control of the game, IMO: otherwise, you encourage players to continue playing after the whistle in case the whistle is retconned away through review.