Quinnipiac 5 Cornell 4, ot

[KeithK]

Is Tschantz hurt?  I feel like his particular style would work well in this more up tempo offense.

I thought I read somewhee that due to injuries and illness the squad was down to a bare minimum of forwards. If so then that would imply that Tschantz is in fact hurt.

The defense is a weakness right now, but that's obviously Mike's strong suit and I'm sure it will come around.

Agreeed.  If the biggest issue a Schafer coached team has in November is playing defense then this bodes well for the upcoming season.

[RichH]

Is Tschantz hurt?  I feel like his particular style would work well in this more up tempo offense.

I thought I read somewhee that due to injuries and illness the squad was down to a bare minimum of forwards. If so then that would imply that Tschantz is in fact hurt.

In the post-game comments after the Niagara weekend, Schafer mentions Knisley and Tschantz as being guys who are "dinged up" and that we'll "hopefully get those guys back in the next 2-3 weeks."

https://youtu.be/H4KjOewhKi4?t=2m40s

[Jim Hyla]

Everyone who was healthy was playing. Our depth has helped to keep a full squad, but we've reached the limit.

[RichH]

Q may be the best team in the conference and one of the best in the country and we belonged on the same ice, so yes, this is very promising.

You could say that about last season's pair of last-minute 1-0 losses, too.

I guess I'm more disconcerted that a Cornell team blew a 3-goal lead than other people. They had a 4-1 lead with 8 minutes left in the 2nd. Not only couldn't they hold it for the game, they did not even hold that lead for the period.

Yeah yeah...sacrifice some defense to score more. I get that. But even against a skilled team, these guys should be able to lock a big lead down better than that. This had all the makings of a hallmark game of the last few years and establish it as a real "statement game." Instead it's another one of those moral victories. Promising, encouraging, hope, &c.

[upprdeck]

when a game turns in a PP fest anything can happen.

[Al DeFlorio]

Q may be the best team in the conference and one of the best in the country and we belonged on the same ice, so yes, this is very promising.

You could say that about last season's pair of last-minute 1-0 losses, too.

I guess I'm more disconcerted that a Cornell team blew a 3-goal lead than other people. They had a 4-1 lead with 8 minutes left in the 2nd. Not only couldn't they hold it for the game, they did not even hold that lead for the period.

Yeah yeah...sacrifice some defense to score more. I get that. But even against a skilled team, these guys should be able to lock a big lead down better than that. This had all the makings of a hallmark game of the last few years and establish it as a real "statement game." Instead it's another one of those moral victories. Promising, encouraging, hope, &c.

My feelings exactly.  Especially with the winning goal coming as a result of an undisciplined penalty.

[Iceberg]

We'll see how QU matches up against another top team since they host Sucks this weekend. The league seems to be better than it was last year

[andyw2100]

Quick question about this game, and whether or not there has been a rule change.

Unless I'm mistaken, in the past if there was a question as to whether a shot puck that wasn't ruled a goal had actually been in and out of the net, play was not stopped to make that determination. At the next stoppage the refs would check the video. If it was in fact decided that a goal had been scored, the clock was reset to that point, and play continued from there. But on Saturday night shortly after the Quinnipiac shot that was eventually ruled a goal, the refs seemed to stop play for no reason other than to review the video. (We were moving the puck up ice at the time, as I recall.) Also, once they ruled it a goal, I don't believe any time was put back on the clock.

So...rule change or just odd officiating?

[jtwcornell91]

Quick question about this game, and whether or not there has been a rule change.

Unless I'm mistaken, in the past if there was a question as to whether a shot puck that wasn't ruled a goal had actually been in and out of the net, play was not stopped to make that determination. At the next stoppage the refs would check the video. If it was in fact decided that a goal had been scored, the clock was reset to that point, and play continued from there. But on Saturday night shortly after the Quinnipiac shot that was eventually ruled a goal, the refs seemed to stop play for no reason other than to review the video. (We were moving the puck up ice at the time, as I recall.) Also, once they ruled it a goal, I don't believe any time was put back on the clock.

So...rule change or just odd officiating?

My recollection is that they changed it a few years ago to be like a delayed penalty, where they'd blow the whistle once the possibly-scored-on team had possession.  Lots of stupid things can happen when you let the game continue for possibly several minutes before deciding if there was a goal or not (e.g., another goal, or a penalty).  I think this changed shortly after the UNH regional game in Albany in 2010, which saw one of these goals awarded after several minutes of play that didn't count.

[Trotsky]

My recollection is that they changed it a few years ago to be like a delayed penalty, where they'd blow the whistle once the possibly-scored-on team had possession.  Lots of stupid things can happen when you let the game continue for possibly several minutes before deciding if there was a goal or not (e.g., another goal, or a penalty).  I think this changed shortly after the UNH regional game in Albany in 2010, which saw one of these goals awarded after several minutes of play that didn't count.

Huh, never heard that.  Jason had not either -- he commented on it when it happened as an officiating error.

This means the Ultimate Nightmare Scenario can never occur: in overtime in the NCAA Final X has a near chance, play continues, Y scores.  The X chance is now reviewed... and the officials decide the national champion based on their ruling.

[upprdeck]

it has happened that a team scored and then a review took it away.. i think it was only a couple years ago in an NCAA game.

i am surprised we even had a shot of the puck going in to change the original call.   my question would be if the ref thought it went in live why didnt  he blow the whistle and rule it good then

[andyw2100]

Huh, never heard that.  Jason had not either -- he commented on it when it happened as an officiating error.

At least I'm in good company!

[Robb]

My recollection is that they changed it a few years ago to be like a delayed penalty, where they'd blow the whistle once the possibly-scored-on team had possession.  Lots of stupid things can happen when you let the game continue for possibly several minutes before deciding if there was a goal or not (e.g., another goal, or a penalty).  I think this changed shortly after the UNH regional game in Albany in 2010, which saw one of these goals awarded after several minutes of play that didn't count.

Huh, never heard that.  Jason had not either -- he commented on it when it happened as an officiating error.

This means the Ultimate Nightmare Scenario can never occur: in overtime in the NCAA Final X has a near chance, play continues, Y scores.  The X chance is now reviewed... and the officials decide the national champion based on their ruling.

I also like: X has a near chance and then scores again to win by 2 in OT.

[Trotsky]

My recollection is that they changed it a few years ago to be like a delayed penalty, where they'd blow the whistle once the possibly-scored-on team had possession.  Lots of stupid things can happen when you let the game continue for possibly several minutes before deciding if there was a goal or not (e.g., another goal, or a penalty).  I think this changed shortly after the UNH regional game in Albany in 2010, which saw one of these goals awarded after several minutes of play that didn't count.

Huh, never heard that.  Jason had not either -- he commented on it when it happened as an officiating error.

This means the Ultimate Nightmare Scenario can never occur: in overtime in the NCAA Final X has a near chance, play continues, Y scores.  The X chance is now reviewed... and the officials decide the national champion based on their ruling.

I also like: X has a near chance and then scores again to win by 2 in OT.

As you well know, it doesn't work that way, but otherwise it would be a great way to get a hat trick.

Personally I like that a delayed penalty can result in a goal followed by a penalty shot goal scored at the same time.  Even better would be a delayed penalty own goal followed by a penalty shot goal, resulting in goals by both teams scored at the same time.

I wonder if the rule book explicitly states that if that latter scenario took place in overtime the own goal would end the game.  I can imagine the uplifting philosophical debate that would take place in an ECAC final between, say, Schafer and Pecknold...

[Dafatone]

My recollection is that they changed it a few years ago to be like a delayed penalty, where they'd blow the whistle once the possibly-scored-on team had possession.  Lots of stupid things can happen when you let the game continue for possibly several minutes before deciding if there was a goal or not (e.g., another goal, or a penalty).  I think this changed shortly after the UNH regional game in Albany in 2010, which saw one of these goals awarded after several minutes of play that didn't count.

Huh, never heard that.  Jason had not either -- he commented on it when it happened as an officiating error.

This means the Ultimate Nightmare Scenario can never occur: in overtime in the NCAA Final X has a near chance, play continues, Y scores.  The X chance is now reviewed... and the officials decide the national champion based on their ruling.

I also like: X has a near chance and then scores again to win by 2 in OT.

As you well know, it doesn't work that way, but otherwise it would be a great way to get a hat trick.

Personally I like that a delayed penalty can result in a goal followed by a penalty shot goal scored at the same time.  Even better would be a delayed penalty own goal followed by a penalty shot goal, resulting in goals by both teams scored at the same time.

I wonder if the rule book explicitly states that if that latter scenario took place in overtime the own goal would end the game.  I can imagine the uplifting philosophical debate that would take place in an ECAC final between, say, Schafer and Pecknold...

I thought there was some stipulation that you can't have two goals on the same stoppage, and therefore a penalty causing a penalty shot following a reviewed and counted goal was always a power play.

Might be NHL only, though.  This happened to the Penguins vs the Leafs a few years ago.  Pens take a shot, hits off the bar in the back of the net but the refs thought it hit crossbar, comes flying the other way, Pens pull down a Leafs player for a penalty shot.  But they look, award a goal on the initial shot, and wind up giving the Leafs a PP.

Then they don't score on the PP, and the Pens score again immediately after jumping out of the box.  Gotta love Leafs games.