Women's Team 2016-17

[imafrshmn]

That center ice camera angle sure makes it look violent, but it's really hard to tell what's going on. A ref has a good angle on it and didn't think it was worth more than a minor. So yeah, this league decision is pretty flabbergasting.

[ugarte]

hard to tell if clarkson was embellishing the contact but she stayed down for a while and it was definitely a cheap hit

[daredevilcu]

Where did you find a video?

Edit: missed it on mobile. It does look like she cross checks her in the head from that angle. With the emphasis on CTH I wouldn't be surprised if that was the logic for the suspension.

[BearLover]

I know very little about the women's game, but given the lack of hitting I assume the bar is much lower for a DQ/suspension.

[andyw2100]

I know very little about the women's game, but given the lack of hitting I assume the bar is much lower for a DQ/suspension.

That may be, but she wasn't given a game disqualification by the officials. The league chose to get involved.

In my opinion, even if the league thought there was enough there to issue the disqualification under normal circumstances, in what I'm sure was a close call, it would seem that for an NCAA playoff game they might have chosen to go the other way. They could even have had someone call Coach Derraugh, and say, "Hey--we seriously considered suspending your player, but chose not to because it was the NCAA tournament. Just know it was close."

Kristin O'Neill probably grew up dreaming of getting the chance to play for a National Championship. Sure, she's a freshman, so hopefully will get another chance (or two or three), but to have this one taken away from her for something that wasn't even called on the ice just really rubs me the wrong way. I feel for her.

[BearLover]

I know very little about the women's game, but given the lack of hitting I assume the bar is much lower for a DQ/suspension.

That may be, but she wasn't given a game disqualification by the officials. The league chose to get involved.

In my opinion, even if the league thought there was enough there to issue the disqualification under normal circumstances, in what I'm sure was a close call, it would seem that for an NCAA playoff game they might have chosen to go the other way. They could even have had someone call Coach Derraugh, and say, "Hey--we seriously considered suspending your player, but chose not to because it was the NCAA tournament. Just know it was close."

Kristin O'Neill probably grew up dreaming of getting the chance to play for a National Championship. Sure, she's a freshman, so hopefully will get another chance (or two or three), but to have this one taken away from her for something that wasn't even called on the ice just really rubs me the wrong way. I feel for her.

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest she'd received a DQ.  I probably shouldn't have mentioned it in my initial post.  I completely agree with the rest of your post--just as the bar may be lower due to the nature of the women's game, it should be higher because it's the NCAA tournament.

[Jim Hyla]

I know very little about the women's game, but given the lack of hitting I assume the bar is much lower for a DQ/suspension.

That may be, but she wasn't given a game disqualification by the officials. The league chose to get involved.

In my opinion, even if the league thought there was enough there to issue the disqualification under normal circumstances, in what I'm sure was a close call, it would seem that for an NCAA playoff game they might have chosen to go the other way. They could even have had someone call Coach Derraugh, and say, "Hey--we seriously considered suspending your player, but chose not to because it was the NCAA tournament. Just know it was close."

Kristin O'Neill probably grew up dreaming of getting the chance to play for a National Championship. Sure, she's a freshman, so hopefully will get another chance (or two or three), but to have this one taken away from her for something that wasn't even called on the ice just really rubs me the wrong way. I feel for her.

Oh, I didn't mean to suggest she'd received a DQ.  I probably shouldn't have mentioned it in my initial post.  I completely agree with the rest of your post--just as the bar may be lower due to the nature of the women's game, it should be higher because it's the NCAA tournament.

No, she came at a defenseless player with a hard illegal check. It should be called for what it was. I would hope that even in the men's game, a defenseless check would have been punished. Those are the type of checks that can be career ending, and how can you say that because the next game is an NCAA game, you'll look the other way. If you want to eliminate that type of play, you call it whenever it occurs. She hurt the team and now has to live with it.

[Trotsky]

Crazy thought, but could this be the powers that be at the ECAC wanting to try to tip the scales a bit to make it more likely that the "stronger" team moves on to the next round?

I was watching the game and also thought it didn't look like much of anything at the time.

Let's not be Got6. ::smashfreak::

[CU2007]

haha wow ... barely touched her

[andyw2100]

No, she came at a defenseless player with a hard illegal check. It should be called for what it was. I would hope that even in the men's game, a defenseless check would have been punished. Those are the type of checks that can be career ending, and how can you say that because the next game is an NCAA game, you'll look the other way. If you want to eliminate that type of play, you call it whenever it occurs. She hurt the team and now has to live with it.

It's not often that I disagree with you, Jim, but I'm going to now.

The main issue is that the infraction wasn't called on the ice. It wasn't even called as a major penalty. My concern is the league stepping in, and increasing the punishment so significantly.

As for the Clarkson player being defenseless, she was already engaged with another Cornell player, so it's not as if she was skating in clear ice and was blind-sided. O'Neill did come skating in from some distance away, but as I see it, she basically stopped before cross-checking the Clarkson player. If there was truly "inten to to injure", she wouldn't have stopped.

If the play was black and white, sure, don't change anything because it is the NCAA tournament. But I really think the ECAC waded into a very gray-area play, especially since the hit was ruled a minor penalty on the ice. To levy that much additional punishment in this situation I just see as wrong.

[mattj711]

No, she came at a defenseless player with a hard illegal check. It should be called for what it was. I would hope that even in the men's game, a defenseless check would have been punished. Those are the type of checks that can be career ending, and how can you say that because the next game is an NCAA game, you'll look the other way. If you want to eliminate that type of play, you call it whenever it occurs. She hurt the team and now has to live with it.

It's not often that I disagree with you, Jim, but I'm going to now.

The main issue is that the infraction wasn't called on the ice. It wasn't even called as a major penalty. My concern is the league stepping in, and increasing the punishment so significantly.

As for the Clarkson player being defenseless, she was already engaged with another Cornell player, so it's not as if she was skating in clear ice and was blind-sided. O'Neill did come skating in from some distance away, but as I see it, she basically stopped before cross-checking the Clarkson player. If there was truly "inten to to injure", she wouldn't have stopped.

If the play was black and white, sure, don't change anything because it is the NCAA tournament. But I really think the ECAC waded into a very gray-area play, especially since the hit was ruled a minor penalty on the ice. To levy that much additional punishment in this situation I just see as wrong.

Not to mention that O'Neill's stick blade is on the ice when she makes contact with the Clarkson player. It looks like she was trying to play the puck/defend Cornell's net so she leaned into the Clarkson player making bodily contact with her. After watching that replay a number of times, I'm still shocked that she received a game suspension particularly given it only drew a minor penalty at the time. It isn't like it happened behind the play and the refs couldn't see what happened.

[upprdeck]

Honestly other than the womens game allows very little contact, im not even sure why its a penalty.

 it wasnt from behind, it wasnt with a stick, it was if anything a slight elbow/ shoulder contact.

when you slow it down it looks more like a dive then a contact play, the clarkon player took for more contact by losing balance with the ice than with the player

 i didnt watch most of the game but there were several contact plays much worse than that not called for anything

[Jim Hyla]

Slow down the video. The Clarkson player had no physical contact with the Cornell player at the goal. We came in and hit her from the side, in a way that she could not defend herself. Our stick was up when the hit occurred and both officials called the penalty. If that was my daughter, I would have been angry. "No body checking" in women's hockey is a joke, but you cannot do an open ice blind side check. The injury could have been significant.

[Beeeej]

As for those of you continuing to harp on the "and the officials didn't call it worse than a minor at the time!" point, that is literally the reason why the league reviews potentially serious infractions, so they can 1) mete out what they believe is the appropriate punishment even if the refs didn't do so at the time, and 2) clarify to the refs that this should have been a point of emphasis and ought to be for the future. Whether you disagree with their eventual conclusion is really the only relevant question.

[andyw2100]

As for those of you continuing to harp on the "and the officials didn't call it worse than a minor at the time!" point, that is literally the reason why the league reviews potentially serious infractions, so they can 1) mete out what they believe is the appropriate punishment even if the refs didn't do so at the time, and 2) clarify to the refs that this should have been a point of emphasis and ought to be for the future. Whether you disagree with their eventual conclusion is really the only relevant question.

Well, then I hope the league had better video of the play than we do, and that that video shows something a lot worse than what we can see. Because based on what we can see, the contact just does not look that serious. O'Neill's stick blade was on the ice. She slowed and almost stopped before making contact. The contact appears to be shoulder to shoulder, and into open ice--not the boards. I just don't see it.

I really don't think I am looking at this through red-tinted glasses. I think I'd feel the same way if it was a Clarkson player suspended for a hit like that.