Cornell @ Clarkson 2017-02-18

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I still do not understand why the Cornell defense prevailed against a superior team and allegedly broke down against a considerably weaker team 24 hours later? I also read here that the Cornell offense was unable to cope with the Yale forecheck and was unable to deal with a similar Clarkson forecheck. If accurate, these reports indicate organizational rather than individual problems.

Before I dive head-first into the trap of actually answering your question, let me make sure I understand it:

You are unable to comprehend how the results of a game are not always in line with the mathematical expectations based on results of prior games? Is that about right?

TRANSLATION:  That's why they play the games.::whistle::

[Hooking]

Finally some consensus. No one is obliged to respond to upsetting questions, but the volunteer consensus is, "It is folly to seek or worse, hypothesize the cause of erratic athletic performance [except with numbers and statistics].

[BearLover]

I was not able to see this game and the comments on the game do not give a clear picture of why Cornell did not defeat Clarkson when they defeated a ranked opponent the previous night? All the numbers and statistics indicate Clarkson should not have been so even a match. Did any one problem stand out, such as defensive strategy, offensive strategy, short depth, or conditioning? It's not possible to address a problem until you identify it, and problems by definition repeat themselves.

One thing that came to mind during the game was how few grade-A scoring chances both teams had. It's almost like the two coaches had rather deep knowledge of each other's plays & styles...

I like what Cornell showed me in the 3rd. They found a way to get the two late goals they needed, but couldn't kill off the last 3:00 to seal it. Someone missed a good chance to clear the zone and deHaas made a textbook ECAC deflection shot right after it. I like our odds of locking down the final minutes with a lead more often than not, but this year hasn't been as automatic as in past years. Thin defensive corps?

Very thin!!!!! It will be our problem for the rest of the year.

Are you saying this because you don't expect us to get back many/any of our injured D-men?

[Beeeej]

Finally some consensus. No one is obliged to respond to upsetting questions, but the volunteer consensus is, "It is folly to seek or worse, hypothesize the cause of erratic athletic performance [except with numbers and statistics].

"Aha! Those are exactly the results I thought we'd get!!" exclaimed the lead scientist on the confirmation bias study.

[Al DeFlorio]

Finally some consensus. No one is obliged to respond to upsetting questions, but the volunteer consensus is, "It is folly to seek or worse, hypothesize the cause of erratic athletic performance [except with numbers and statistics].

"Aha! Those are exactly the results I thought we'd get!!" exclaimed the lead scientist on the confirmation bias study.

Perhaps Hooking will use his numbers and statistics to explain why the great 1968 and 1969 Cornell teams lost to Brown and RPI.  I suppose it was all Ned's fault for not "identifying and addressing the problem" that needed correcting.::rolleyes::

[Trotsky]

One thing that came to mind during the game was how few grade-A scoring chances both teams had. It's almost like the two coaches had a rather deep knowledge of each other's plays, styles, and tendencies for some reason...

As opposed to the prior night when Cornell had a dozen GREAT opportunities -- maybe even more.

One of the game reviews from Clarkson said the Knights had just 5 shots from the circles and in all night.  We were doing a great job not letting them get anything going.  On offense, Angello disappeared for the full weekend.  He's starting to remind me of a little of Riley Nash actually -- sometimes looks like Dom Moore, other times looks like Michael Moore.  I don't get it, but it may be some teams just know how to deal with him, or some teams deploy their best line against him while others send them against Vanderlaan.

[Trotsky]

Finally some consensus. No one is obliged to respond to upsetting questions, but the volunteer consensus is, "It is folly to seek or worse, hypothesize the cause of erratic athletic performance [except with numbers and statistics].

Stay down, son.  Stay down.

[daredevilcu]

I was at the game, and there should have been two suspensions for sure.

One, the guy who hit Dalpe and caused the injury should have gotten 5+game, possibly 5+DQ. It was clearly boarding, as Dalpe got thrown into the boards from 5 feet away. Could have also been charging. It also caused what I think was a clear concussion, and I'll be surprised if Dalpe plays again before Lake Placid.

Two, I believe it was deHaas, came flying in shortly after that play to a scrum in front of the Clarkson bench and sucker-punched that guy to the back of the head. Dropped him like a bad habit. Unacceptable, and while I understand why he did it, he really shouldn't be playing next weekend.

[Jim Hyla]

I was at the game, and there should have been two suspensions for sure.

One, the guy who hit Dalpe and caused the injury should have gotten 5+game, possibly 5+DQ. It was clearly boarding, as Dalpe got thrown into the boards from 5 feet away. Could have also been charging. It also caused what I think was a clear concussion, and I'll be surprised if Dalpe plays again before Lake Placid.

Two, I believe it was deHaas, came flying in shortly after that play to a scrum in front of the Clarkson bench and sucker-punched that guy to the back of the head. Dropped him like a bad habit. Unacceptable, and while I understand why he did it, he really shouldn't be playing next weekend.

Since Clarkson doesn't archive their games, (I believe they're the only ECAC team to not have archives. Poor for a tech school. Maybe that's why RPI likes to have fun with them.) we can't really go back and rewatch the play, to identify the player, or to see if it really was a penalty. But, since I don't know the Clarkson players that well, if you meant the play where the Clarkson player went down right before the sucker punch, well all I can say is that no refs hand went up. I would like to review it, if I could.

[andyw2100]

Since Clarkson doesn't archive their games, (I believe they're the only ECAC team to not have archives. Poor for a tech school. Maybe that's why RPI likes to have fun with them.) we can't really go back and rewatch the play, to identify the player, or to see if it really was a penalty. But, since I don't know the Clarkson players that well, if you meant the play where the Clarkson player went down right before the sucker punch, well all I can say is that no refs hand went up. I would like to review it, if I could.

Watching the video in real-time, I remember being surprised, based on the way the Clarkson player crumbled against the boards, that there was no call. At the time I thought it must have been because the hit happened far enough off the boards that the refs viewed it as an open-ice hit, and not as boarding. The commentator did say there was no call. Of course he also thought the hit came from Kubiak, not Starrett, though that information seemed to be given to him from someone else.

[daredevilcu]

I was at the game, and there should have been two suspensions for sure.

One, the guy who hit Dalpe and caused the injury should have gotten 5+game, possibly 5+DQ. It was clearly boarding, as Dalpe got thrown into the boards from 5 feet away. Could have also been charging. It also caused what I think was a clear concussion, and I'll be surprised if Dalpe plays again before Lake Placid.

Two, I believe it was deHaas, came flying in shortly after that play to a scrum in front of the Clarkson bench and sucker-punched that guy to the back of the head. Dropped him like a bad habit. Unacceptable, and while I understand why he did it, he really shouldn't be playing next weekend.

Since Clarkson doesn't archive their games, (I believe they're the only ECAC team to not have archives. Poor for a tech school. Maybe that's why RPI likes to have fun with them.) we can't really go back and rewatch the play, to identify the player, or to see if it really was a penalty. But, since I don't know the Clarkson players that well, if you meant the play where the Clarkson player went down right before the sucker punch, well all I can say is that no refs hand went up. I would like to review it, if I could.

Unfortunately, both of the officials were puck-watching all game. I don't think they caught a single interaction behind the play against either team. Miserably officiated game. While you're right that they didn't call that a penalty, it should have been 5+game at a minimum, and I'll be shocked if there isn't a league review resulting in two suspensions. The play that Vigneault got called for hooking with 30 seconds to go, Vigneault had the puck. How you hook someone when you're the puck carrier is beyond me.

I believe the hit was from Starrett, because a Clarkson forward went after him immediately, and then following that scrum, he got sucker punched by a Clarkson defenseman coming from the right side. If Starrett was the player who got punched, then he was the guy who boarded the Clarkson player.

If these two teams end up playing each other in the quarterfinal round, the ECAC had better send one of their best crews or it could easily get out of hand in a hurry.

[Trotsky]

If these two teams end up playing each other in the quarterfinal round, the ECAC had better send one of their best crews or it could easily get out of hand in a hurry.

Given the relationship between the coaches, I doubt this very much.

This isn't Pecknold and Gaudet.  Headhunting and vendettas won't be permitted by either coach.

[ugarte]

if you meant the play where the Clarkson player went down right before the sucker punch, well all I can say is that no refs hand went up. I would like to review it, if I could.

I believe the hit was from Starrett, because a Clarkson forward went after him immediately, and then following that scrum, he got sucker punched by a Clarkson defenseman coming from the right side. If Starrett was the player who got punched, then he was the guy who boarded the Clarkson player.

According to the radio crew, Kubiak hit Dalpe, no penalty but a whistle for the injury and the hit seemed clean. At or around the whistle (just before the whistle according to the guys on the mic) Starrett hit another guy (did he hit them both? or was Kubiak on the grassy knoll?) and then de Haas drilled Starrett. The broadcast crew thought the refs were debating whether dehaas was getting 2 or 5 and were stunned when Starrett got a double minor. Cornell doesn't have a homer crew so take that for what it's worth.

[daredevilcu]

I agree DeHaas deserved 5 for the hit on Starret. Uncalled for. Also I didn't notice it during the game, but the Clarkson player did end up returning to the game and was on the ice for the 3rd Cornell goal. Glad that ended up better than it looked.

[Weder]

if you meant the play where the Clarkson player went down right before the sucker punch, well all I can say is that no refs hand went up. I would like to review it, if I could.

I believe the hit was from Starrett, because a Clarkson forward went after him immediately, and then following that scrum, he got sucker punched by a Clarkson defenseman coming from the right side. If Starrett was the player who got punched, then he was the guy who boarded the Clarkson player.

According to the radio crew, Kubiak hit Dalpe, no penalty but a whistle for the injury and the hot seemed clean. At or around the whistle (just before the whistle according to the guys on the mic) Starrett hit another guy (did he hit them both? or was Kubiak on the grassy knoll?) and then de Haas drilled Starrett. The broadcast crew thought the refs were debating whether dehaas was getting 2 or 5 and were stunned when Starrett got a double minor. Cornell doesn't have a homer crew so take that for what it's worth.

On a recent broadcast, they noted that Jason Weinstein is a BU grad. (It's probably been mentioned before, but I don't remember hearing it.)