cu- lowell

[upprdeck]

great they overruled the goal.. terrible they missed it in the first place it was so obvious.. we needed a few breaks to beat this team and screwing up the first goal and missing the 2 many men penalty hurt us when we generate so fewer many chances..   even the yates chance was ruined by a slash out front worse then the trip we got called for down low.

 but the PP is awful and thats our fault too.

[snert1288]

The too many men did appear obvious! Gotta score one

[snert1288]

Great first shift of 3rd period

[upprdeck]

good pressure the start of each period.. got nothing for it.  then they would make a bad play and pay for it.

still only allowing under 15 shots it should be closer but the few lowell chances are all point blank

[David Harding]

its where the contact occurs not where the stick is.  

i was trying to find the most recent rule about it.  all the older rules i found makes it sound like it should have counted like the announcers though..  it was easily below the shoulder but maybe its really the net?

87.4 Disallowed Goal - When an attacking player causes the puck to enter the opponent's goal by contacting the puck above the height of the crossbar, either directly or deflected off any player or official, the goal shall not be allowed.  The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick.  If the puck makes contact with the stick below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.

93.4 Video Replay Criteria - The following criteria are subject to the use of video replay:
...
* A puck directed or deflected into the net by a high stick.  (See 83.6)
...
* To determine if a goal was scored as the direct result of a hand pass or high stick by an attacking player to a teammate or deflection off of the goalkeeper.
...

83.6 Disallowed Goals - An apparent goal shall not be allowed by the Referee in any of the following cases:
* An attacking player strikes the puck with a stick when the puck is above the height of the crossbar of th gaol frame (4 feet).  Where the puck contacts the stick is the determining factor in this rule.
,..

[upprdeck]

so none of the things happened they would cause the goal to be taken away.

the 2 many men penalty was awful

the late major not even sure what they called that..  seen far worse get no call this year.

[BMac]

Just a shitty way to end the game. These refs and their reviews have been painful

[upprdeck]

lowell is better so losing doesnt feel so bad, but still mutliple reviews even the announcers question is pretty bad.

[ugarte]

Better team - today and all year - won. Officiating was still dubious. McCarron interference (to create 4x4) was bullshit; McCarron major at the end should have been a minor. Took way too long to wave off the too-many-men goal when it was insanely obvious.

In general I hate replay review for rules infractions other than goalie interference or to see whether the puck was in the net. A blown offsides call that doesn't lead to a goal on the rush should stand; a high-stick that requires a subjective off-angle review should stand; a less-egregious uncalled too-many-men should stand (though this one was a Rosie Ruiz-level joke).

But to reiterate, there are no circumstances other than the egregious reffing going against Lowell all game that would have resulted in a Cornell W. A well-reffed game would have been a closer loss.

[djk26]

Disappointing... I was 80% sure Cornell would lose, but did not expect it to be this bad.  And now we graduate 38% of our goals+assists, plus our goaltender.  :-O

Even so, the team did better than expected this year, they should be proud.

[abmarks]

Lowell was superb.  A Lowell v Harvard match-up would be a he'll of a game

[BMac]

They really should be proud. Especially with the injuries they had, this was a team that got it together and provided one of the most fun seasons in quite a while

[imafrshmn]

They really should be proud. Especially with the injuries they had, this was a team that got it together and provided one of the most fun seasons in quite a while

+1 [god, i wish the ELF still had that feature]

[BearLover]

Better team - today and all year - won. Officiating was still dubious. McCarron interference (to create 4x4) was bullshit; McCarron major at the end should have been a minor. Took way too long to wave off the too-many-men goal when it was insanely obvious.

In general I hate replay review for rules infractions other than goalie interference or to see whether the puck was in the net. A blown offsides call that doesn't lead to a goal on the rush should stand; a high-stick that requires a subjective off-angle review should stand; a less-egregious uncalled too-many-men should stand (though this one was a Rosie Ruiz-level joke).

But to reiterate, there are no circumstances other than the egregious reffing going against Lowell all game that would have resulted in a Cornell W. A well-reffed game would have been a closer loss.

Cornell didn't play badly enough to conclude this.  UML is clearly better but an early goal was one of the ways Cornell was going to sneak out alive.  I hope the referees know something in the rules that we don't, because otherwise overturning the call on the ice made little sense.  

Schafer had the team prepared.  Cornell was ready for all of UML's stretch passes and contained their breaks as best as they realistically could.  But UML skated so much faster and was so much crisper in their passing and was so much more suffocating in their forecheck.  That's been the story all season, and really for the past eight years, whenever Cornell has struggled against the top teams.  Today wasn't a gameplan thing; it was a recruiting thing.  There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Schafer can coach a defense.  The players however simply aren't there to compete with the Yales and Qs and Harvards and UMLs on the forecheck and in transition.  

UML, which in six years has gone from cellar dweller to one of the premier programs in college hockey, has shown you don't need top-flight talent or
a hoard of 5'7 guys to play this way.  Schafer is well aware of all of this, but the Baulds, Hoffmans, Murphys, and Lalors didn't really blow anybody away this year.  Hopefully they'll develop.  Next year's team will be sturdy defensively, but everything else is up in the air.

[ugarte]

This squad gets ruined by a decent forecheck and today they were facing a good one. They play solid defense when they get set up but they simply don't stickhandle well enough to get the puck out of their own end and then the defense has to scramble after the turnover,

I couldn't tune in until after we were down 1-0 so I didn't see the reversal but everything after I turned the game on was an uphill slog despite being down a single goal.