cu- lowell

[upprdeck]

the to's that they commit for no reason lead to too much chasing by the D.

first goal by cornell was just an awful replay review.
first goal by lowell was the cornell D being careless.
the 3rd lowell goal was just a bad lazy entry pass that turned into a rush the other way.

the last 2 goals came  when the game was out of reach but still  to have a call that a non call on the ice by refs who clearly saw the play and ignore it turn into a major and a  then to have qoal taken away by a too many men play that does not result in a penalty is just a bad rule.

the times cornell generated good pressure we didnt get rewarded or the clear slash on the yates play goes uncalled.

it wasnt a  5-0 game.  3-1 would have been a better result of the play, but who knows if they dont blow the first call and miss the too many men call maybe its 3-2 late and we get lucky or at least have a shot to pull the goalie

[Hooking]

". . . sturdy defensively, but everything else is up in the air." - That comment is annoyingly accurate and familiar. Still, following this year's Big Red team was immensely more enjoyable this year than last year. A similar improvement next year would brig joy to the faithful, more fans to Lynah, and more prospects to Ithaca. Hope springs eternal . . .

[GBR1234]

Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?

[French Rage]

Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?

Apparently it's only an additional penalty if occurring during a major penalty but not a minor penalty.  Which is really random.

[Beeeej]

Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?

Apparently it's only an additional penalty if occurring during a major penalty but not a minor penalty.  Which is really random.

That's not quite it. If I understand correctly:

Replay can only be used to assess a penalty if it is to assess a major where no call was made or where a minor call was made. Replay cannot be used to assess a minor where no call was made. The fact that there were too many men on the ice was enough to call back the goal, as the ongoing play that led to the goal was invalid, but they can't impose a penalty for it.

[French Rage]

Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?

Apparently it's only an additional penalty if occurring during a major penalty but not a minor penalty.  Which is really random.

That's not quite it. If I understand correctly:

Replay can only be used to assess a penalty if it is to assess a major where no call was made or where a minor call was made. Replay cannot be used to assess a minor where no call was made. The fact that there were too many men on the ice was enough to call back the goal, as the ongoing play that led to the goal was invalid, but they can't impose a penalty for it.

Ahh.  The broadcaster said something about major-not-minor and I misunderstood it.

Also, was I the only one not aware that college hockey still enforces the penalty even if the other team scores during the delayed penalty?

[Beeeej]

Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?

Apparently it's only an additional penalty if occurring during a major penalty but not a minor penalty.  Which is really random.

That's not quite it. If I understand correctly:

Replay can only be used to assess a penalty if it is to assess a major where no call was made or where a minor call was made. Replay cannot be used to assess a minor where no call was made. The fact that there were too many men on the ice was enough to call back the goal, as the ongoing play that led to the goal was invalid, but they can't impose a penalty for it.

Ahh.  The broadcaster said something about major-not-minor and I misunderstood it.

Also, was I the only one not aware that college hockey still enforces the penalty even if the other team scores during the delayed penalty?

That is a relatively recent rule change, so you're certainly not the only one who was surprised or had forgotten.

[Anne 85]

Why was a 2 minute penalty not assessed against UML after the goal was disallwoed for having too many men on the ice?
Can some explain?

Apparently it's only an additional penalty if occurring during a major penalty but not a minor penalty.  Which is really random.

You need to change your sig.

This is Trotsky, visiting, BTW.  Anne isn't obnoxious.  B-]

[jeff '84]

It was ruled a goal on the ice. There was not, in my opinion, irrefutable evidence that the puck was played with a high-stick. It was an incredibly close call. If it's that close, the refs should allow the call on the ice to stand.

I definitely feel like the refs are looking at the replays, and simply making a call based on what they see, with no regard for what was called on the ice. It's as if they are starting from scratch. Bullshit!

Lot of hating on CU in the comment section: http://www.uscho.com/frozen-four/2017/03/25/three-takeaways-from-umass-lowells-5-0-victory-over-cornell-in-the-northeast-regional/

[BearLover]

It was ruled a goal on the ice. There was not, in my opinion, irrefutable evidence that the puck was played with a high-stick. It was an incredibly close call. If it's that close, the refs should allow the call on the ice to stand.

I definitely feel like the refs are looking at the replays, and simply making a call based on what they see, with no regard for what was called on the ice. It's as if they are starting from scratch. Bullshit!

Lot of hating on CU in the comment section: http://www.uscho.com/frozen-four/2017/03/25/three-takeaways-from-umass-lowells-5-0-victory-over-cornell-in-the-northeast-regional/

These people are giant idiots

[andyw2100]

Also, was I the only one not aware that college hockey still enforces the penalty even if the other team scores during the delayed penalty?

One of the two commentators on our game was also confused about it. Eventually the other one cleared it up for him, though it took long enough that it wouldn't surprise me if he was handed a note or had someone talking in his ear or something.

[marty]

Also, was I the only one not aware that college hockey still enforces the penalty even if the other team scores during the delayed penalty?

One of the two commentators on our game was also confused about it. Eventually the other one cleared it up for him, though it took long enough that it wouldn't surprise me if he was handed a note or had someone talking in his ear or something.

The rule rarely results in two goals but Air Force scored its only goals that way against Harvard on Saturday.  The beautiful thing about their extra attacker goal was that they had to bring the puck the length of the ice and the score was made because the 6th man was just able to keep the puck in the zone as he skated on.

[jtwcornell91]

Also, was I the only one not aware that college hockey still enforces the penalty even if the other team scores during the delayed penalty?

That is a relatively recent rule change, so you're certainly not the only one who was surprised or had forgotten.

I'm not a big fan of that, but IIRC either college or pro used to go too far in the other direction.  Like if a goal is scored on a delayed penalty during a power play, it would wipe out both penalties.  (I.e., the power play would end and a new one wouldn't start.)

[Trotsky]

I'm not a big fan of that, but IIRC either college or pro used to go too far in the other direction.  Like if a goal is scored on a delayed penalty during a power play, it would wipe out both penalties.  (I.e., the power play would end and a new one wouldn't start.)

The WHL used this rule for one year and boy was it unpopular.  It also led to one of the strangest applications of a rule I've ever seen.  In an exhibition game Portland had a power play and a delayed penalty, Tri Cities accidentally pulled its goalie thinking the penalty was on Portland.  A Portland player picked up the puck at center ice and shot blindly at the goal and a TC dman, realizing their mistake, lunged and slid his stick across the ice, thus creating a second delayed penalty.  The stick missed the puck which missed the net.  With the TC man out of the play the Portland player casually skated in, picked the puck off the boards and put it in the net.

There was a 15 minute delay while the officials did a "So You Think You Know Baseball?" discussion.  After which they ruled thusly:

1. a goal occurred on a power play so the man in the box who created the power play comes out
2. the rule is that the delayed call also ends, which has to do with the possession team pulling its goalie and creating an additional manpower advantage, so the first delayed penalty is wiped out
3. the second delayed call produced no additional manpower advantage, so that penalty goes up on the board.

The whole rest of the game was just fans arguing about the rule.  No idea who won.

[LGR14]

The delayed penalty/goal thing has been the rule for a number of years now http://wcha.com/pdf/2010rulechanges.pdf