ECAC Finals: Clarkson 3 Cornell 2 (OT)

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

They lost a second-line forward minutes into the game and then conceded a goal on the horseshit penalty call...

What did that look like on the broadcast / replay? My sense watching it live was that neither player really saw the other.

Exactly right. Clarkson player changed directions into him and there was nowhere for him to go, hence his injury. A truly awful penalty call in every sense.

I spoke to Malott's father after he went in the locker room to talk to Jeff.  He said the Clarkson guy fell on Jeff's leg.  It wasn't the initial contact that caused the injury.  And yes, it's an ACL.

[Dafatone]

Oh well. We played well. They played well. The refs managed to blow some calls, block some clears, and let a net fall on Galajda.

I'd be madder if Clarkson weren't the only other ECAC team I don't hate.

I guess RPI is okay.

[BearLover]

If Galajda is too hurt to play next week I peg our chances of beating Northeastern around 25%.

[ugarte]

Yeah, I don't see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate "should have been offsides" comment

the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

[CU2007]

Yeah, I don't see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate "should have been offsides" comment

the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don't know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn't that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable

[LGR14]

Yeah, I don't see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate "should have been offsides" comment

the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don't know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn't that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable

This has happened from time to time in the NHL and it's not reviewable.  They only review the last entry that led to the goal.  The last entry was legal, even though the one immediately preceding it was not.  Yes, it's stupid.

[ugarte]

Yeah, I don't see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate "should have been offsides" comment

the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don't know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn't that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable

think of it this way. the poke check happens, the refs don't blow the whistle. Cornell gets possession, carries the puck up the ice, muck around a bit in the Clarkson end, Clarkson gets possession without a stoppage in play, enters the zone cleanly, scores. Reviewable?

the problem is definitely NOT that there isn't enough offsides review in college hockey.

[CU2007]

Yeah, I don't see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate "should have been offsides" comment

the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don't know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn't that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable

think of it this way. the poke check happens, the refs don't blow the whistle. Cornell gets possession, carries the puck up the ice, muck around a bit in the Clarkson end, Clarkson gets possession without a stoppage in play, enters the zone cleanly, scores. Reviewable?

the problem is definitely NOT that there isn't enough offsides review in college hockey.

Is that what happened? If so that makes more sense to me. I haven't seen a replay. I don't think you should be able to demand a replay from 5 minutes ago if the play has gone up and down the ice. To be honest, I don't remember the lead up to the goal.

[Jim Hyla]

Yeah, I don't see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate "should have been offsides" comment

the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don't know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn't that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable

think of it this way. the poke check happens, the refs don't blow the whistle. Cornell gets possession, carries the puck up the ice, muck around a bit in the Clarkson end, Clarkson gets possession without a stoppage in play, enters the zone cleanly, scores. Reviewable?

the problem is definitely NOT that there isn't enough offsides review in college hockey.

Is that what happened? If so that makes more sense to me. I haven't seen a replay. I don't think you should be able to demand a replay from 5 minutes ago if the play has gone up and down the ice. To be honest, I don't remember the lead up to the goal.

No, the offsides was immediately before. ugarte was just exaggerating to make the point as to why they couldn't review it. Too many mistakes by officials in this game and unfortunately 2 of them led to the loss.

[CU2007]

Yeah, I don't see any offsides. Topher let his partisanship show with his immediate "should have been offsides" comment

the explanation in the Cornell Sun was that as soon as the puck entered the Cornell zone on the poke check with the Clarkson player still offsides, the play should have been blown dead regardless of the subsequent touch up and reentry, but that manner of offsides isn't reviewable. The zone entry after the blown call was legal, so the goal stands.

I don't know the semantics of the rule book but offside in hockey really isn't that complicated, and every manner should be reviewable

think of it this way. the poke check happens, the refs don't blow the whistle. Cornell gets possession, carries the puck up the ice, muck around a bit in the Clarkson end, Clarkson gets possession without a stoppage in play, enters the zone cleanly, scores. Reviewable?

the problem is definitely NOT that there isn't enough offsides review in college hockey.

Is that what happened? If so that makes more sense to me. I haven't seen a replay. I don't think you should be able to demand a replay from 5 minutes ago if the play has gone up and down the ice. To be honest, I don't remember the lead up to the goal.

No, the offsides was immediately before. ugarte was just exaggerating to make the point as to why they couldn't review it. Too many mistakes by officials in this game and unfortunately 2 of them led to the loss.

That was my view too. Welp, fuck em. No other path forward. Rallying cry into the big dance. Let's go get em

[adamw]

One of the smallest worst calls of the night was the high stick whistle against Donaldson (I believe) when he batted down the puck at this waist - would've had a clear path to the net.

[BigRedHockeyFan]

Video of the goal, with a look at the possible offsides:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1109656661143126019

[BigRedHockeyFan]

Klack's left skate is in the crease before he shoots and before Nuttle pushes him.

[BigRedHockeyFan]

Malott's injury looked ugly.  I hope he will be ok for next season.

[BigRedHockeyFan]

Second Cornell goal:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1109634416676995074

First Cornell goal:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1109605210387677184