2019-11-22: Cornell 2 Quinnipiac 1

[Trotsky]

It's nice to be toasty warm.  Let's stay that way.

[upprdeck]

the flurry in the first where we have it away 2-3 times in a row and a bit on the pp were about all the offense Quin created..  they really pressured on the forecheck at times and we threw those away a few times.. when they didnt forecheck they were in trouble was we were able to get around the D on rushes all night.

the late miss major really messed up the rest of the game instead of a 5 min PP we had a 4x4 that almost lead to a Quin goal and then Barron got to near the goalie who flopped well and that almost spoiled the game

i think that the story teams will have to use all year to really try to pressure our D to give up some soft goals because our transition passing is pretty good and when we cycle we will wear teams out with the 4 lines

[marty]

the flurry in the first where we have it away 2-3 times in a row and a bit on the pp were about all the offense Quin created..  they really pressured on the forecheck at times and we threw those away a few times.. when they didnt forecheck they were in trouble was we were able to get around the D on rushes all night.

the late miss major really messed up the rest of the game instead of a 5 min PP we had a 4x4 that almost lead to a Quin goal and then Barron got to near the goalie who flopped well and that almost spoiled the game

i think that the story teams will have to use all year to really try to pressure our D to give up some soft goals because our transition passing is pretty good and when we cycle we will wear teams out with the 4 lines

Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties?  This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?

[andyw2100]

Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties?  This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?

I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?

[billhoward]

the story teams will have to use all year to really try to pressure our D to give up some soft goals

That is a prayer more than a strategy. It maybe works in a Hallmark movie where single hockey mom Lori Loughlin's kid and a golden retriever ["the rulebook doesn't say anything about dogs not playing"] save the day for the underdogs and win the heart of the just-widowed coach. (In a Hallmark movie, the coach is probably not female. That'd be a nice twist.)

[billhoward]

Announcers only clarified that a non-call could not be turned into a minor, but yes it could be for a major.

[Robb]

It was great to see that Galajda could deliver a blue chip performance when the team needed it. Not a lot of saves but some were stellar. Now let's not have to see that again. :-)

Who would have thought the team would be 7-0 and Galajda would not have a shutout.

Good point. But with our "new" style of play that features our defensemen being more active offensively, we do see more odd man opportunities against us, so shutouts would seemingly be less prevalent.

if we had a PK, Galajda would probably have 3 shutouts by now....

[marty]

Announcers only clarified that a non-call could not be turned into a minor, but yes it could be for a major.

Which is bizarre and can result in a 5 minute major for interference which I am fairly certain is the only way interference would be called a major penalty.

And this make sense why?::screwy::

[ugarte]

Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties?  This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?

I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?

i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.

since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.

[marty]

Can someone come up with a justification for all penalties called as a result of video review being mandated as major penalties?  This helped us tonight but screwed us in the 2018 NCAA game vs. BU where a video review resulted in a five minute major for INTERFERENCE!?!?

I thought that the rule was a review could be used to change a minor penalty into a major penalty, or a no-call into a minor penalty, but not a no-call into a major. Did that rule change, or was my understanding not correct?

i think the logic is that they go to review only to catch something BIG that they missed because they always miss a few calls a game just because you can't see 100% of the ice 100% of the time.

since the review is only for the purpose of figuring out if a major slipped through the cracks, if they happen to see a minor it goes uncalled because it would be a windfall to catch a minor just because they happened to be watching for another purpose.

But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.

[upprdeck]

why are we walking about a interference being changed to a major?  why would that happen?

[Trotsky]

But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.

Was it "contact to the head"?  I thought any minor could include that and the inclusion made it a major.

[upprdeck]

yes it was contact to the head that was called.

[Trotsky]

"Delay of game -- contact to the head."  ;-)

[Beeeej]

But this hardly explains how/why a major would be called for interference.

Was it "contact to the head"?  I thought any minor could include that and the inclusion made it a major.

I think what's essentially happening - and what some of you have alluded to and danced around, but not come right out and said - is this:

The refs miss a call, they look at it on replay and find that it was a pretty obvious call that they're embarrassed to have missed, and their only two options are: 1) No call, because the rule doesn't allow them to call a minor based on a replay, or 2) A major. So they call a major because a no-call makes them look like idiots who didn't get it right. Maybe the behavior wouldn't have justified a major if they'd seen it in real time, but it also wasn't accidental or innocent enough that they'll feel good about a no-call, so a major allows them to look at themselves in the mirror and sleep at night.

Y'know what? If that's what's going on, I'm pretty okay with that.