ECAC '25 Final Red vs. Clarkson

[Tom Lento]

How fitting to beat Clarkson, once again...on an icing that wasn't.

I'm a big fan of honoring history, and imma let him finish, but can we please re-name the tournament trophy the Mike Schafer Cup, please?

Totally. It's been such a pleasure following his teams over the years.

I'm a little upset they got rid of the consolation game, because they could make a trophy for winning it and call it the Pecknold.

Given Q's SF record are you sure that trophy should be for the consolation winner?

[Robb]

How fitting to beat Clarkson, once again...on an icing that wasn't.

I'm a big fan of honoring history, and imma let him finish, but can we please re-name the tournament trophy the Mike Schafer Cup, please?

Totally. It's been such a pleasure following his teams over the years.

I'm a little upset they got rid of the consolation game, because they could make a trophy for winning it and call it the Pecknold.

Given Q's SF record are you sure that trophy should be for the consolation winner?

I was thinking the Pecknold cup should go to whichever team knocks off the #1 seed.

[Give My Regards]

How fitting to beat Clarkson, once again...on an icing that wasn't.

It really looked like icing to me, but I'm sure as hell not going to ask Doug Christiansen about it :-)

[scoop85]

How fitting to beat Clarkson, once again...on an icing that wasn't.

It really looked like icing to me, but I'm sure as hell not going to ask Doug Christiansen about it :-)

Because Bancroft was clearly ahead of the Clarkson Dman at center ice, I think it was a proper call.

[BearLover]

How fitting to beat Clarkson, once again...on an icing that wasn't.

It really looked like icing to me, but I'm sure as hell not going to ask Doug Christiansen about it :-)

Because Bancroft was clearly ahead of the Clarkson Dman at center ice, I think it was a proper call.

It's not about who's ahead at center ice, it's about who's ahead at the dot. But it definitely looked like Bancroft majorly let up once the linesman waived it off.

[CU2007]

If we somehow win this I'll admit everything wrong I did to Bearlover

Time to pay the piper

[Robb]

How fitting to beat Clarkson, once again...on an icing that wasn't.

It really looked like icing to me, but I'm sure as hell not going to ask Doug Christiansen about it :-)

Because Bancroft was clearly ahead of the Clarkson Dman at center ice, I think it was a proper call.

Oh, I agree with you - hence, an "icing" that wasn't.  Also can't forget that Clarkson handily won the race to that puck, but couldn't keep possession.  They had every opportunity to get that back out of the zone, but didn't.

[stereax]

Never in doubt eh folks?

I spent the last 30 minutes of the game praying to god and ian shane

[scoop85]

How fitting to beat Clarkson, once again...on an icing that wasn't.

It really looked like icing to me, but I'm sure as hell not going to ask Doug Christiansen about it :-)

Because Bancroft was clearly ahead of the Clarkson Dman at center ice, I think it was a proper call.

It's not about who's ahead at center ice, it's about who's ahead at the dot. But it definitely looked like Bancroft majorly let up once the linesman waived it off.

Yes, I should have added that fact. Bancroft was ahead of Taylor when the linesman waived it off and Bancroft then clearly let up. The fact that Taylor then "beat" Bancroft to the goaline was then irrelevant, since the linesman had already made his call. It could be argued the linesman made his call prematurely, but once made the race to the goal line was rendered moot.

[Robb]

How fitting to beat Clarkson, once again...on an icing that wasn't.

It really looked like icing to me, but I'm sure as hell not going to ask Doug Christiansen about it :-)

Because Bancroft was clearly ahead of the Clarkson Dman at center ice, I think it was a proper call.

It's not about who's ahead at center ice, it's about who's ahead at the dot. But it definitely looked like Bancroft majorly let up once the linesman waived it off.

Yes, I should have added that fact. Bancroft was ahead of Taylor when the linesman waived it off and Bancroft then clearly let up. The fact that Taylor then "beat" Bancroft to the goaline was then irrelevant, since the linesman had already made his call. It could be argued the linesman made his call prematurely, but once made the race to the goal line was rendered moot.

And the more I think about it, I'm a little bit in awe of what a smart play that was - put in the effort to beat the icing, but then don't overplay it.  Cede the possession of the puck in lieu of maintaining defensive shape.  That was a seriously veteran move by a well-coached player.

[BearLover]

How fitting to beat Clarkson, once again...on an icing that wasn't.

It really looked like icing to me, but I'm sure as hell not going to ask Doug Christiansen about it :-)

Because Bancroft was clearly ahead of the Clarkson Dman at center ice, I think it was a proper call.

It's not about who's ahead at center ice, it's about who's ahead at the dot. But it definitely looked like Bancroft majorly let up once the linesman waived it off.

Yes, I should have added that fact. Bancroft was ahead of Taylor when the linesman waived it off and Bancroft then clearly let up. The fact that Taylor then "beat" Bancroft to the goaline was then irrelevant, since the linesman had already made his call. It could be argued the linesman made his call prematurely, but once made the race to the goal line was rendered moot.

But the linesman can't waive it off because Bancroft was ahead at center ice, he can only waive it off because it was went off a Clarkson stick or was playable by Clarkson, right? The way I saw it was that the waive-off was incorrect, but immaterial because Bancroft would have won the race anyway.

[upprdeck]

why cant the icing be waived off early?  If the dude thinks cornell was clearly going to win the race to dot he doesnt have to wait for the dot to make the decision,

[BearLover]

why cant the icing be waived off early?  If the dude thinks cornell was clearly going to win the race to dot he doesnt have to wait for the dot to make the decision,

Maybe I have the rule wrong then? I thought icing cannot be waived off for that reason.

[scoop85]

why cant the icing be waived off early?  If the dude thinks cornell was clearly going to win the race to dot he doesnt have to wait for the dot to make the decision,

Maybe I have the rule wrong then? I thought icing cannot be waived off for that reason.

I haven't checked the rule, but I believe the linesman has broad discretion as to when he can waive off the icing if he believes the offensive player is sufficiently ahead of the defender

[BearLover]

Unlike last night's game where Cornell clearly had the better of the play, today's was a coin flip. I feel fortunately things broke out way.