Cornell VS Clarkson , Saturday Feb 23rd

[Ben Doyle 03]

and maybe they even burned thier fingers. . .:-P

[jtwcornell91]

I'm with Tom and Keith; I don't see it as mocking, but teasing.  The first time I saw that I thought it was hilarious.  (This as opposed to the mocking Alma lyrics, which are annoying and unfunny, but I suppose something of a tradition at this point, kind of like hotel and ag school jokes at football games.)  Sorry, DeltaOne, but your pompous reaction is just the sort of thing that gives Clarkson fans a reason to tease us about the Alma Mater.

And nothing I've heard from a pep band, even Colgate playing over one of our cheers, is anywhere near as classless and stupid as throwing bottles or other non-ritualistic crap on the ice.

[tml5]

You know, I was wondering about that.  Having a lighter on for all 6 verses of the Alma Mater must not be too pleasant.  If nothing else, maybe they melted the top of the lighter.  :-)

[judy]

I was wondering if they all had new lighters or if one of their lighters would go out due to lack of butane :-P

[DeltaOne81]

I didn't mean to sound pompous. Due to other things in my life, I'm not having the best night, so I'm not going to type much, but I'm sorry. I think the internet may have made things come across worse than they were meant. Believe me, I would never condone bottle throwing or throwing of anything other than newspapers and fish at the Harvard (sucks) game. I'd rather have Clarkson do that at every game than have one Cornell fan throw one bottle on the ice all season. It is absolutely classless. As much as some people don't like it, maybe another note is in order (ala the keys one last year).

Maybe I've always considered the alma mater a little more serious than I should - maybe I should work on that.

[tml5]

There's nothing wrong with having a healthy respect for the alma mater, but I think there's also nothing wrong with some friendly heckling that involves a school's alma mater.  Playing over it - bad.  Having an entire student section turn its back to the band - bad.  Lighters?  That's kinda funny, actually.  Maybe I'm just a jerk.  :-)

[RichS]

Al,

Nope, I didn't miss those comments...but let me get this straight...

Fans of the other team see things differently than you do, and you automatically call that "whining"?

::rolleyes::

FWIW, I had a two brief conversations with one of the red-jacketed cornell security officers at ice level at the bottom of section O.  He said he's a cornell fan, of course...but said he thought Kotyra was awful...both ways!   Care to spin that one, sir? :-D

[JordanCS]

I agree that Kotyra was awful.  I thought that there were plenty of penalties that should have been called on both sides.  It started with that early whistle on the CU goal that wasn't, then the horrible call on McRae that led to the third Clarkson goal, then the horrible call on McMeekin...2 minutes for receiving.  After that, it seemed to me that Clarkson was taking cheap shots for a while, and Kotyra called none of them.  After a bit, Clarkson settled down, and Cornell realized that Kotyra was calling nothing, so they started taking cheap shots.  They had tons of infractions that should have been called, but Kotyra insisted on letting the game get out of hand.  It was penalty after penalty on both sides, none of which were called...eventually it led to a fight.  At least...that's the way I saw it.

[kaelistus]

Jordan,

That's the way I saw it too. In fact, with a couple of exceptions, I think most fights in College Hockey start because of a referee that's too lax in his calls.

It still doesn't justify the puck throwing at our coach tho'.

[RichS]

Guys,

I think you're forgetting that the call on McMeekin was part of matching minors.  Clarkson's Zach Schwan is shorter and 60 lbs lighter than McMeekin who certainly gave more than he recieved in that instance.

The cornell cheap stuff started early...with Murray's blatant hit from behind in the first the first that was actually called.  When Hagwell looks at the tape, hopefully he'll see Murray's two blatant cheap cross checks to the back of a player who was down in front of the Clarkson bench late in the third.

Also the numerous crease violations by both teams!

There is no love lost between these teams and how a referee, knowing that, could let the game get out of control, especially when scoring chances are denied, is inexcusable.  With Hagwell in attendance to boot!

[peterg]

It's off topic, but I can't help but note for the CNY locals that Clarkson's Zach Schwan is Ithaca's Zach Schwan- the product of Ithaca Youth Hockey, and a season at IHS before moving on to the Capital District Selects and then to Clarkson.  A great guy, too!

[tml5]

Well, I wasn't on top of the McMeekin play, so I'm not sure exactly what went on.  From where I was sitting, it looked like McMeekin was hooked, held, and then bodyslammed.  If he hit Schwan first, or last, or in the middle, then sure he deserved a penalty, but there was no way to see it at that distance.  You were in a better position to see the play than I was, if you were in section O (I guess it depends on where in section O).  What, exactly, did McMeekin do to earn the penalty?  I'm just curious.  I don't think anyone is claiming that Cornell was unfairly put a man down, I think everyone is complaining that there should've been a Cornell powerplay.  Of course, Clarkson can counter by saying that there was a blatant trip of a Golden Knight on a partial breakaway in the second that could've been a penalty - but nobody is claiming that Kotyra didn't miss anything.

As for the numerous uncalled penalties on both sides, I don't think that too many people who know the game would disagree.  Clarkson got away with the occasional leg trip (including one at the start of the game, although it wasn't a malicious intent to injure or anything like that), charging, hitting from behind, and lots of interference.  Cornell got away with the occasional cross check, charging, hitting from behind, and lots of interference.  Both teams were getting their sticks up and giving facials in the corners, more so than I've seen in other games.  Cook and O'Flaherty should've both been put in the box about 10 seconds before the fight broke out, and it turned out to be *very* bad for Clarkson that they weren't.  As for Murray - he's big, he's mean, and he doesn't take kindly to people hanging on him, hooking him, going out of their way to hit him when he doesn't have the puck, and generally trying to knock him around.  Night in and night out other teams do anything they can to slow him down and knock him off his game, and I'm not too surprised that he started beating on a couple of the Golden Knights - it's not the first time he's gotten, ahem, fired up and taken it out on an opponent, both physically and on the scoreboard, and it won't be the last.  Also, if I'm thinking about the same cross-checks that you're thinking of, then they were far from vicious.  How many times have you seen a "stay down" hit put on another player?  Should it happen - probably not.  Is it worth a penalty?  Sure.  Was Murray the only player on the ice to do something like that?  Absolutely not.  If Hagwell sees it, he'll probably say something like "should've been 2 minutes for cross-checking, but it's too late now."  The blatant hit from behind was clearly a penalty, but if the Clarkson player had been turned 30 degrees to either side it might've been legal, and Murray lined him up before the guy turned around.  I guess he didn't see Doug coming, since he turned his back to get into the play (or perhaps to leave the ice - Clarkson was on a change at that point).  Just food for thought.

Finally, it was a great game, marred by some ugliness at the end.  I thought Clarkson played very well, and apart from a couple of breakdowns the Knights could've won that game.  They had a couple of players with great speed, although overall I don't think they were that much faster than the Big Red, and it seems to me that Walsh was a little bit off of his game.  Kudos to Morris for pulling the goalie early.  I know some people don't like it, but I prefer the non-conservative approach.  Get a good line combination and control of the puck with less than 2 minutes, and it's a good time for the extra skater.  Also, the Knight forecheck was a lot of fun to watch when Cornell was trying to work that set breakout play.  The weave definitely threw the Red for a loop in the first, although the breakout adjusted pretty well.

[Anne 85]

FWIW, from Section C, the "blatant hit from behind" by Murray didn't look so blatant, but it occurred in the dangerous area within a foot or two of the boards (and in front of the Clarkson bench), so I don't have a problem with the call.  I am a little surprised, however, that the play could be seen so clearly from Section O.  

I would have called the "stay down" cross-check, but Kotyra was clearly not calling anything at that point.  

It seems that all agree it was not a very well officiated game, and hopefully both coaches will point this out to the ECAC.  But I don't feel that Clarkson was put at an unfair disadvantage because of the officiating.  After all, Cornell had 1 goal waved off and I think they had fewer powerplay chances (I only remember 1 real Cornell powerplay, although obviously there was also a powerplay at the very end of the game).

Overall, I thought it was a great game -- much better than the one on Friday.  Both teams played well and fought hard for the full 60 minutes.  It was just the kind of game you expect to see between these two teams at this point of the season.

[Al DeFlorio]

Brava, Anne!  You've got it exactly right.  

The refereeing--good, bad, or indifferent--did not affect the outcome of the game.  And blaming a loss on the referee--or the ice conditions, or a leaky roof, or the long lines at the rest rooms--is whining.

This was a good hockey game.  Clarkson played well.  Cornell played better than I had thought they might--given the clinching of top seed the night before.  If they play again it might turn out differently.

[Give My Regards]

Joining the discussion a little late, and maybe I should leave the Willie Mitchell thing alone...

I recall watching this game on tape, which clearly showed the Mitchell shot hitting the corner of the glass above the bench, then catching Coach Schafer in the head on the rebound.  IIRC, Willie was just flailing around during a stoppage in play and shot the puck in disgust over something or other -- he didn't line it up.  Also, while Willie had a heck of a shot, nobody's got such good aim that he could catch someone on a rebound high off the glass.

Idiotic?  Yes.  Irresponsible?  Definitely, and I also remember wondering why he didn't get a delay-of-game penalty for shooting the puck out of play.  But a deliberate attempt to injure?  Not a chance.  What the kid did Saturday night sounds a heck of a lot worse.