NCAA Game 2: UNH

[ugarte]

Watching the game at home, I was positive that there were at least 2 seconds left, maybe 3.

I remember Cornell scoring in 2 (3?) seconds against Harvard off of a face-off to send a game into OT.  Vanini in 1991, IIRC - but I have no confidence that I do.

[cbuckser]

It was Tim Vanini who tied the game in the final minute against Harvard in February 1991.

[twh2]

Ok, sorry, another question.  They waived off an aweful lot of icing calls throughout the game as I remember, why would they waive off icing in the last few seconds when any Cornell player is obviously going to do his very best to not let that puck get down ice?  I guess that's not really a question that can be answered since I doubt the assistant ref is going to come in here and explain himself, or the incredible amount of penalties in the first period which were questionable for both teams.  The only reason I can see for waiving off so many would be to keep the game flowing, but then why call so many penalties.  Ah well, I should let it go, it was a great game:-/

[Beeeej]

WAVE off!!  "Waive" is something you do to your rights; "wave off" is something a ref does by flapping his arms in a particular manner.

Nobody should take that personally; it's just been driving me batshit, and IMHO not having Cornell in the semis in St. Paul is a good enough excuse for me to take my frustrations out on you for a few moments.

Anyway, I believe I saw the puck go three-hole, but if a clear view on replay shows five-hole, no biggie.  I'm not sure why it matters so much that we're having a "debate," anyway.

Move along, nothing to see here,

Beeeej

[twh2]

Ok, chill, I'm home sick today, no need to get nasty;-)

[Beeeej]

And could you have a longer host name?!  Geez!!  And those shoes!!

 ::nut::

Beeeej

[twh2]

 ::laugh::   Peace man.  It sure would've been nice for Cornell to win yesterday...

[twh2]

And I will make sure to only describe it as WAVING off icing forever more:-P

[CUlater \'89]

I assume we're having a "debate" because you so rarely admit that you're wrong, so people jump at the chance to prove you wrong ;-)

[Beeeej]

Charles:

I rarely am factually wrong.  :-D  But when I'm factually wrong, I admit it.  For instance I predicted a few years ago that 2002 would be Cornell's next Frozen Four appearance.  We came close but I was still wrong.  "Debates" about facts aren't of much use - as I said, if the tape shows five-hole it was five-hole.

If you want to talk about differences of opinion or style, then all I have to say is:

Thanks, Pot, I'll try to acknowledge my failings more often.

Kettle

::rolleyes::

[chag]

A favorite saying you should adopt, when rarely wrong :

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. ;-)

[jeh25]

Alright. Who pissed in Anbinder's wheaties?  ::yark::

[cbuckser]

Must have been Jim Abbott (the hockey player, not the former baseball pitcher).

[CowbellGuy]

Sorry. Thought they were a Sno-Cone...  ::uhoh::

[CUlater \'89]

Your welcome,  but who is this "Charles" person?

Beth:  Might a better quote be, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts"?  ;-)