NCAA Game 2: UNH

[CUlater \'89]

Just to clarify, "Your" in my above post was intentionally misspelled, just to cause a little trouble.

[CowbellGuy]

Quick, change it to "You're" before he throws another hissy-fit! ::uhoh::

Edit: Sorry. Didn't read the follow up before posting

[ugarte]

:-(  Whoa, Beeeej.  I asked for a tape review to avoid this.  I don't know CULater's name, but the fight you are picking shouldn't be with me.

Of course if you want me to give you two minutes for nitpicking (correct though it is) for the whole wave/waive thing I can be tempted . . . B-]

so sayeth the Pot.

[ugarte]

CUlater '89 wrote:

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

That would be me.

[tml5]

The goal was scored five hole, based on what I saw on the replay.  Under the stick, right through the pads, and into the net.

At full speed I also thought it went in because Underhill didn't really seal off the post, just under the arm or possibly just outside of his left pad.  The replay surprised me, and everyone else I was with, since none of us thought it had gone in *through* Underhill.

Unless there was a touch, or a Cornell player right near the puck or something, that icing should not have been waved off.  There would have been approximately 2 seconds left in the game if icing had been called.

Perhaps the play on the GWG was offsides, but it wasn't a goal scored on a rush.  The puck went into the corner, Abbott got it down low, and Cornell recovered into position but didn't pick up the puck carrier.  If the play was offsides, fine, but I don't think that it had much of an effect on the end result.  Great play by Abbott, and a great shot to beat Underhill.

[jeh25]

ROTFLMAO.

 ::yark::

[Josh '99]

Tom Lento wrote:

The goal was scored five hole, based on what I saw on the replay.  Under the stick, right through the pads, and into the net.

At full speed I also thought it went in because Underhill didn't really seal off the post, just under the arm or possibly just outside of his left pad.  The replay surprised me, and everyone else I was with, since none of us thought it had gone in *through* Underhill.

Unless there was a touch, or a Cornell player right near the puck or something, that icing should not have been waved off.  There would have been approximately 2 seconds left in the game if icing had been called.

Perhaps the play on the GWG was offsides, but it wasn't a goal scored on a rush.  The puck went into the corner, Abbott got it down low, and Cornell recovered into position but didn't pick up the puck carrier.  If the play was offsides, fine, but I don't think that it had much of an effect on the end result.  Great play by Abbott, and a great shot to beat Underhill.

Finally got a chance to look at my tape last night (and a chance to post something today).  The goal was definitely five hole, and through a screening player who looked to be moving across Underhill's field of view.

The GWG wasn't offsides, a player crossed early but then touched up (and he was RIGHT in front of the linesman) a split second before the puck came in.

I don't see, though, why the clear at the end of the game wasn't icing.  As someone said earlier, obviously any of the Cornell players would've done anything possible to get to the puck, so if they didn't, they couldn't have.  According to the color commentary, Schafer apparently was arguing that it should've been icing as well.

[ugarte]

I disagree that Cornell necessarily wanted to catch up to the puck. They probably wanted to give the appearance of chasing the puck so that icing wouldn't be waved off, but with less than 10 seconds left when UNH sent the puck into the Cornell end, I would think that Cornell would prefer having the clock stopped and an offensive zone faceoff to chasing the puck and bringing it back up ice.

I can't bring myself to make a big deal out of the lost 2 seconds, but the ref certainly should have called UNH for icing.

[jtwcornell91]

There was a post on HOCKEY-L (by a UNH fan) which said that while the icing wave-off looked mysterious at the game, on the replay it was clear that Haydar's clear had gone off a Cornell skate.  Anyone with a tape want to check on that?

Here's a link to the post:

http://lists.maine.edu/cgi/wa?A2=ind0203&L=Hockey-L&P=R15425

[Al DeFlorio]

Gibber's usually a straight-shooter.  

I don't really feel like watching the last two minutes again, but in watching the tape the first time it appeared to me like the puck did hit something right after it left his stick.

I recall one of the Cornell fans (Jim Hyla?) also mentioning something about UNH having too many men on the ice late in the game.

But...it's over...and, we, sadly, are out.:`(

[DeltaOne81]

Out? I dunno...

Brooding and waiting for next year is more like it ;-)

[Beeeej]

Whoops!  See?  I was wrong again!  That's twice in three days!  :-D

Beeeej

[Beeeej]

Sure, go ahead - I could probably use the sin-bin time to cool off.  :-))

Beeeej