MSU 4, Cornell 3 post-game (game 2) thread

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I think it's great that we have such high expectations for this team.  After all, usually we go into the first weekend of the season thinking "I hope we don't look too bad.  Team XYZ's played several games already."  We had a legitimate shot at winning both, which at this point in the season, is worth something.  

And consider this: None of the top 10 teams is undefeated at this point.  At least our loss is to another top 10 team.  Can you say that much for Ohio State (two losses to Western)?  Or Michigan (a loss to Fairbanks)?  Or Minnesota (losses to Fairbanks and St.Cloud)?  Michigan State is a damn good team,certainly underrated, and whether we like this loss or not,  these games will definitely help our RPI.

So don't get down on the team.  Given time, this team will come together and be the team we expect.

I've said it before.  I'll say it again.  In Schafer we trust.

[Oat]

No one was there to lead us today after time expired (or maybe someone did? and I missed it?)
If we can't do "Which team is the winning team..."  the cheer should be:

Which school is an ivy league?
(This school is an ivy league)  -->

Which school is a safety school?
<-- (This school is a safety school)

(ivy league) -->

<-- (safety school)

We used to do this chant quite often two years ago when our team couldn't win (basically whenever vesce line failed to produce)

This only works if we're playing dirty state schools. So we better not lose to ivy teams.

[CKinsland]

[Q]proof of concept Wrote:

 He seemed to deal with them pretty effectively during the intermission.  I don't know what he said in the locker room, but whatever it was it worked, because they came to play and then some the third period.  Hopefully the embarrassment resulting from the 2nd period sticks with them the whole season such that they never lose sight of the fact that they are on the ice playing a game again.[/q]

Perhaps it was the smoke pouring out of his ears or the heat of his anger that set the fire alarm off in the second intermission? :-P

I'll second the opinion that a loss early in the season to a highly ranked team isn't so devastating and will probably serve the team well in terms of motivation.  That second period proved that, though they are good, they can't relax and quit playing or other teams will capitalize (and big).  Of course, I would have preferred to come back in the third and win (much the same lesson would have been learned by the team...perhaps without the same burr-under-the-blanket longevity).  

CK

[Cisco]

About interference, I think Pokuluk was correctly called, though the issue is much more one of discretion.

[Q]In both instances, the player was playing the puck and Pokuluk was playing the body. When two players are skating for a loose puck, the two make contact all the time. It happened a million times tonight. Both guys leaned into one another like every other time but Pokuluk is much bigger and the other guy fell.[/Q]

Umm, with all due respect, that's not what happened on either call. The MSU player and Pokuluk were going towards the puck, and Pokuluk played the body before either got to the puck. By definition, the MSU guy did not have possession of the puck

Here is the actual rule on interference (earlier there was an interpritation quoted)
[Q]Interference
SECTION 29. a. A player shall not interfere with or impede the progress of
an opponent who is not in possession of the puck, or deliberately knock a
stick out of an opponent’s hand, or prevent a player who has dropped the
stick, or any other piece of equipment from regaining possession of it or
knock or shoot any abandoned or broken stick or illegal puck or other
debris toward an opposing puck carrier in a manner that could cause the
player to be distracted.
Waving of arms in front of a goalkeeper by an opponent is interference.
PENALTYâ€"Minor.
Note: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered
the player in possession. In interpreting this rule, a referee should make sure
which of the players is the one creating the interferenceâ€"often it is the action and
movement of the attacking player that causes the interference since the defending
players are entitled to stand their ground or shadow the attacking players. Players
of the team in possession shall not be allowed to run interference for the puck carrier.[/Q] Should you want to enlighten yourself further, here is the rule book. http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/ice_hockey_archive.html

Now, the key part of interference is puck possession. You do not have possession, at minimum, until you have touched the puck.

What Ari is complaining about is the fact that two players often are jostling for position, or run into each other as they come to a puck along the boards. However, to get away with this, which may often be, by the rules, interference, you need to appear that you are playing the puck.

Pokuluk, as much as I love him as a player, just played the body, plain and simple. The MSU player never really got to touch the puck, b/c Pokuluk had flatened that little wus. That makes it look especially bad for Pokuluk when Pokuluk doesn't go for the puck and his physical interference causes the other player to never get to the puck.

Cisco

[JimHyla]

[Q]cufan Wrote: Those were definitely penalties on Pokuluk.  The Michigan State player did not have possession of the puck and Pokuluk hit him.  Pokuluk should have known better and played the puck not the man.  As soon as he did it, I knew it was a penalty.  That is just bad defense on Pokuluk's part.

Straight from the rule book:

"In all of the areas above, we feel that a player who, through the use of physical skill and/or anticipation, has a positional advantage on an opponent, shall not lose that advantage through the illegal use of hands, arms, or stick. Any player in pursuit of a puck or open lane shall not lose a perceived positional advantage by the illegal use of hands, arms, or stick by an opponent. If a player is deprived of that advantage by an illegal act (i.e., hook, hold, interference, etc.), the appropriate penalty must be called."[/q]Rules are to be interpreted. That's why we have courts and in sports, officials. If you watch hockey you will see two players fighting, jostling to get to the puck first. In the first penalty Pokuluk leveled the guy as they were going for it. If that's what they will call interference, well every puck along the board will be interference. Two players fight along the boards, a third goes in and an opposing player follows. Neither of those last two had puck possession.

The way I remember it used to be interpreted, with some justification from a reading of the rules, [Q]Any player in pursuit of a puck or open lane shall not lose a perceived positional advantage by the illegal use of...[/Q]was that if two players had equal access to the puck it was not interference. Interference was from a player who was in an inferior position interfering with the one in the superior position.

I'll state, with no ability to be proven wrong, that if the MSU player was not knocked down so easily, but just bumped away, no penalty would have been called. However the end result on puck control would have been the same.

[Brian]

[Q]TCHL8842 Wrote:

 I thought this game came down to a game of STs.  I think O'Byrnes pass for the Shorthanded Breakways did turn the tide in the second period, but overall O'Byrne did not have that bad of series.  Krantz in the third period showed that he showed not be the defensemen carrying the puck across the red line.  Also in the third period, our team tried to skate tha puck into the MSU zone a lot against 3-4 defenders.  This has got to stop and realize that dumping it in a letting our bigger physical players come up with the puck.  MSU was a very chippy team and seemed like they tried to get into fights with our players.  The officiating was a little lopsided this game, but most of our penalties could have justification, except Abbotts penalty.  I was close to where Abbotts penalty occured and Abbott had two hands on his sticked and poked away the puck from the defender yet he was somehow called for holding.  This eventually led to a MSU PP goal which I was very pissed at.  When Pegs got hurt I think the linesmen saw it and called the penalty.  The linesmen in general made a lot of MSU penalty calls.

Overall I am not as optimistic as Ari is, I think the defense has to definitely get better and we have to learn to make crisper passes and faster decisions in games to be one of the top teams in the country.  Some of my friends don't think the freshmen did that well this weekend, but I think they did just fine except Seminoff which seems to use his stick to much, maybe he got away with this in Juniors but definitily not in college hockey.  I think this team has a lot of room to improve and if they do this we are a top 3 team in the country.  In the second period, I also think we got away from our physical play, partially because of all the penalties, but it reminded me of what Schaffer said with out the physical play we are an average team.  I am looking forward to see the top line against other teams, because I think Sawada and Bitz can create a havok in the corners for other teams, which should lead to Moulson getting even more goals then last year.  If you don't agree with anythings I said I will definitely provide more information if you want, any ways going into this series I was expecting a split, but after seeing the games I think that we should of gotten at least 3 points out of this weekend.  Every team has to lose, and I dont expect to see this team doing that much, since we don't have extremely stellar competition OOC except MSU.  Hopefully the rest of the ECAC can keep their winning ways up, so our conference can have good RPIs and PairWise rankings.[/q]

Your view of the Abbott penalty is incorrect, I sit in section k and you could see Abbott reach out and grab him and if you want further proof that it was a penalty you can ask Abbott's father who sat next to us and said it was definitely a penalty on his son.

[A-19]

[Q]Oat Wrote:

 No one was there to lead us today after time expired (or maybe someone did? and I missed it?)
If we can't do "Which team is the winning team..."  the cheer should be:

Which school is an ivy league?
(This school is an ivy league)  -->

Which school is a safety school?
<-- (This school is a safety school)

(ivy league) -->

<-- (safety school)

We used to do this chant quite often two years ago when our team couldn't win (basically whenever vesce line failed to produce)

This only works if we're playing dirty state schools. So we better not lose to ivy teams.

[/q]

wow, i remember the shitstorm that ensued over this little cheer...

[ugarte]

[Q]Ack Wrote:I'm fine with the ushers confiscating bottles and keys upon entrance into Lynah.[/q]Keys? How about ID? Pants?

[TCHL8842]

The Second period collapse was really a result of our guys not skating, taking too many stupid penalties, and not being physical.  With all that being said I think McKee allowed a really weak goal, and MSUs first goal could have been prevented by better defense.  I am hoping that this second period collapse teachs our team that you have to play 60 minutes of hockey to win a game.  This weekend in general minus the second period, we played even or outplayed a MSU team that supposedly outplayed both Michigan and North Dakota.    If our team can play at this level and iron out the early season mistakes, I think we have a good shot at winning against any team in the country.  But if the mistakes still occur I think we will be only an average team, better then two years ago but worse then last year.

[Chris \'03]

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

 What amazed me most were the two interference calls on Pokuluk.  I always though interference is hitting away from the puck.  The two plays were identical, with the puck a foot away.  He was playing defense.  MSU tied the game on the ensuing poewrplay of the second idiotic call.[/q]

On the webcast, they caught a pretty good angle on the first call. The shot was from the D/E corner. To me it looked like Sasha threw a pretty good elbow on the puck carrier and when I heard the whistle I figured that was the call. "Interference" seems like the catch-all lazy man's penalty. See something you don't like? Call it interference... or mix it up and call it "obstruction-interference." Who cares if he has the puck, right? ::rolleyes::

I don't think the webcast caught the other interference call.

[Chris \'03]

[Q]Oat Wrote:

 No one was there to lead us today after time expired (or maybe someone did? and I missed it?)
If we can't do "Which team is the winning team..."  the cheer should be:

Which school is an ivy league?
(This school is an ivy league)  -->

Which school is a safety school?
<-- (This school is a safety school)

(ivy league) -->

<-- (safety school)

We used to do this chant quite often two years ago when our team couldn't win (basically whenever vesce line failed to produce)

This only works if we're playing dirty state schools. So we better not lose to ivy teams.

[/q]

Anyone else find it ironic that this "cheer" isn't even in remotely proper english? "Which school is an ivy league?" Come on now... one school a league does not make.

I don't think you need to go looking to fill the void of "winning team" when the team doesn't win. I don't think the band should come up with a song besides "Schafer" to play after losses. I think there are nice traditions that go along with winning and I think that the absence of such traditions after a loss is important.

[billhoward]

I believe that was the penalty where the MSU player went flying after he and Pokoluk collided, or whatever we call it. Wasn't that the play where the announcers said it wasn't really "interference" so much as "Pokoluk being big"? Aptly put.

[proof of concept]

[Q]Chris '03 Wrote:

 [Q2]Oat Wrote:

 No one was there to lead us today after time expired (or maybe someone did? and I missed it?)
If we can't do "Which team is the winning team..."  the cheer should be:

Which school is an ivy league?
(This school is an ivy league)  -->

Which school is a safety school?
<-- (This school is a safety school)

(ivy league) -->

<-- (safety school)

We used to do this chant quite often two years ago when our team couldn't win (basically whenever vesce line failed to produce)

This only works if we're playing dirty state schools. So we better not lose to ivy teams.

[/Q]
Anyone else find it ironic that this "cheer" isn't even in remotely proper english? "Which school is an ivy league?" Come on now... one school a league does not make.

I don't think you need to go looking to fill the void of "winning team" when the team doesn't win. I don't think the band should come up with a song besides "Schafer" to play after losses. I think there are nice traditions that go along with winning and I think that the absence of such traditions after a loss is important.[/q]


I think keeping an arrow like this in the quiver could come in handy in case we run into another team as classless as MSU.  Reminding them that they are a safety school may be a low blow, but I certainly find it preferable to watching people launch whatever projectiles are at hand onto the ice.  What's furthermore, in the case of a team that is intentionally trying to rile the crowd, having the crowd unify in a cheer certainly makes a stronger statement than the scattered lashing out of a few irresponsible individuals.

That being said, if the other team acts respectfully, then maybe we can consider letting them leave the ice in peace.

[billhoward]

Penn's basketball fans had one of the all-time best cheers when they made it to the NCAA Final Four and get blown apart by Magic Johnson's Spartans. This may not have been the first usage, but I believe it was at the time the most publicized usage of the chant,

That's all right / That's okay / You're gonna work / For us someday.

[ithacat]

[Q]Dpperk29 Wrote:

 ok... the quick tap of the sticks and salute is what I am saying was ok... the lingering around at the door was total bullshit...[/q]

Absolutely...there was only one intention, to insult Cornell fans. Based on the goonish way MSU played the game, I can't say I'm surprised by their behavior. It was a very emotional game and sometimes those feelings get the best of kids. I was most disappointed in the way ECAC officials and MSU coaches ignored the situation.

I think the only time that behavior may be acceptable is after a loss. If a team wants to skate to the corner and briefly salute their fans after a loss on the road, who cares.  When a team wins on the road, however, tap and raise when leaving the ice.