Cornell 4 @ Yale 2 post-game thread (11/4)

[dbilmes]

1) Yes, we definitely did. I think it was the second goal that happened right after we returned to full strength. We'd had the puck on our stick and couldn't clear the zone a few seconds earlier. Yale regained possession, and boom.

2) Mugford was good. I didn't notice him too much, though.

3) I thought we were doing OK with that, but I didn't have a good view of all the action in the third period. It was further out where we were having problems. We weren't doing a great job of picking up the Yalies as they were coming into the zone. They got some great looks simply because there was no one on them.

4) The best part, not that there are many candidates, was McKee's third-period goaltending. I thought it was going to be tied for certain, especially the one time that the red light went on briefly, then turned off. We did have some great offensive setups, especially with Topher, but that was to be expected against a team like Yale.

5) The worst part was our inability to get setup with the second powerplay unit. It took a lot of pressure off of Yale when they saw that once the first line was on the bench because they knew they would be able to clear with relative ease.

[Jordan 04]

I'll give it a shot....

[Q]
1) Did we have trouble clearing the zone on the pk?  listening from the radio it sounded like Yale had little trouble setting up their pp and keeping it our zone...if so was it their good puck possession or our inability to win battles along the boards and pressure their passing lanes?[/q]

I definitely didn't sense any great trouble on the PK.  10/11 on the kill, and I don't think it was just luck or all David McKee.  There were definitely times where Yale had pressure and time to set-up, but I didn't think it was any more than you'd expect from a power play unit.

[q]2) How did Mugford look on the PP?[/q]

I can't attest to Mugford individually, but the 2nd unit continues to appear clueless out there.  Yes, they got the game-winning goal, (on a very nice feed from Pegs to Sawada), but other than that whenever they were out there they looked futile.  Horrible spacing, couldn't handle an aggressive Yale kill.  It's frustrating when half our PP time during the night feels useless.

[q]3) Did we have the same problem protecting the crease last night that seemed to haunt us at Lynah last weekend?[/q]

It definitely seemed like there were some issues in the 1st and 3rd periods, although I was at the opposite end so I can't detail.  The 2nd period seemed fine -- I don't recall McKee having to make any difficult saves in the 2nd.

[q]4) and 5) What was the best and worst part(s) of our game?[/q]

Best:  First 10 minutes.  A lot of folks keep saying we were fortunate Yale didn't win...we got some lucky bounces at hte end, etc.  Well, I could easily counter by saying Yale was lucky it wasn't 3-0 after the first 10 minutes.  Obviously we were aided by a string of PP's, but we were definitely taking advantage, we were moving in the offesive zone, creating chances, throwing pucks at the net, and really making Gartner earn it in the first 10 minutes.

Worst: Breaking out of our own zone and gaining the red line when players named Pokulok, Bitz, or Moulson aren't involved.


Thanks![/q]

[Liz '05]

Looking at the collegehockeystats box score...http://www.collegehockeystats.net/0506/boxes/mcoryal1.n04

Evan Barlow got a 10 min misconduct at 17:29 of the second period.  I thought this meant that he was out for the rest of the game, but apparently not, as he also served "17" of Sasha Pokulok's 19 minutes at 19:14 of the third period.

Is this because of the exceptional circumstances at the end of the game?  Or did Barlow not really leave the game?

[RichH]

[Q]Liz '05 Wrote:

 Looking at the collegehockeystats box score...

Evan Barlow got a 10 min misconduct at 17:29 of the second period.  I thought this meant that he was out for the rest of the game, but apparently not, as he also served "17" of Sasha Pokulok's 19 minutes at 19:14 of the third period.

Is this because of the exceptional circumstances at the end of the game?  Or did Barlow not really leave the game?[/q]

A "10-minute misconduct" means you can't play for a 10-minute period and can re-enter the game after serving.  Your team doesn't skate a man down without a minor or a major penalty.

A "10-minute game misconduct" means you are ineligible to play for the rest of the game.  For penalty minute calculations, it counts as 10 PIM.

A "10-minute game disqualification" means you are ineligible to play for the rest of the game, and in the NCAA you are suspended for at least the next game (depending on your prior DQs).  For penalty minute calculations, it counts as 10 PIMs.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]dbilmes Wrote:

...I think it was the second goal that happened right after we returned to full strength. We'd had the puck on our stick and couldn't clear the zone a few seconds earlier. Yale regained possession, and boom.
[/q]

Exactly.  It was agonizing watching us fumble the puck around with several good opportunities to get it cleared.  It was one of those situations where you watched it unfold while saying to yourself "this is gonna end up with something bad happening."

[Liz '05]

[Q]RichH Wrote:
A "10-minute misconduct" means you can't play for a 10-minute period and can re-enter the game after serving.  Your team doesn't skate a man down without a minor or a major penalty.

A "10-minute game misconduct" means you are ineligible to play for the rest of the game.  For penalty minute calculations, it counts as 10 PIM.

A "10-minute game disqualification" means you are ineligible to play for the rest of the game, and in the NCAA you are suspended for at least the next game (depending on your prior DQs).  For penalty minute calculations, it counts as 10 PIMs.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 11/05/05 01:47PM by RichH.[/q]

Ahh...thanks, Rich.  I guess I didn't realize there was both a misconduct and game misconduct.  (Though, thanks to this forum, I'm well aware of the difference between the latter two.)

[Trotsky]

[Q]Al DeFlorio Wrote:It was one of those situations where you watched it unfold while saying to yourself "this is gonna end up with something bad happening."[/q]
Isn't that true of any trip to New Haven?

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]RichH Wrote:
A "10-minute game misconduct" means you are ineligible to play for the rest of the game.  For penalty minute calculations, it counts as 10 PIM.

A "10-minute game disqualification" means you are ineligible to play for the rest of the game, and in the NCAA you are suspended for at least the next game (depending on your prior DQs).  For penalty minute calculations, it counts as 10 PIMs.

Edited 1 times. Last edit at 11/05/05 01:47PM by RichH.[/Q][/q]


These are usually just announced as "game misconduct" and "game DQ", right? Or is this something else? Can't say I remember hearing the phrase "10 minute game" on the PA system over the years.


And yes, after they sent Sasha to the locker room, Barlow did indeed go the the box for the remaining 46.8 seconds to serve Sasha's time.

[KeithK]

The collegehockeystats.met box score says the referee was Chip McDonald. a name I don't recognize.  Is he new or am I just being forgetful?

[ben03]

as richH said above, IIRC you'll hear it announced as one of the following (although i'll defer to mr timekeeper for verification):

(a) 10 minute misconduct (player sits for 10 minutes): announced as 10 minute misconduct

(b) 10 minute misconduct + minor penalty (player sits for 12 minutes): announced 10 minute misconduct and minor

(c) 10 minute game disqualification + major penalty (fighting, boarding, charging, etc ...) announced Game DQ and major penalty. in this case the offending player must leave ice and a teammate serves the 5 minute penalty. as was the case last night.

[billhoward]

[Q]KeithK Wrote: The collegehockeystats.met box score says the referee was Chip McDonald. a name I don't recognize.  Is he new or am I just being forgetful?[/q]Think "More than 11 billion minutes served."

[Lauren '06]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
If you sat up close, you got to see Cornell's pants weren't just worn, they are close to decrepit. Doesn't affect the quality of hockey any, but if this were the NBA, David Stern would probably have issued an in-the-arena dress code edict. [/q]
I happen to know that the new uniform pants came in last week, but were colored Colgate maroon.  A mixed-up delivery between us and either them or Union or Harvard or however many other maroon pants-wearing teams is suspected.  I think I would prefer decrepit pants to crimson pants.

[billhoward]

Even the existing pants tend a bit more toward maroon than pure red, it seemed, although red plus a year (ten years?) of wear and tear would cause the color shift as well. I'd call it dark red.

How many years does Cornell get out of its hockey pants?

[Robb]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
How many years does Cornell get out of its hockey pants? [/q]
 

:-D

[Battleship]

How did Pokoluk do in his fight.  I saw a couple of pics, but it was hard to tell from them.  Thanks.  bttlship@aol.com