2004 All Over Again?

[Jacob '06]

[quote oceanst41]That's because he never got a punch off. I don't think Nickerson was quite ready for anyone to go after him, Varteressian kind of took him by surprise. It only lasted a few seconds, and the linesmen put an end to it.

It was more like Varteressian 5 for fighting and a Game DQ, while Nickerson got 4 for taking it.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure both coaches and both players knew it was coming before the faceoff before it happened. I would think that Nickerson's coach told him to just take it so he wouldn't get a DQ because he was so important to their team.

[Winnabago]

[quote Steve M]  I won't ever be completely over it unless we win an NC in my lifetime.  I hate to blame officiating for an outcome of a game, but every time I see a deflected goal reviewed and hear the announcers invariably say "the video replay has to be conclusive to overturn the call," the memory of that day makes my blood boil all over again.
[/quote]

The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Winnabago]The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."[/quote]
No question the delay in Buffalo killed the momentum we had built after seven minutes or so of completely dominant hockey.

But there was nothing "questionable" about the in-the-crease call made in the BC game.  One look at the replay would convince anyone.

[Winnabago]

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Winnabago]The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."[/quote]
No question the delay in Buffalo killed the momentum we had built after seven minutes or so of completely dominant hockey.

But there was nothing "questionable" about the in-the-crease call made in the BC game.  One look at the replay would convince anyone.[/quote]

Only trying to justify the events of that tournament to myself, obviously things could have gone better official-wise.  The BC call was questionable in that a crease violation happens far more than it gets called.  We were lucky that it was reversed, that video was available, that the Eaves factor wasn't considered, etc.  Maybe 2 out of 5 times in NCAA competition a player entering early gets ignored?  

I do wish that they were more strict (and even more importantly, consistent) about in-the-crease rules at all levels.  The olympic refs seem to be always-aware, and they even have that rule that stops play, like a lane violation in baskeball.  It makes them look at the puck/net more.  It's not like college level, where "let em play" is one night, and "find a reason to disallow goals" is the next.

Not trying to argue about 2003, I was devestated as well.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Winnabago][quote Al DeFlorio][quote Winnabago]The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."[/quote]
No question the delay in Buffalo killed the momentum we had built after seven minutes or so of completely dominant hockey.

But there was nothing "questionable" about the in-the-crease call made in the BC game.  One look at the replay would convince anyone.[/quote]

Only trying to justify the events of that tournament to myself, obviously things could have gone better official-wise.  The BC call was questionable in that a crease violation happens far more than it gets called.  We were lucky that it was reversed, that video was available, that the Eaves factor wasn't considered, etc.  Maybe 2 out of 5 times in NCAA competition a player entering early gets ignored?  

I do wish that they were more strict (and even more importantly, consistent) about in-the-crease rules at all levels.  The olympic refs seem to be always-aware, and they even have that rule that stops play, like a lane violation in baskeball.  It makes them look at the puck/net more.  It's not like college level, where "let em play" is one night, and "find a reason to disallow goals" is the next.

Not trying to argue about 2003, I was devestated as well.[/quote]

The BC game wasn't just in the crease, it was goaltender interference. Lenny was holding the post, the BC guy skated through the crease, elbowed/shouldered/otherwise bumped (unintentionally) Lenny in the head, pulling him off the post, and the shooter sent it into the net between Lenny and the post - i.e. where he had just been.

Crease may or may not have been called, but that *had* to be.

[CowbellGuy]

[quote billhoward]Hockey can have Cinderellas, too.[/quote]

It also has Minnesotas. ::barf:: They seem to take issue with Cinderellas.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Al DeFlorio][quote Winnabago]The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."[/quote]
No question the delay in Buffalo killed the momentum we had built after seven minutes or so of completely dominant hockey.

But there was nothing "questionable" about the in-the-crease call made in the BC game.  One look at the replay would convince anyone.[/quote]

What was questionable was allowing the one BC goal that did count, which was directed in with a skate that just happened to stop and then kick out at exactly the right time.  IIRC they decided it couldn't have been deliberate since the guy couldn't see it with Baby all over him.

[French Rage]

[quote jtwcornell91][quote Al DeFlorio][quote Winnabago]The one and only thing that makes it just a little better is remembering back to the QF game that year against BC, where they had a late goal wiped off because of a questionable in-the-crease call which allowed us to regroup and close them out.

With all the twists and turns of a game - the 8 minute delay that comes with a video review was far more damaging than the actual call of "batted in with a high stick."[/quote]
No question the delay in Buffalo killed the momentum we had built after seven minutes or so of completely dominant hockey.

But there was nothing "questionable" about the in-the-crease call made in the BC game.  One look at the replay would convince anyone.[/quote]

What was questionable was allowing the one BC goal that did count, which was directed in with a skate that just happened to stop and then kick out at exactly the right time.  IIRC they decided it couldn't have been deliberate since the guy couldn't see it with Baby all over him.[/quote]

Sounds about right.  I remember a skate hitting it but not being ruled deliberate.

[oceanst41]

I think you are giving Nickerson too much credit

He didn't have to be baited into a fight, he would go at any time. If that fight never happened Nickerson would've gone on until he seriously hurt someone - Cornell had to step up and let him know they weren't about to sit back and take it.

He was either totally focused on the crowd or his next cheap shot, it a wonder he ever got any points.

[ajec1]

[quote billhoward]
Hockey can have Cinderellas, too.[/quote]

I guess it depends on how you define "Cinderellas". For instance, last year, North Dakota was surely a surprise to the outsider watching only the tournament games (there were a 3 seed if memory serves). However, to anyone who watched the last couple of weeks of the regular season and the WCHA tournament, this was simply a team finally playing to its potential. The talent was there, and things finally clicked (for them it was the freshmen Spirko-Zajac line and defensemen like Matt Smabby finally finding their role/game). So while ranking-wise they were a "Cinderella" after seeing the Final Five at the Xcel Center I pretty much expected them to make it (not to sound like a know-it-all). Of course, the talent may be there for Cornell to do a similar thing, but remember NoDak lost when they played a better team (which Minnesota definitely is this year).

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote jtwcornell91]What was questionable was allowing the one BC goal that did count, which was directed in with a skate that just happened to stop and then kick out at exactly the right time.  IIRC they decided it couldn't have been deliberate since the guy couldn't see it with Baby all over him.[/quote]
Agree.  But I think it was Mark McRae, not Baby, that was taking him out.  

What really torqued Schafer was that the ref didn't call the play at all, and just let the guys with the video make the decision.  The BC guy may not have been able to see the puck, but he sure made a deliberate movement with his feet toward the goal.

And I'll say once again:  There was nothing "questionable" about the disallowed BC goal in the third period.

[KeithK]

[q]However, to anyone who watched the last couple of weeks of the regular season and the WCHA tournament, this was simply a team finally playing to its potential.[/q]And this is why I think that 1) Last N games shouldn't be a criterion and 2) the tournament field should be relatively small.  A team that underachieves all year and is 5th in conference with a record barely over .500 (WCHA) probably shouldn't be playing for the national title.  You certainly shouldn't reward their season long performance by more heavily weighting their late season run.

[Josh '99]

[quote KeithK][q]However, to anyone who watched the last couple of weeks of the regular season and the WCHA tournament, this was simply a team finally playing to its potential.[/q]And this is why I think that 1) Last N games shouldn't be a criterion and 2) the tournament field should be relatively small.  A team that underachieves all year and is 5th in conference with a record barely over .500 (WCHA) probably shouldn't be playing for the national title.  You certainly shouldn't reward their season long performance by more heavily weighting their late season run.[/quote]Wait a second, though.  If I'm not mistaken, haven't you said in the past that you'd like to see the NCAA tournament only include teams that win their conferences?  Isn't that pretty much the ultimate way to heavily weight strong performance late in the season?

[KeithK]

[quote jmh30][quote KeithK][q]However, to anyone who watched the last couple of weeks of the regular season and the WCHA tournament, this was simply a team finally playing to its potential.[/q]And this is why I think that 1) Last N games shouldn't be a criterion and 2) the tournament field should be relatively small.  A team that underachieves all year and is 5th in conference with a record barely over .500 (WCHA) probably shouldn't be playing for the national title.  You certainly shouldn't reward their season long performance by more heavily weighting their late season run.[/quote]Wait a second, though.  If I'm not mistaken, haven't you said in the past that you'd like to see the NCAA tournament only include teams that win their conferences?  Isn't that pretty much the ultimate way to heavily weight strong performance late in the season?[/quote]Well, if I were starting college hockey from scratch I'd get rid of league tournaments (you don't need 'em with balanced schedules) and send just the league RS winner to the NCAAs.  So I'm only inconsistent insofar as the current system forces me to be.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote KeithK]Well, if I were starting college hockey from scratch I'd get rid of league tournaments (you don't need 'em with balanced schedules) and send just the league RS winner to the NCAAs.  So I'm only inconsistent insofar as the current system forces me to be.[/quote]
The ECAC has a balanced schedule, but it isn't clear to me that all of the other "big four" conferences do--particularly if you differentiate between playing a team "at home" or "on the road."