Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2018-2019 Clarkson Men's Hockey

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by FireKnight View Post
    Looks like Notre Dame in round 1. There's really no logical reason to mess with the bracket integrity for us.
    Agreed. We should also be in the UMass regional, which likely means Manchester or Providence. Technically, Providence is closer to UMass than Manchester, but I've heard some guessing that, even though the Friars aren't hosting, the committee will want to send Providence College to Providence and won't want to create a Hockey East matchup in the regional semis.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hydra88 View Post

      Agreed. We should also be in the UMass regional, which likely means Manchester or Providence. Technically, Providence is closer to UMass than Manchester, but I've heard some guessing that, even though the Friars aren't hosting, the committee will want to send Providence College to Providence and won't want to create a Hockey East matchup in the regional semis.
      unless your league has 5 teams in, you can't have two teams from the same league meet in the regional semis. Against the rules
      CCT '77 & '78

      Comment


      • Originally posted by joecct View Post

        unless your league has 5 teams in, you can't have two teams from the same league meet in the regional semis. Against the rules
        Right, but Brown is hosting the Providence regional, not PC. There is nothing stopping the committee from sending PC to Manchester (except financial reasons).

        Comment


        • They could swap the entire regionals and preserve bracket integrity and attendance. The difference for UMass is negligible. We have perfect bracket integrity, which scares me. I'm almost counting on the committee to mess with it

          With all of that said, the likely bracket is an interesting one. Clarkson will be familiar with HU and ND and they're certainly familiar with the UMass coach. Harvard will not be a cakewalk for UMass, especially if the Minutemen want to inhabit the sin bin.

          I'm sure the kids in South Bend will remember us celebrating on their ice at the last Shileleagh Tournament, so game 1 won't be easy

          Comment


          • Was it a goal?

            Topher Scott seemed pretty convinced it was off-side. I just got to watch the game this morning because of a dinner commitment and quite frankly I can't tell, after watching the one angle that NESPN gave us 3 times.

            As best I can tell, the poke check clearly was outside the zone but the puck was not being touched when it crossed the line. Both Clarkson players tagged up without touching the puck in the zone and reentered. What I can't see is whether one reentered before the second tagged up. Has anyone seen a better angle?

            Comment


            • Question for the pairwise predictor experts Ö if BC had beaten Northeastern in the Hockey East final, thereby eliminating one at-large bid, and if the ECAC had played a 3rd place game and Brown beats Harvard, would Harvard still make the NCAA tournament? I always heard that the reason ECAC (and Hockey East for that matter) did away with the 3rd place game is that a loss can hurt a team in the NCAA criteria more than another win can help.

              Question 2 is why wait until 7 p.m. to announce the NCAA field? Only reason I could come up with is that they are waiting until all the teams get home from tournaments.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FireKnight View Post
                Was it a goal?

                Topher Scott seemed pretty convinced it was off-side. I just got to watch the game this morning because of a dinner commitment and quite frankly I can't tell, after watching the one angle that NESPN gave us 3 times.

                As best I can tell, the poke check clearly was outside the zone but the puck was not being touched when it crossed the line. Both Clarkson players tagged up without touching the puck in the zone and reentered. What I can't see is whether one reentered before the second tagged up. Has anyone seen a better angle?
                To answer your question, yes it was a good goal. The play shouldíve been blown dead when I believe Brosseau poked it in offsides. However, it wasnít blown dead and the Cornell D played it out of the zone thus negating the offsides. The rule says something around the likes of an offsides can call back a goal if the defending team does not have an opportunity to clear the puck which Cornell did.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FireKnight View Post
                  Was it a goal?

                  Topher Scott seemed pretty convinced it was off-side. I just got to watch the game this morning because of a dinner commitment and quite frankly I can't tell, after watching the one angle that NESPN gave us 3 times.

                  As best I can tell, the poke check clearly was outside the zone but the puck was not being touched when it crossed the line. Both Clarkson players tagged up without touching the puck in the zone and reentered. What I can't see is whether one reentered before the second tagged up. Has anyone seen a better angle?
                  It's pretty clear to me that this is what happened:

                  Right before the final sequence, Clarkson poke checks the puck back into the zone with two players offsides. Neither player touches the puck, but are borderline close enough to impacting the play where offsides should be whistled. Cornell brings the puck out of the zone and both Clarkson players exit. Brosseau then poke checks the puck away again and into the zone starting the winning sequence. As the review rule changed a couple years ago (after the North Dakota vs. Boston University tournament game), offsides and too-many-men can only be called on review if they directly impact the scoring sequence. As the zone entry that led to the goal was clearly onsides, it's a good goal.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hydra88 View Post

                    It's pretty clear to me that this is what happened:

                    Right before the final sequence, Clarkson poke checks the puck back into the zone with two players offsides. Neither player touches the puck, but are borderline close enough to impacting the play where offsides should be whistled. Cornell brings the puck out of the zone and both Clarkson players exit. Brosseau then poke checks the puck away again and into the zone starting the winning sequence. As the review rule changed a couple years ago (after the North Dakota vs. Boston University tournament game), offsides and too-many-men can only be called on review if they directly impact the scoring sequence. As the zone entry that led to the goal was clearly onsides, it's a good goal.
                    Does anyone have a link to a video of these sequences. I've heard some whining about the play, but wasn't able to watch the game. Would like to see it.

                    BTW- Thanks for these explanations, that's why I came here.

                    Edit - Cornell's site draws a different picture: "Video shows that as Clarkson's forechecker poked the puck back into the zone, it was touched by a Golden Knights forward in an offside position. But since he then brought the puck back into the neutral zone before a clean zone entry, the play was no longer subject to video review."

                    Edit 2 - Video is inconclusive, but it does look like #21 (Dunne?) probably touched it in the zone. https://twitter.com/i/status/1109656661143126019

                    LGT
                    Last edited by chuck; 03-25-2019, 07:51 AM.
                    Let's Go Tech!

                    Comment


                    • Classiest move ever, Having Harvey on the ice with the rest of the team! He even raised the cup. Kuddos to the team, staff and operations for this.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by chuck View Post

                        Does anyone have a link to a video of these sequences. I've heard some whining about the play, but wasn't able to watch the game. Would like to see it.

                        BTW- Thanks for these explanations, that's why I came here.

                        Edit - Cornell's site draws a different picture: "Video shows that as Clarkson's forechecker poked the puck back into the zone, it was touched by a Golden Knights forward in an offside position. But since he then brought the puck back into the neutral zone before a clean zone entry, the play was no longer subject to video review."

                        Edit 2 - Video is inconclusive, but it does look like #21 (Dunne?) probably touched it in the zone. https://twitter.com/i/status/1109656661143126019

                        LGT
                        Yeah, it's hard to tell. Dunne is very close to the puck when it goes back into the zone, but it almost looks to me like the Cornell player comes out of the zone with the puck too quickly and cleanly for Dunne to have touched it.

                        From what I read on USCHO.com, Cornell's was more unhappy with the refs not blowing the whistle when the net was eating Galahad alive (and injuring him) than he was with potential offsides at the end of the game.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hydra88 View Post

                          Yeah, it's hard to tell. Dunne is very close to the puck when it goes back into the zone, but it almost looks to me like the Cornell player comes out of the zone with the puck too quickly and cleanly for Dunne to have touched it.
                          .
                          best explanation of the rule: (Keep in mind who its coming from, its a cornell beat writer)

                          https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2Znq7jXgAA7aK7.jpg:large

                          his twitter is: https://twitter.com/raphy_gendler

                          Comment


                          • I certainly understand Cornell's complaining, they lost. Overtime losses, as we know, are tough to swallow. I know Shafer is telling them they had 74 minutes to change the outcome, you can't blame it on one play, flat out they did not score when they needed to score.
                            2013 Pick to Click Champion

                            Comment


                            • Quite honesty, I think the play should've been blown dead when the net fell over, but even had Galadja not been hurt he wouldn't have stopped the game winner from happening. As far as the Cornell fans whining...let them whine. For years I have gone to Lynah and watched the officials determine the outcome of games.
                              Last edited by NCNYHockey9; 03-25-2019, 02:04 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Some cool facts that I bet none of you guys knew. Clarkson just won its first ECAC title since 1995. Sweet. "It won't outskill many teams in the field, but you can count on Clarkson to work."

                                http://www.espn.com/college-sports/s...zen-four-picks

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X