Big Red Ramblings

[BigRedBeer]

All truths! You have always been the gold standard of posts and analysis of everything Bobcat! Love it. Cornell, Clarkson, and QU have to take care of business if we expect representation in the NCAA's this year...except against each other, should we sign up for some ties to not hurt Pairwise? Oh wait, there are no more real ties. UND went out and got swept this weekend, along with the Princeton L, not a good thing for the Big Red. See you in February, I'll be the one in the Red sweater! ;-)

[MarkEagleUSA]

Mark, you're better than this! I've followed these darn forums for way too many years! Ice conditions? Refs? C'mon! Was the sun is their eyes? Was the heat off in the their locker room? Geez. QU is obviously one of the top 3 or 4 in the nation and your whining about an OT loss to a top 10 team. Anyone with a hockey pulse knows that Cornell, Shaf and Rand simply don't get along. Rand could have stayed out on the ice for 2 hours and that call wasn't coming, maybe losing graciously is something he's not good at. I wish Shaf was in the building, he would have gladly escorted him off the ice and behind the woodshed. Remember, it's not a rivalry unless the teams are even and each win from time to time. We'll see you in Hamden and hopefully Lake Placid. Cornell is young and is still molding into something, QU is stacked with grad transfers and tons of talent, we'll see where it goes. No excuses though! Just play the games!

I never made any excuses... we lost. As you pointed out, there's a history between Rand and Shaf, but that wasn't even a factor Saturday. My only comments here were regarding the icing question. In our thread I did point out my opinion on the ice conditions but never said they were a reason we lost, and even said it looked like Cornell had more issues with it. And Chip McDonald has had it out for Rand since we joined the ECAC. Was it a factor Saturday? Probably not. After watching replays yesterday, the interference call was legit.

We lost to a very good Cornell team, and we'll seek revenge at the end of February.

[BigRedBeer]

Have you ever rolled through a stop sign?

Mark, you're better than this! I've followed these darn forums for way too many years! Ice conditions? Refs? C'mon! Was the sun is their eyes? Was the heat off in the their locker room? Geez. QU is obviously one of the top 3 or 4 in the nation and your whining about an OT loss to a top 10 team. Anyone with a hockey pulse knows that Cornell, Shaf and Rand simply don't get along. Rand could have stayed out on the ice for 2 hours and that call wasn't coming, maybe losing graciously is something he's not good at. I wish Shaf was in the building, he would have gladly escorted him off the ice and behind the woodshed. Remember, it's not a rivalry unless the teams are even and each win from time to time. We'll see you in Hamden and hopefully Lake Placid. Cornell is young and is still molding into something, QU is stacked with grad transfers and tons of talent, we'll see where it goes. No excuses though! Just play the games!

[MarkEagleUSA]

I never said that all teams don't do this. My question originally was the ethics for the individual player: doesn't the player have the burden of following the rules? It's like paying your taxes. The taxpayer has the ethical responsibility to follow the law. Just because the IRS (Refs) doesn't catch your infraction, doesn't mean you haven't committed fraud. Yes, I'm an attorney.

Have you ever rolled through a stop sign?

[40-Year Big Red Fan]

Technically, yes. The burden of determining what players should be on the ice after an icing falls squarely on the shoulders of the officials. If you think your beloved Cornell never does it, you're delusional.

I never said that all teams don't do this. My question originally was the ethics for the individual player: doesn't the player have the burden of following the rules? It's like paying your taxes. The taxpayer has the ethical responsibility to follow the law. Just because the IRS (Refs) doesn't catch your infraction, doesn't mean you haven't committed fraud. Yes, I'm an attorney.

[Sean Pickett]

I'd like to see the video !

If you have ESPN+ you can watch the game on demand. It's just after 2:16 live action and the replay is just after 2:20. It was clearly onside and not really close. If it was during the game I don't think Coach Pecknold would have challenged it, but in overtime I can see why he did.

Sean

[sshablak]

I'd like to see the video !

[Scoop85]

Sure, Rand had a right to use a challenge. The replay showed it wasn’t particularly close to offsides, so I’m not sure why, according to Grady, that Rand was speaking angrily with the refs after they called it a goal. Was he possibly arguing about the penalty call in the 1st place? If so that seems misguided based on the video of the play.

[MarkEagleUSA]

Every coach on the planet that wasn't napping would have done the same.

Apparently the skating Mother Theresa's from Ithaca never cheat or question calls on the ice...

[MarkEagleUSA]

So I gather, it is cheating. Situational ethics.

Technically, yes. The burden of determining what players should be on the ice after an icing falls squarely on the shoulders of the officials. If you think your beloved Cornell never does it, you're delusional.

[40-Year Big Red Fan]

I guess in 40+ years of being a Cornell fan you've never seen them stretch a rule before? I've never seen a hockey team not try to get away with that...

So I gather, it is cheating. Situational ethics.

[MarkEagleUSA]

Query: Upon an icing, is the icing team bound to stay on the ice by the rules, or is the rule that they can do whatever they can get away with? In other words, is it cheating to not stay on the ice?

Question comes to mind as my season tickets are immediately behind the visitors' bench.

I guess in 40+ years of being a Cornell fan you've never seen them stretch a rule before? I've never seen a hockey team not try to get away with that...

[40-Year Big Red Fan]

Query: Upon an icing, is the icing team bound to stay on the ice by the rules, or is the rule that they can do whatever they can get away with? In other words, is it cheating to not stay on the ice?

Question comes to mind as my season tickets are immediately behind the visitors' bench.

[maineiac]

[QUOTE=
Pecknold showed what a class act he is by disputing the winning goal for no reason. [/QUOTE]


There actually was a very good reason. Cornell was very close to being offsides on the zone entry. The replay showed that the Cornell player was just barely able to avoid the offsides with a close toe drag, thus the reason for requesting the review. Every coach on the planet that wasn't napping would have done the same.

[40-Year Big Red Fan]

Sounds like Cornell doesn’t have a chance tomorrow….also sounds like you have the reasons why already well established.

You still have to play the game. Sometimes the underdog can overcome adversity.