What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Colgate 2022-23

Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel really, really dirty after this loss. Union had only 1 road win before last night. Now they have 2 and we’re responsible for it. Also, Union had only 3 total wins at Starr Rink. Now they have FOUR wins at Riggs Rink in 7 years.

And that 2nd period ENG. It ended up being the game winner. It cost us at least 1 point in the standings.I don’t think pulling the goalie was the wrong move here. There were 2.8 seconds on the clock, the face off was in Union’s end, we were struggling to get shots on net. Literally the stars (Starrs?) aligned for Union there. They won the face off, immediately shot the puck the other way, it was “on target” AND traveled some 180 feet in about 2 seconds. Doing the math the puck was going 61.36 miles per hour when it reached our empty net!

That said, I’ve seen worse losses. A 5-4 OT loss to Yale in January 2009. A 2-1 OT loss to RPI in 2011 where we had a 5-minute major in OT. And that 6-5 loss to Western Michigan last season, which derailed us for a while. So naturally I’m concerned that this loss will derail our season. We have to erase this from our memory and focus on RPI tonight.
 
Any coach would have considered doing the same thing. Had it worked, he’d have been the hero. The problem has been, is, and likely will be, that we are consistently inconsistent. Clinging to 4th in the standings and hovering 1 game above .500 is just more of the same after years of inadequacy. Hope to salvage the series split with the Engineers. Hats off to the Dutchmen on a gritty win. Hope their road streak continues tonight.
 
Does anyone know the severity of Vachon's injury ? He's onlyplayed in four ECAC contests, hope he gets back soon.
 
Carter Gylander lead the Colgate team out tonight for pre-game warm-up.
Jack Watson did the same for RPI.

Up-n-back play. We had some good opportunities, they had one great opportunity (breakaway by Lee).

Colgate 12, RPI 4, SOG after one.
Colgate 0, RPI 0, score after one.

This is not Quinnipiac-Harvard-Cornell quality college hockey, but it is entertaining. We just need to make sure it doesn’t end up like last night.

Beautifully set-up goal by RPI, their fifth SOG (after minutes earlier Lee pinged one of the pipe).

Matching penalties to end the period.

Colgate 24, RPI 13, SOG after two.
RPI 1, Colgate 0, score after two.

Game has so far played out eerily similar to last night. Big SOG lead, but down by one goal due to very good performance by opposing goalie.

12 seconds into the third period… Alex Young from Reid Irwin and Colton Young. Not quite a planned tic-tac-toe, but it worked.

RPI penalty. Killed it.
Colgate penalty. Killed it.
RPI penalty. Killed it.
97 seconds to go and RPI scored.

Colgate 35, RPI. 23, final SOG.
RPI 2, Colgate 1, final score.
 
Last edited:
Terrible weekend. 2 goals in 2 games at home against 2 bottom 6 teams.
I see Union gave Cornell a tough game tonight.

We’re running into a buzzsaw next weekend. We’ll be lucky to get any points.
 
Coach was yelling at the referee tonight, late in the third period, about a missed call. Then again after the game, after shaking Dave Smith’s hand, screaming at the ref… “You f’in’ cost us the game!!”

Well, no, a missed penalty call by the ref late in the game didn’t cost us the game. It was never our game to lose. And we should never be in a position where you think one missed penalty call ‘cost us the game.’ We had our chances all game long and we didn’t capitalize on them. Shame on us.

For the second night in a row, we ran into a very good opposing goalie. We out-shot our opponents, 65-37, and came away with two losses. While we didn’t play great either night, we didn’t play gawd-awful. Carter Gylander let in three goals over two nights and comes away with two losses. Of course, 37 shots against should be one night’s total, not two.

My final thought… now we are just trying to hold onto fourth place in ECAC Hockey to get a first-round bye. Whomever advances to Lake Placid deserves to be there. Upsets happen along the way. But if Quinnipiac, Harvard and Cornell advance as expected, the fourth team, no matter who it is, will be in a different league altogether when they get there. This year, in the ECAC, it appears to me that we have the Top 3, the Middle 4, and the Bottom 5.
 
Last edited:
iowabasedtraveler said:
Coach was yelling at the referee tonight, late in the third period, about a missed call. Then again after the game, after shaking Dave Smith’s hand, screaming at the ref… “You f’in’ cost us the game!!”

Well, no, a missed penalty call by the ref late in the game didn’t cost us the game. It was never our game to lose. And we should never be in a position where you think one missed penalty call ‘cost us the game.’ We had our chances all game long and we didn’t capitalize on them. Shame on us.

For the second night in a row, we ran into a very good opposing goalie. We out-shot our opponents, 65-37, and came away with two losses. While we didn’t play great either night, we didn’t play gawd-awful. Carter Gylander let in three goals over two nights and comes away with two losses. Of course, 37 shots against should be one night’s total, not two.

My final thought… now we are just trying to hold onto fourth place in ECAC Hockey to get a first-round bye. Whomever advances to Lake Placid deserves to be there. Upsets happen along the way. But if Quinnipiac, Harvard and Cornell advance as expected, the fourth team, no matter who it is, will be in a different league altogether when they get there. This year, in the ECAC, it appears to me that we have the Top 3, the Middle 4, and the Bottom 5.
Click to expand...

Having watched the replay several times I understand why Vaughan was angry, but I think that the right call was made. Walsh, who was on the RPI right wing boards by the blue line, turned and started on a straight line to the RPI bench on the other side of the ice. In the meantime the Colgate forechecker, Colton Young, recognized it was a delayed offside, swung back between the circles and then about a second after Walsh's move and about ten feet inside the blue line switched to a backward glide on a straight path to his defensive assignment at center ice. At the time Young established his path Walsh was nearly 1/2 way across the ice. Both maintained their path and neither saw the other until virtually the time of contact. The RPI player actually reached the collision point first as the Colgate forward tripped over the back leg in his stride.

Under USA Hockey rules this situation would be clear as maintaining "an established skating lane" is one of the bases for not being guilty of interference.

College hockey rules just say a player must not interfere with or impede the progress of an opponent that is not in possession of the puck and explicitly leave it to the ref to "make sure which of the players is the one creating the interference" (a little vague huh?). In this case neither had the puck and both were impeded from their established path (you can't block a player from going to the bench any more than you can block a player trying to establish his defensive position away from the puck). I think the fact that the RPI player clearly established his path first and the Colgate player was not "shadowing the puck carrier" as noted in the NCAA rules but retreating to his defensive assignment at center ice made it incidental contact. Then again, I'm happy with the result and Coach Vaughan isn't so he might not agree with my interpretation of what is a vague assignment in the NCAA rules.

If nothing else I'll chalk it up to karma as the linesman clearly created a bit of a moving pick (if he'd been a player you can be sure the RPI bench would have been as made as Coach Vaughan at the goal being allowed) on the Raider goal. It enabled the puck carrier to get an extra stride or two lead and turn the corner versus the closing defenseman. Even the home TV announcer commented on it but there's nothing you can do as the guys in stripes are just another on-ice obstacle like tripping over a rut in the ice or getting a bad bounce off a stanchion.
 
Last edited:
I thought that play was a huge nothingburger to be honest. Vaughn just wanted to find an excuse and something to whine about, in my opinion. You didn't see Dave Smith yelling at the refs for knocking over one of our players, leading to Colgate's goal. That was even more egregious than a play that a lot of don't think was a penalty and was correctly called.
 
would agree...frustration, total frustration...I was spared the visual indignity re: both games since I was away, but did follow via CHN Scoreboard...not much to say, but just think back to where we were after two periods against Harvard 8 1/2 days ago...at that point a reasonable person would've expected perhaps 9 points after last night (Harvard, Dartmouth, Union, RPI)...we realized just three and we all know how this transpired...disappointing, very disappointing...
 
Geez...holy ihts....I just read the posts. I can't believe this happened to the same team that had such success last weekend 8-/
 
I have abstained from commenting, because I have nothing good to say, and it wouldn't be good. Sometimes it's good to bite your lip, and I'm bleeding !
 
iowabasedtraveler said:
Coach was yelling at the referee tonight, late in the third period, about a missed call. Then again after the game, after shaking Dave Smith’s hand, screaming at the ref… “You f’in’ cost us the game!!”

Well, no, a missed penalty call by the ref late in the game didn’t cost us the game. It was never our game to lose. And we should never be in a position where you think one missed penalty call ‘cost us the game.’ We had our chances all game long and we didn’t capitalize on them. Shame on us.

For the second night in a row, we ran into a very good opposing goalie. We out-shot our opponents, 65-37, and came away with two losses. While we didn’t play great either night, we didn’t play gawd-awful. Carter Gylander let in three goals over two nights and comes away with two losses. Of course, 37 shots against should be one night’s total, not two.

My final thought… now we are just trying to hold onto fourth place in ECAC Hockey to get a first-round bye. Whomever advances to Lake Placid deserves to be there. Upsets happen along the way. But if Quinnipiac, Harvard and Cornell advance as expected, the fourth team, no matter who it is, will be in a different league altogether when they get there. This year, in the ECAC, it appears to me that we have the Top 3, the Middle 4, and the Bottom 5.
Click to expand...

Having watched RPI played Colgate twice, I thought Colgate could have won both, but for some good RPI goaltending. I have to think the exploding cigar of the backfired pulled goaltender the night before contributed to Coach Vaughn's mood.
 
RPI82, I like the basis of your analysis but the player going off the ice skating forward has the duty not to interfer. As the colgate player was defending the puck carrier it causes problems as the player went down, there was a rotation and the guy who scored was the original puck carrier, and the guy supposed to defend him was the guy on the ground at center ice. So a guy skating forward who “accidentally” hit a colgate defender caused an open man in front. The problem is that RPI intentionally interferes multiple times throughout the game (called for it once)
 
red133883 said:
RPI82, I like the basis of your analysis but the player going off the ice skating forward has the duty not to interfer. As the colgate player was defending the puck carrier it causes problems as the player went down, there was a rotation and the guy who scored was the original puck carrier, and the guy supposed to defend him was the guy on the ground at center ice. So a guy skating forward who “accidentally” hit a colgate defender caused an open man in front. The problem is that RPI intentionally interferes multiple times throughout the game (called for it once)
Click to expand...

Several problems with your analysis. (1) Both players have a duty not to interfere. There is no exemption for a player skating backwards. (2) The fact that a player is skating toward the bench does not automatically make him more responsible. He has just as much right to skate unimpeded to the bench as a player skating to a defensive position. (3) The RPI player started first and never altered his path while Young subsequently adopted a new path that would cut him off or cause a collision. (4) Young was not defending the puck carrier at the time of the collision, he was retreating to an assigned defensive position (a spot on the ice). That is not the same thing as shadowing or engaging the puck carrier, which is protected under the rules. In fact, because he had to get out of the offensive zone on the delayed offside he was skating with his back to the puck carrier prior to turning around just before the blue line and gliding away from the puck into the collision a fraction of a second later. (5) The collision didn't prevent Colgate from covering an open man in front. After the collision you had 4 defenders lined up near the blue line to take 4 attackers (actually 3 attackers as the 4th only entered the zone as the goal was scored). They were properly positioned for a common situation that a well coached team like Colgate should handle easily and they badly misplayed it. RPI entered the zone cleanly because your right wing inexplicably abandoned his man to join the two defensemen already positioned to step up on the puck carrier. With no one covering Beaton on the left side Sertti merely flipped it to the open man who drove the net for a clean shot. None of the three stayed with Sertti or even went to the front of the net so when Beaton's shot was saved there was no one to prevent him from putting in the rebound. Both defensemen chased after Beaton on the left side and the right wing was just skating aimlessly through the defensive zone covering no one. (6) If you think Colgate as with all teams doesn't intentionally push the boundaries of interference I don't know what you are watching.
 
Last edited:
Friday, we lose at home to a team with only 1 road win. Even worse, the eventual game-winning goal was a 2nd period empty net goal!

Saturday, we lose at home to a team that was winless on the road. We give up the game winning goal with under 2 minutes to go.

My finger is hovering over the panic button right now. If we can get at least 4 points this weekend against Cornell, this past weekend will be forgiven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top