I was recently told by someone with credibility that the Gate players love playing at Lynah, and I always thought they hated it because of the intimidation etc. This really surprised me !
My goodness where to start: Yes the rule is the definitive answer as it is THE RULE. You assume or your interpretation is that a defending player must, allow the player who voluntarily skated into the crease and put himself in a bad position, stop playing and let him avoid contact. As you can read it is the attacking players responsibility to avoid contact, meaning he had an out, stop skating not hit the goalie and back out of the blue paint. Now that would require the player to take himself out of the play, but once again it is his responsibility not to contact the goalie, it is not the responsibility of the defender to make it easy or good for him to do so. The Cornell players avenue to avoid contact was to stop and reverse, you might not like it but it is possible. And "Cornell's interpretation" of course says it should count but that is just not what the rule says.Posting the language of the rule is not the definitive answer you seem to think it is. Under Cornell's interpretation of what occurred, the goal should have counted. "And, by his own actions" is the key phrase. In this case, a Colgate player prevented the Cornell player from moving out of the way. How, then, did the Cornell player impair the goalie's ability to defend "by his own actions"? You say there was no attempt to avoid contact, but that is because the Colgate player prevented the Cornell player from moving. You may disagree with Cornell's interpretation, but what you're disagreeing with is Cornell's interpretation of the facts, not Cornell's interpretation of the rule.
As I understand it, in your totally unbiased opinion, the reason no one talks to Cornell fans at LP is because some dude on an internet forum makes excuses for Cornell losing. Here's an alternative theory: Cornell brings more fans than the other three teams combined, and the others teams' fans need to find people to talk to. Here's one more theory, and the obviously correct one: you completely made this up.
Under Cornell's interpretation of what occurred, the goal should have counted.
No. Let me spell this out for you. You posted the language of the rule as some kind of "gotcha." But what you failed to understand is that everybody agrees on the rule. Cornell knows the rule, Colgate knows the rule. The rule itself is not in dispute. What the teams disagree on is what took place on the ice. In Cornell's view, their player was blocked by a Colgate player from getting out of the way. You say "the Cornell player's avenue to avoid contact was to stop and reverse, you might not like it but it is possible." No, it wasn't possible, because the Colgate player had lodged into him such that he could not move and could not avoid contact.My goodness where to start: Yes the rule is the definitive answer as it is THE RULE. You assume or your interpretation is that a defending player must, allow the player who voluntarily skated into the crease and put himself in a bad position, stop playing and let him avoid contact. As you can read it is the attacking players responsibility to avoid contact, meaning he had an out, stop skating not hit the goalie and back out of the blue paint. Now that would require the player to take himself out of the play, but once again it is his responsibility not to contact the goalie, it is not the responsibility of the defender to make it easy or good for him to do so. The Cornell players avenue to avoid contact was to stop and reverse, you might not like it but it is possible. And "Cornell's interpretation" of course says it should count but that is just not what the rule says.
Now to address the "in game trivia" where the contestant, misses the question and you pose it to them again and again until they win. If that is how classes work in the Ivy League I am glad I went to a patriot league school.
Where in the rule does it say that the defender has to allow the attacking to do anything. The rule says that it is the responsibility of attacking player to avoid contact. The Cornell player skated across the blue paint and contacted the goalie taking him out of the crease. The Cornell player could have, while in the blue paint, stopped, reversed course and avoided contact.No. Let me spell this out for you. You posted the language of the rule as some kind of "gotcha." But what you failed to understand is that everybody agrees on the rule. Cornell knows the rule, Colgate knows the rule. The rule itself is not in dispute. What the teams disagree on is what took place on the ice. In Cornell's view, their player was blocked by a Colgate player from getting out of the way. You say "the Cornell player's avenue to avoid contact was to stop and reverse, you might not like it but it is possible." No, it wasn't possible, because the Colgate player had lodged into him such that he could not move and could not avoid contact.
Actually, if you add their 7 goals to our 6, you get 13.6 goals scored, on Colgate day...
ZERO points earned.
AUUUGHHHH!!!!!!
I was there and remember it well. Top glove hand snipe !That's awesome! Wade Poplawski was the OT goal scorer in our "upset" win at Union in 2011.
