> Aside from what I saw, look at it logically.  RPI was up 7-4 at the time.
> Prestifillipo had let in quite a few soft goals. This wasn't a
particularly
> physical game so RPI tempers were not running high. Riva already had 5
points
> on the night so its not as if he was having a bad night personally. And,
> on top of all that, RPI goes up against the 1st place team on the road
for
> their
> next game.  Everyone knows that the easiest way to get a game dq is to
run
> the goalie. Even discounting what I know I saw, it logically would make
> no sense to take a run at Prestifilippo under those circumstances. Riva
> had nothing to gain and everything to lose.  Plus my knowledge of the RPI
team
> suggests that, while, in the heat of the battle, there are a few RPI
players
> who "might" run a goalie, Riva is certainly not one of those people. And
> frankly, as far as hockey games go, this was hardly the "heat of the
battle".
 
I agree (esp. about Riva, who already had, what, 5 points on the night?).
One of the Harvard announcers was citing RPI earlier in the period for what
he deemed to be a lack of respect for Harvard.  Effectively, he said that
RPI had 5 forwards out on a PP despite the big lead, hence they were going
to run up the score.  He also said that RPI was doing all sorts of fancy
dipsy-doodling on the PP, basically because there was nothing Harvard could
do to stop them.  The alleged motivation for all this was that Harvard had
pounded ECAC opponents for years, and so everyone in the conference was
looking to get back at them.  And so on.  This seemed to him to be a reason
for an increase in tension on the ice, culminating in the incident.  I
guess only the players know whether there was any perception like that --
do players actually care whether an opponent runs up the score, anyway?
 
The other Harvard announcer most decorously explained to her broadcast
partner that, from her perspective, he was smoking crayons.  Her attitude
towards the PP was that RPI was putting their best guys out there.  In
fact, she cited it as evidence of what she had been saying about once every
three minutes up to then -- that RPI's defense looked terrible, and only
Harvard forward incompetence and bad luck was stopping the Crimson from
waltzing in unmolested.
 
Both partners were incredibly negative about their own team throughout the
night -- it apparently galled them that they should have to broadcast a
losing team.  They pointed out at the end that it is the first time in
Harvard history that the Crimson have gone 7 games into the RS without a
win, and rather gloomily predicted that it wasn't going to get better next
weekend "without a miracle."  All in all, not exactly the old college try.
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.