Bill,

Thanks for posting your game reports.  I was especially curious about the
uncharacteristic score at Colgate.  The Brown game seemed to energize
Cornell for a better effort against Harvard.  I guess gaining the tie is
better than losing the lead.  Cornell's play improved in the 3rd period
against Brown and fortunately they were able to carry it over and build on
it the following night.  Perhaps Brown was also running out of gas a bit in
that third period.  This was an fast paced physical game.  Cornell was
using four lines and six defenders through out the game (including fourth
line players on the penalty kill) but I did not watch the Brown line
changes carefully enough to see if they were also using four lines and six
defenders.

I am curious about Danis.  Watching Danis warm up my thinking was that if
he can see the shot he makes the save--I was impressed.  However, in the
game he seemed to allow an awful lot of rebounds--I think more that we have
seen from other goalies this year in Lynah.  For the most part Cornell was
not able to take advantage of these rebounds.  Is that characteristic of
his play and the Brown defense just unusually takes care of the rebounds or
was Cornell taking very good shots that Danis could not control as well as
he normally does?  .

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 you said in part:
>Perhaps someone or more people (bandspeople included)
>sitting in Section A on the opposite side of the ice had a better view and
>can shed some light on the puck's miraculous flight.

I was sitting at center ice behind Moulson with a clear view down the line
of his shot.  His shot was unchallenged and he had an open line through
traffic while Danis was not really in perfect position squared to the
shooter and was thus partially screened.  I could not see Danis's face so
he probably could not see the shot released.  Moulson had a lot of net to
shoot at.  All of this said I did not see the puck go in the net.  The shot
was so brutally fast that my eye could not track it in flight.  However,
the noise it made was the noise of the top back iron of the goal (a sort of
dull clunk) instead of the loud gong you get from the post or cross bar.  I
guess my ears are sharper than my eyes.  From the way the puck came out it
could not have been the right post  -- only the cross bar or top back iron
make sense.  Like you said the ref showed no hesitation and he was in
perfect position to see so it was in.  I have seen them go both ways for
and against Cornell and when the ref is in good position and calls it
immediately I accept the call.  Of course when the ref is out of position
it is not such a clear situation and I have seen in and out goals missed
(again both for and against Cornell -- maybe I have been to too many hockey
games).  It is interesting that the goal judge did get the light on right
away. Since it was such a fast shot I assume for both of them to see it
that the puck hit the back iron, then net, and out or net, then back iron,
and out.   Without net movement I don't think they could have seen it.

Steve