Greg inquired:
>Notice the ridiculous number of powerplays in the Cornell-Harvard game last
>(Cornell 11, Harvard 10).  Was this chippiness, poor execution, or
>officialdom silliness -- anybody who attended have an opinion?
 
For the most part, I would have to say that Noeth and his crew were dead-on
last night.  I found myself nodding in agreement with his calls and his
assistants' calls far more often than I usually do with ECAC officials.
Both the Crimson and the Red tried to get away with some questionable
things, and simply failed to do so.  There were chippy moments in the game,
but there was also a lot of good execution; it just so happens that it was
combined with a bit too much brute force on occasion.
 
The other thing I would mention is that you might have noticed looking over
the box that there was not a single instance of coincidental minors.  22
penalties (I believe it was 11 for each team) isn't all that unusual for a
single game of hockey, but 22 power plays is.
 
Cornell's penalty kill looked great last night (they're now 14 of 16 on the
season); it's a shame the power play unit didn't look as good (they're now
2 of 17).  It reminded me a bit of the McCutcheon power play, because they
seemed to want to line up The Perfect Shot (tm) rather than taking the puck
to the net more often.  To be fair, the Harvard penalty kill was also doing
their jobs pretty well; n.b. the short-handed goal that was a direct result
of solid, unrelenting pressure.  Luckily Cornell didn't have the same
problem with even-strength play.
 
Jeffrey Anbinder, CU '94
Ithaca Times Hockey Columnist
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.