>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?
>
 
RPI has been using 5 forwards on the power play all year. So using
them like this does not necessarily mean they were trying to run the
score up. On the other hand, it didn't mean that they were trying
intentionally not to score either. RPI was coming in off a 3 game losing
streak and had not played well the last several games. They also are
facing Colgate and Cornell on the road this weekend. They may have
been trying to get their act together playing with new line combinations
to get ready for next weekend. I agree that the Harvard team could easily
misinterpret that. Also, Harvard has started out miserably this season.
It probably doesn't take much to bring that level of frustration to the
surface for a team with such an illustrious hockey history during what
has started out as a struggling year. It's just unfortunate
that the game degenerated  to what it did.
 
>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.
>
Maybe you underestimate  her hockey knowledge. During the 3rd period
the RPI defense did indeed look terrible. She was visibly upset.
It was the first time I've ever seen a radio announcer talk so much with
her hands. I was afraid she was going to lose her balance and go over
the catwalk railing.
 
>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.
>
That's too bad! Having lived through some horrible RPI seasons, I
know how difficult it is to root for a team that has little chance of winning.
It can be difficult to keep getting psyched to go the games. It must
be even more difficult for radio announcers who not only go to
the home games but the away games also. In addition, while they're
working at the games, they don't get a chance to socialize to
at least make the experience more enjoyable.
However, that it the job they've chosen to do. While they should be
honest, and state that their team is playing poorly (the WRPI
announcers sure do), they should also look for and report on the positive
aspects of their teams's play (which, to their credit, the WRPI announcers
also do).
 
Mark Lewin
RPI '69
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.