Mike writes:
(Cornell-Clarkson)
>I too believe that Currie was put in goal to shake the
>team up a bit.
 
I agree...but it doesn't make sense for Morris to take such a shot at Rogles
like that.  I wonder why he didn't just say that he wanted to spark the team.
You usually don't take shots at specific players in public, and that's the
way I read his comment (about maybe wishing he'd started Currie instead - it
may not have mattered).
 
>               Markko Tuomainen's second goal was real incredible.
>Rogles had cleared the puck.  It went down ice and behind the Cornell
>net.  Duffus and a Cornell player went back to play it but neither
>touched it.  Tuomainen went behind the goal on the right side, go the
>puck, pulled it out front and put it in the empty net.  Duffus was
>standing there looking up ice.
 
Tyler McManus said this: "I was on the bench, but we all thought it was
icing.  He (Tuomainen) smiled when he passed our bench.  He knew it was also."
 
Duffus said: "I stopped it (? I thought he didn't touch it) and was going to
leave it for Burke.  He was saying something, but I couldn't hear him.  The
guy (Tuomainen) just came out of nowhere and just put it in."  (Maybe he meant
he was going to stop it, I can't quite remember the play, or he may have
stopped it after it crossed the line because he thought the automatic icing
would be called - thus he left it and turned to look for the icing call.  I'm
surprised he did this without hearing a whistle.)
 
Quotes from the ECAC, thought they might shed some light on this.  Mike is
very right about Clarkson's bad second costing them (at least forcing them
to ot, they did play well the rest of the game and blowing the faceoff coverage
cost them the winner in ot - as Morris suggested, Cornell just played a more
complete game).
---
Mike Machnik    [log in to unmask]   mikem@{beanpot,bubba}.ma30.bull.com