Mike M wrote:
>OK, I have to be honest here after all of the Cole-bashing that has
>taken place.  I'm not picking on Larry, just to make that clear.
 
No Offense taken.
 
>It's easier for me to believe that LSSU people cannot give an
>objective assessment of Cole's ability to referee a game because the
>examples they give only involve games that LSSU lost or played in.
 
Unfortunately I've only seen him when LSSU has him for an official. I can
only assess what I see.
 
>This is an argument that I think made more sense several years ago
>(and I recall hearing Parker and Walsh say these things many years
>ago).  The Western teams were always perceived as big and physical,
>while the Eastern teams were seen as small and less physical.
 
I could be wrong but Walsh has said this as late as possibly the '93-94 season.
 
>I doubt that people from the West who have seen a number of Eastern
>teams over the last few years would say that this is still true.
>Teams like BU, BC, Clarkson, Providence, Lowell, Merrimack, etc. (not
>an all-inclusive list) do play a very physical game and most of them
>have some good size.  And they have had success when going up against
>the Western teams.
>
>So Cole is used to doing games with teams that play a physical style.
>Heck, I have seen him do many games this season involving two of the
>more physical teams in all of DivI, not just HE: Providence and
>Merrimack.  And I never saw any indication that he favored one team
>over the other, even when they were playing teams that were not as
>physical.
 
I did not intend to say Lake State lost to Vermont because of bad
officiating. I merely tried to put forth an opinion of a possible link
between officiating and/or "league" playing styles. I would admit to not
having seen many eastern teams play recently. So I will also admit an error
in my reasoning.
>
>Perhaps the strangest thing about the criticism of Cole from LSSU
>folks is this question of the physical style.  If you ask people who
>actually are familiar with him, you will find that the basic opinion
>of him is that he is a referee who "lets the teams play".  Thus, if
>there really is a big difference in style between the two teams, the
>physical team should benefit because they will get away with more -
>sometimes more than under a different referee.  I have found this to
>be true when comparing Cole to other HE referees.  Merrimack, for
>example, seems to do best under Cole because he lets them take
>liberties in the physical aspect of play.  Other referees call their
>games tighter and this hurts them.
 
Being physical does not necessarily mean taking a lot of penalties.
 
>Interesting.  It almost sounds as if they set themselves up to blame
>the officiating if they lost.  I hope this is not true, because it was
>not a factor, and I never thought of LSSU before as a team that did this.
>Tim Thomas and Martin St Louis had a lot more to do with Vermont
>winning than Frank Cole did.
 
Bill Crawford is nothing if he isn't at least entertaining. Some might
disagree, and say he is too one sided. He can make the game sound exciting.
Bill at no time actually blamed the officiating. He merely expressed concern
about what could be perceived to be a past problem. I would readily admit at
one time in the past the Lakers were a "clutch and grab" team. Sometimes old
reputations die hard.
 
As I mentioned before I did not intend to pin the loss to Vermont on Frank
Cole. Vermont is a good team and deserved to be the tournement where
everybody is dangerous. The team did not play up to it's potential but it
should still be proud of it's season.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hockey is life, Everything else are just details
 
 
Larry Gilbert
LSSU '94
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.