In article <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask] wrote:
 
> Greg Friedman raised the issue of deciding a tie game, noting that
> two teams skating on exhausted legs seems as arbitraty as a shootout.
> Although I don't agree with his thesis, I did think that the
> Brown/Princeton series revealed the danger of a three-game, three-day
> series (with or without overtime). The players (on both sides) were
> definitely out of control and undisciplined in the first period of
> game 3 to the point where serious injury could have resulted and it
> made for ugly hockey. Naturally, the risk of injury increases with
> fatigue as well. The ECAC used to have one game quarterfinals until
> Harvard was upset in '93, when (surprise) the league unveiled the
> three game series the following season. Harvard's role in lobbying
> for the new format is a well-known exhibition of Billy Cleary's
> influence on the league. It seems ludicrous that the league alters
> the playoff format every year (three games, two and a minigame,
> one game, three games w/no OT in the first two, etc.). Personally,
> I like a two-game total goal series. Everybody knows the deal -
> you should play defense first. Granted, the second game can be
> very strange if a team lost big on the first night, but I think
> it's the best compromise to avoid overlong series and yet prevent
> a rash of upsets from damaging the league's NCAA tournament
> chances.
>
> As for the refs in game 3 of the Harvard/Brown game, I don't see
> what choice they had BUT to call a ton of coincidental minors and
> misconcucts. Both teams were equally guilty of cheap stuff behind
> the play, taking runs at each other and generally poor sportsmanship.
> To decide such an evenly played series on special teams would have
> been a travesty, never mind robbing the players on the third and
> fourth line a chance to factor in the outcome. The bulk of the
> responsible players got to watch much of the first 20 minutes
> from the penalty box, think about the importance of the game,
> and then spend the remaining 62 minutes playing a wildly exciting
> game. I saw referees Taylor and Stewart after the game and made
> a point of commending them for a fine job. Taylor looked at me
> with an exhausted, baleful expression on his face and said
> "Thank you!" Any fans who think that refereeing that type of game
> is easy or even enjoyable should try it out sometime.
>
> Geoff Howell
> The Trenton Times
> Drop the Puck
 
Geoff, I am going to have to disagree with you about that one. Taylor and
Stewart called matching minors only appease Cahoon who blew his lid the
night before. On top of that, they wanted to keep play even and not have
it turn into a contest of special teams. But, that was what they did
anyway. The calls were ridiculous, and six misconducts in one period is
just stupid. They have to grow up.
More importantly, however, Princeton really likes to clutch, grab, and
hold. As Gaudet said after the game,"The first half of that game [three]
was not hockey. I don't know what it was - but it was the furthest thing
away from hockey that it could possibly be." He's right. You can't get to
the puck when a team plays like that. If the refs don't call that kind of
stuff, it acts as an equalizer. Brown is faster and more skilled than
Princeton, but doesn't match the Tiger intensity of physical play. I'm not
saying Mike Traggio and cohorts are angels, but compared to Smith and
others, they can have their hallows now. Stewart and Taylor let Princeton
have the checking equalizer, and that's just crap. It slowed the game down
- the first period went on forever, and I had a midterm the next day.
If referees continue to allow clutch, grab, and hold defense, then we are
really going to see the game slow down a lot.
But as Gaudet also noted,"I give them credit for coming down here witha
game plan." I'm not as understanding or fair- they played dirty and got
away with it because Taylor and Stewart are afraid to give a team the
man-advantage.
 
Martin Small
Brown Daily Herald