Agree 100%. Second hit was bad but no intent, just playing hard. First was completely unacceptable.Chousnake wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:24 pmThat first hit from behind was as dirty a play as I've seen in a long time and warranted more than a two minute penalty. It should have been 3 minutes non-releasable and an ejection. There is no justification for that hit, from behind, that late. The second hit was bang/bang. It was a penalty, but it was a lacrosse play. The first hit took some premeditation and malice. There is no defending that play. No 18-22 year old should be hit like that. Think of how bad that hit in the back could have been and the injuries it could have caused. Just a terrible awful play.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 pmI know that kind of scumbaggery flies at cuse as well, but go watch that hit from behind 3 seconds after Kirst gets rid of the ball and tell me they weren’t trying to take him out. You’re a clown.tech37 wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 6:37 pm"Fairly obvious the game plan was to take Kirst out." Seriously, CU fans don't believe this from a ND troll? I sure hope not.faircornell wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 6:28 pmAs I noted on the Ivy thread, I thought that the hit from behind might have merited an ejection.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 1:51 pmAfter rewatching two of the hits from last night as posted recently on LacrosseNetwork, i was wrong. Those two hits on Kirst by #54 (3 seconds late and from behind), and by Leveille were complete BS. Fairly obvious the game plan was to take Kirst out.BigTurn wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:58 pmTalking about the hit on Kirst just now at the crease. Yes, definitely deserving of a penalty, but I don’t agree it was dirty or intentional. Think that’s what Chousnake was saying, unless he meant a different play.semsox wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:55 pmI'm assuming this post was referring to the previous hit from behind. I don't think this hit was dirty so much as unfortunate. That said, still deserves the 2 minute unreleasable. Intent has nothing to do with it.BigTurn wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:54 pm100% a penalty but I don’t think there’s anything dirty there. Kirst clearly trips into him.faircornell wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:53 pmI can't believe that Quint is defending thar hit as clean...
Cornell 2024
Re: Cornell 2024
Re: Cornell 2024
Gt takes it, after getting a shot clock reset that replay showed they clearly should not have gotten.
Big Red's hopes dodge the first of 3 bullets.
We're all Pennsylvanians now!
Big Red's hopes dodge the first of 3 bullets.
We're all Pennsylvanians now!
-
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:23 pm
Re: Cornell 2024
Sorry... hitting directly in the back with a body check is, by itself, intent. It's illegal and at the DI level some form of player control is expected. Ignoring the rules is, by definition, "intent".BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:29 pmAgree 100%. Second hit was bad but no intent, just playing hard. First was completely unacceptable.Chousnake wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:24 pmThat first hit from behind was as dirty a play as I've seen in a long time and warranted more than a two minute penalty. It should have been 3 minutes non-releasable and an ejection. There is no justification for that hit, from behind, that late. The second hit was bang/bang. It was a penalty, but it was a lacrosse play. The first hit took some premeditation and malice. There is no defending that play. No 18-22 year old should be hit like that. Think of how bad that hit in the back could have been and the injuries it could have caused. Just a terrible awful play.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 pmI know that kind of scumbaggery flies at cuse as well, but go watch that hit from behind 3 seconds after Kirst gets rid of the ball and tell me they weren’t trying to take him out. You’re a clown.tech37 wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 6:37 pm"Fairly obvious the game plan was to take Kirst out." Seriously, CU fans don't believe this from a ND troll? I sure hope not.faircornell wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 6:28 pmAs I noted on the Ivy thread, I thought that the hit from behind might have merited an ejection.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 1:51 pmAfter rewatching two of the hits from last night as posted recently on LacrosseNetwork, i was wrong. Those two hits on Kirst by #54 (3 seconds late and from behind), and by Leveille were complete BS. Fairly obvious the game plan was to take Kirst out.BigTurn wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:58 pmTalking about the hit on Kirst just now at the crease. Yes, definitely deserving of a penalty, but I don’t agree it was dirty or intentional. Think that’s what Chousnake was saying, unless he meant a different play.semsox wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:55 pmI'm assuming this post was referring to the previous hit from behind. I don't think this hit was dirty so much as unfortunate. That said, still deserves the 2 minute unreleasable. Intent has nothing to do with it.BigTurn wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:54 pm100% a penalty but I don’t think there’s anything dirty there. Kirst clearly trips into him.faircornell wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:53 pmI can't believe that Quint is defending thar hit as clean...
Re: Cornell 2024
Maybe read what i wrote again. The one from straight behind was the first hit on Kirst. The second was Levelle hitting him as he fell towards the crease.faircornell wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:39 pmSorry... hitting directly in the back with a body check is, by itself, intent. It's illegal and at the DI level some form of player control is expected. Ignoring the rules is, by definition, "intent".BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:29 pmAgree 100%. Second hit was bad but no intent, just playing hard. First was completely unacceptable.Chousnake wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:24 pmThat first hit from behind was as dirty a play as I've seen in a long time and warranted more than a two minute penalty. It should have been 3 minutes non-releasable and an ejection. There is no justification for that hit, from behind, that late. The second hit was bang/bang. It was a penalty, but it was a lacrosse play. The first hit took some premeditation and malice. There is no defending that play. No 18-22 year old should be hit like that. Think of how bad that hit in the back could have been and the injuries it could have caused. Just a terrible awful play.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 pmI know that kind of scumbaggery flies at cuse as well, but go watch that hit from behind 3 seconds after Kirst gets rid of the ball and tell me they weren’t trying to take him out. You’re a clown.tech37 wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 6:37 pm"Fairly obvious the game plan was to take Kirst out." Seriously, CU fans don't believe this from a ND troll? I sure hope not.faircornell wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 6:28 pmAs I noted on the Ivy thread, I thought that the hit from behind might have merited an ejection.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 1:51 pmAfter rewatching two of the hits from last night as posted recently on LacrosseNetwork, i was wrong. Those two hits on Kirst by #54 (3 seconds late and from behind), and by Leveille were complete BS. Fairly obvious the game plan was to take Kirst out.BigTurn wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:58 pmTalking about the hit on Kirst just now at the crease. Yes, definitely deserving of a penalty, but I don’t agree it was dirty or intentional. Think that’s what Chousnake was saying, unless he meant a different play.semsox wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:55 pmI'm assuming this post was referring to the previous hit from behind. I don't think this hit was dirty so much as unfortunate. That said, still deserves the 2 minute unreleasable. Intent has nothing to do with it.BigTurn wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:54 pm100% a penalty but I don’t think there’s anything dirty there. Kirst clearly trips into him.faircornell wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:53 pmI can't believe that Quint is defending thar hit as clean...
-
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:23 pm
Re: Cornell 2024
My apologies. However, and addressing your point, it's hard to say regarding "intent".... I don't understand why you lower your body to hit a player who is falling. Penn played an outstanding defensive game. However, stricter referees could have justifiably made more punitive calls.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:47 pmMaybe read what i wrote again. The one from straight behind was the first hit on Kirst. The second was Levelle hitting him as he fell towards the crease.faircornell wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:39 pmSorry... hitting directly in the back with a body check is, by itself, intent. It's illegal and at the DI level some form of player control is expected. Ignoring the rules is, by definition, "intent".BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:29 pmAgree 100%. Second hit was bad but no intent, just playing hard. First was completely unacceptable.Chousnake wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:24 pmThat first hit from behind was as dirty a play as I've seen in a long time and warranted more than a two minute penalty. It should have been 3 minutes non-releasable and an ejection. There is no justification for that hit, from behind, that late. The second hit was bang/bang. It was a penalty, but it was a lacrosse play. The first hit took some premeditation and malice. There is no defending that play. No 18-22 year old should be hit like that. Think of how bad that hit in the back could have been and the injuries it could have caused. Just a terrible awful play.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 pmI know that kind of scumbaggery flies at cuse as well, but go watch that hit from behind 3 seconds after Kirst gets rid of the ball and tell me they weren’t trying to take him out. You’re a clown.tech37 wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 6:37 pm"Fairly obvious the game plan was to take Kirst out." Seriously, CU fans don't believe this from a ND troll? I sure hope not.faircornell wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 6:28 pmAs I noted on the Ivy thread, I thought that the hit from behind might have merited an ejection.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 1:51 pmAfter rewatching two of the hits from last night as posted recently on LacrosseNetwork, i was wrong. Those two hits on Kirst by #54 (3 seconds late and from behind), and by Leveille were complete BS. Fairly obvious the game plan was to take Kirst out.BigTurn wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:58 pmTalking about the hit on Kirst just now at the crease. Yes, definitely deserving of a penalty, but I don’t agree it was dirty or intentional. Think that’s what Chousnake was saying, unless he meant a different play.semsox wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:55 pmI'm assuming this post was referring to the previous hit from behind. I don't think this hit was dirty so much as unfortunate. That said, still deserves the 2 minute unreleasable. Intent has nothing to do with it.BigTurn wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:54 pm100% a penalty but I don’t think there’s anything dirty there. Kirst clearly trips into him.faircornell wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:53 pmI can't believe that Quint is defending thar hit as clean...
Re: Cornell 2024
Yes, hard to say intent. Levelles can be explained away as a bang bang play. The other, the kid takes 3 steps after Kirst got rid of the ball. Think you can infer when he knew the ball was gone and made a conscious decision to hit him squarely in the numbers anyway. Scummy play.faircornell wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:51 pmMy apologies. However, and addressing your point, it's hard to say regarding "intent".... I don't understand why you lower your body to hit a player who is falling. Penn played an outstanding defensive game. However, stricter referees could have justifiably made more punitive calls.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:47 pmMaybe read what i wrote again. The one from straight behind was the first hit on Kirst. The second was Levelle hitting him as he fell towards the crease.faircornell wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:39 pmSorry... hitting directly in the back with a body check is, by itself, intent. It's illegal and at the DI level some form of player control is expected. Ignoring the rules is, by definition, "intent".BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:29 pmAgree 100%. Second hit was bad but no intent, just playing hard. First was completely unacceptable.Chousnake wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:24 pmThat first hit from behind was as dirty a play as I've seen in a long time and warranted more than a two minute penalty. It should have been 3 minutes non-releasable and an ejection. There is no justification for that hit, from behind, that late. The second hit was bang/bang. It was a penalty, but it was a lacrosse play. The first hit took some premeditation and malice. There is no defending that play. No 18-22 year old should be hit like that. Think of how bad that hit in the back could have been and the injuries it could have caused. Just a terrible awful play.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 pmI know that kind of scumbaggery flies at cuse as well, but go watch that hit from behind 3 seconds after Kirst gets rid of the ball and tell me they weren’t trying to take him out. You’re a clown.tech37 wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 6:37 pm"Fairly obvious the game plan was to take Kirst out." Seriously, CU fans don't believe this from a ND troll? I sure hope not.faircornell wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 6:28 pmAs I noted on the Ivy thread, I thought that the hit from behind might have merited an ejection.BigTurn wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 1:51 pmAfter rewatching two of the hits from last night as posted recently on LacrosseNetwork, i was wrong. Those two hits on Kirst by #54 (3 seconds late and from behind), and by Leveille were complete BS. Fairly obvious the game plan was to take Kirst out.BigTurn wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:58 pmTalking about the hit on Kirst just now at the crease. Yes, definitely deserving of a penalty, but I don’t agree it was dirty or intentional. Think that’s what Chousnake was saying, unless he meant a different play.semsox wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:55 pmI'm assuming this post was referring to the previous hit from behind. I don't think this hit was dirty so much as unfortunate. That said, still deserves the 2 minute unreleasable. Intent has nothing to do with it.BigTurn wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:54 pm100% a penalty but I don’t think there’s anything dirty there. Kirst clearly trips into him.faircornell wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 10:53 pmI can't believe that Quint is defending thar hit as clean...
-
- Posts: 463
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:51 am
Re: Cornell 2024
Michigan up 5-1 over PSU after 1 Q
Re: Cornell 2024
Well, PSU did come from way behind to beat Yale.
-
- Posts: 463
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:51 am
Re: Cornell 2024
Now 9-3 Michigan at half.
Re: Cornell 2024
I can't believe the Ivy is going to be a 1 bid league. Just doesn't make sense
Re: Cornell 2024
would have expected Cornell plus winner of ivy.
Re: Cornell 2024
If Michigan wins is Big Red out and is the Ivy a one bid league?
Re: Cornell 2024
Announcers are saying Princeton and Penn would be the only two in.
Re: Cornell 2024
Notre Dame ( 11 - 1 ) 1 at large
Duke ( 12 - 4 ) 2 at large
Johns Hopkins ( 10 - 4 ) 3 at large
Syracuse ( 11 - 5 ) 4 at large
Virginia ( 10 - 5 ) 5 at large
Penn State ( 11 - 3 ) 6 at large
Denver ( 11 - 3 ) 7 at large
Maryland ( 8 - 5 ) 8 at large 8
Georgetown ( 12 - 3 ) 9 aq
Penn ( 9 - 5 ) 10
Princeton ( 10 - 4 ) 11
Cornell ( 9 - 5 ) 12
Yale ( 11 - 4 ) 13
St Josephs (PA) ( 12 - 3 ) 14
Michigan ( 9 - 6 ) 15
Towson ( 13 - 3 ) 16
---------------------------------------
Yeah - they're out.
Only the Ivy League AQ this year.
Duke ( 12 - 4 ) 2 at large
Johns Hopkins ( 10 - 4 ) 3 at large
Syracuse ( 11 - 5 ) 4 at large
Virginia ( 10 - 5 ) 5 at large
Penn State ( 11 - 3 ) 6 at large
Denver ( 11 - 3 ) 7 at large
Maryland ( 8 - 5 ) 8 at large 8
Georgetown ( 12 - 3 ) 9 aq
Penn ( 9 - 5 ) 10
Princeton ( 10 - 4 ) 11
Cornell ( 9 - 5 ) 12
Yale ( 11 - 4 ) 13
St Josephs (PA) ( 12 - 3 ) 14
Michigan ( 9 - 6 ) 15
Towson ( 13 - 3 ) 16
---------------------------------------
Yeah - they're out.
Only the Ivy League AQ this year.
Last edited by 10stone5 on Sat May 04, 2024 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Cornell 2024
Short of Maryland or Virginia being left out, it'll be a 1 bid Ivy:
ACC: ND, Syr, UVA, Duke
Big Ten: Michigan (AQ), PSU, Maryland, Hopkins
Big East: Georgetown (AQ), Denver
Ivy: Winner
Patriot: Winner
MAAC: Sacred Heart
A10: St. Joe's
CAA: Towson
American East: Albany
ASUN: Winner
ACC: ND, Syr, UVA, Duke
Big Ten: Michigan (AQ), PSU, Maryland, Hopkins
Big East: Georgetown (AQ), Denver
Ivy: Winner
Patriot: Winner
MAAC: Sacred Heart
A10: St. Joe's
CAA: Towson
American East: Albany
ASUN: Winner
Re: Cornell 2024
Michigan wins and there are 4 at-large teams from the ACC, 3 from the Big Ten (Hop, Penn State, Maryland) and then Denver
Ivy title game tomorrow is a play-in game
Ivy title game tomorrow is a play-in game
Re: Cornell 2024
When were the top 8 RPI teams all at large, when did this last happen - never would be my guess.
-
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:32 pm
Re: Cornell 2024
Queue the moral outrage from the ESPN shrills about how Cornell and the loser of the ILT final game got screwed by a four bid ACC. Or maybe that won’t happen.
Re: Cornell 2024
Maryland and Virginia are gonna get home games.semsox wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 10:34 pm Short of Maryland or Virginia being left out, it'll be a 1 bid Ivy:
ACC: ND, Syr, UVA, Duke
Big Ten: Michigan (AQ), PSU, Maryland, Hopkins
Big East: Georgetown (AQ), Denver
Ivy: Winner
Patriot: Winner
MAAC: Sacred Heart
A10: St. Joe's
CAA: Towson
American East: Albany
ASUN: Winner
Penn State has the H2H's over Cornell and Yale, which greatly damages their case. Princeton needed to win the AQ coming in. You could try and squint and make a case for Penn over Penn State, but it's not really there.
It is crazy how it all happened to Cornell, they probably had a >90% chance of making it this time last time last weekend. But that's why you're not a lock till you're a lock