Cornell 2024

D1 Mens Lacrosse
BigTurn
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2024 3:21 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by BigTurn »

Chousnake wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:24 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 pm
tech37 wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 6:37 pm
faircornell wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 6:28 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 1:51 pm
BigTurn wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:58 pm
semsox wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:55 pm
BigTurn wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:54 pm
faircornell wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:53 pm
Chousnake wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:50 pm What a dirty play that was. No respect for Penn after that crap
I can't believe that Quint is defending thar hit as clean...
100% a penalty but I don’t think there’s anything dirty there. Kirst clearly trips into him.
I'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.
Talking 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.
After 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.
As I noted on the Ivy thread, I thought that the hit from behind might have merited an ejection.
"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.
I 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.
That 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.
Agree 100%. Second hit was bad but no intent, just playing hard. First was completely unacceptable.
another fan
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:51 am

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by another fan »

GT wins it in OT 11/10
User avatar
CU77
Posts: 3644
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 1:49 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by CU77 »

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!
faircornell
Posts: 1794
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by faircornell »

BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:29 pm
Chousnake wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:24 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 pm
tech37 wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 6:37 pm
faircornell wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 6:28 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 1:51 pm
BigTurn wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:58 pm
semsox wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:55 pm
BigTurn wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:54 pm
faircornell wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:53 pm
Chousnake wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:50 pm What a dirty play that was. No respect for Penn after that crap
I can't believe that Quint is defending thar hit as clean...
100% a penalty but I don’t think there’s anything dirty there. Kirst clearly trips into him.
I'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.
Talking 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.
After 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.
As I noted on the Ivy thread, I thought that the hit from behind might have merited an ejection.
"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.
I 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.
That 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.
Agree 100%. Second hit was bad but no intent, just playing hard. First was completely unacceptable.
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
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2024 3:21 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by BigTurn »

faircornell wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:39 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:29 pm
Chousnake wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:24 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 pm
tech37 wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 6:37 pm
faircornell wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 6:28 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 1:51 pm
BigTurn wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:58 pm
semsox wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:55 pm
BigTurn wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:54 pm
faircornell wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:53 pm
Chousnake wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:50 pm What a dirty play that was. No respect for Penn after that crap
I can't believe that Quint is defending thar hit as clean...
100% a penalty but I don’t think there’s anything dirty there. Kirst clearly trips into him.
I'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.
Talking 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.
After 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.
As I noted on the Ivy thread, I thought that the hit from behind might have merited an ejection.
"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.
I 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.
That 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.
Agree 100%. Second hit was bad but no intent, just playing hard. First was completely unacceptable.
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".
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
Posts: 1794
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by faircornell »

BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:47 pm
faircornell wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:39 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:29 pm
Chousnake wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:24 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 pm
tech37 wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 6:37 pm
faircornell wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 6:28 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 1:51 pm
BigTurn wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:58 pm
semsox wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:55 pm
BigTurn wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:54 pm
faircornell wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:53 pm
Chousnake wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:50 pm What a dirty play that was. No respect for Penn after that crap
I can't believe that Quint is defending thar hit as clean...
100% a penalty but I don’t think there’s anything dirty there. Kirst clearly trips into him.
I'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.
Talking 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.
After 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.
As I noted on the Ivy thread, I thought that the hit from behind might have merited an ejection.
"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.
I 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.
That 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.
Agree 100%. Second hit was bad but no intent, just playing hard. First was completely unacceptable.
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".
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.
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
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2024 3:21 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by BigTurn »

faircornell wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:51 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:47 pm
faircornell wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:39 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:29 pm
Chousnake wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:24 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 7:12 pm
tech37 wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 6:37 pm
faircornell wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 6:28 pm
BigTurn wrote: Sat May 04, 2024 1:51 pm
BigTurn wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:58 pm
semsox wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:55 pm
BigTurn wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:54 pm
faircornell wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:53 pm
Chousnake wrote: Fri May 03, 2024 10:50 pm What a dirty play that was. No respect for Penn after that crap
I can't believe that Quint is defending thar hit as clean...
100% a penalty but I don’t think there’s anything dirty there. Kirst clearly trips into him.
I'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.
Talking 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.
After 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.
As I noted on the Ivy thread, I thought that the hit from behind might have merited an ejection.
"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.
I 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.
That 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.
Agree 100%. Second hit was bad but no intent, just playing hard. First was completely unacceptable.
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".
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.
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.
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.
another fan
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:51 am

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by another fan »

Michigan up 5-1 over PSU after 1 Q
FannOLax
Posts: 2280
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:03 am

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by FannOLax »

Well, PSU did come from way behind to beat Yale.
another fan
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:51 am

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by another fan »

Now 9-3 Michigan at half.
semsox
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by semsox »

I can't believe the Ivy is going to be a 1 bid league. Just doesn't make sense
norcalhop
Posts: 694
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 4:17 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by norcalhop »

would have expected Cornell plus winner of ivy.
xxxxxxx
Posts: 707
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:08 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by xxxxxxx »

If Michigan wins is Big Red out and is the Ivy a one bid league?
norcalhop
Posts: 694
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 4:17 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by norcalhop »

Announcers are saying Princeton and Penn would be the only two in.
10stone5
Posts: 7731
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:29 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by 10stone5 »

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.
Last edited by 10stone5 on Sat May 04, 2024 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
semsox
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:37 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by semsox »

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
jrn19
Posts: 2404
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 10:41 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by jrn19 »

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
10stone5
Posts: 7731
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:29 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by 10stone5 »

When were the top 8 RPI teams all at large, when did this last happen - never would be my guess.
ctbagataway
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 2:32 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by ctbagataway »

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.
jrn19
Posts: 2404
Joined: Wed May 15, 2019 10:41 pm

Re: Cornell 2024

Post by jrn19 »

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
Maryland and Virginia are gonna get home games.

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
Post Reply

Return to “D1 MENS LACROSSE”