Meet In CommonNews

Local

UMass field hockey set for rematch with Harvard after upsetting Yale in NCAA Tournament

Meet in Common connects news with real conversations. Use ThinkMatch to arrange a Roundtable and meet people to discuss this story.

Source: Daily Hampshire Gazette

Ahead of the UMass field hockey team’s first round NCAA Tournament game against No. 6 Yale on Friday, Minutewomen head coach Barb Weinberg knew her team would have to get an early goal if they were to have a chance at advancing. With the Bulldogs having a strong goalie in Amelie Schwarzkopf, a deficit would be difficult to come back from. Midfielder Elani Sherwood executed Weinberg’s game plan by netting a back-handed goal in the second period that turned into the game-winning goal for UMass in its 1-0 upset over Yale in Cambridge. Friday was the second straight game Sherwood scored. The All-MAC First Team player scored UMass’ only goal in the conference championship loss to Miami (Ohio). MAC Goalkeeper of the Year Rozárie Mrázová stopped all eight shots in net for UMass. The win sets up a rematch with No. 3 Harvard in the quarterfinals. UMass beat the Crimson in the 3-1 in Cambridge during the regular season.

This excerpt comes from the named source. Read the original for the full reporting.

Read the original at Daily Hampshire Gazette

Featured places to meet in Cambridge, MA

Explore these places and arrange a conversation through ThinkMatch.

City guide for Cambridge, MA

Community Poll

Allegations should not be treated as proven until a fair process establishes the facts.

Share your view, then see how readers voted. No sign-in required. This poll is shared across stories.

Do you agree or disagree?

Choose one answer

Common Quandary

A Common Quandary to discuss

Another conversation to explore, separate from this news story.

Software says a student cheated with AI. Is that enough to fail the paper?

A teacher suspects several essays were written with AI. Detection software marks one student's work as highly likely to be generated, but the software is known to make mistakes and the student denies using it.

How should responsibility be assigned when evidence is powerful but unreliable?

Explore this quandary