Isaac Wood’s column (“The Gift that keeps on giving,” 3/30/2009) speaks (correctly) to the fact that participation should be at the heart of class giving, which is why a response is necessary to clarify some of the inaccuracies in his column. Class giving is and always has been about getting as many members of the graduating class to participate as possible. This is the case precisely for all of the reasons Wood listed and, perhaps at its heart, to give students the opportunity to give back to the organizations that most influenced their time at the University.

If the purpose of class giving were to reach a dollar amount obtained from a few students, then having events such as the Phonathon (where trustees called fourth-year students) and cap and gown week would be a waste of time, on top of only achieving a “drop in the bucket.” It would also make those who give a smaller amount seem unimportant, which is false. No gift is too small, which is why the average amount pledged is $20.

All 58 of the trustees are well versed in talking about class giving, but the size and nature of our school makes it harder to reach as high a participation level as smaller, private institutions, even with 58 individuals representing a wide array of groups on Grounds. The University’s goal of 66 percent is no Yale (89 percent), but it is right in step with schools such as Harvard and Duke, who reached 68 percent and 53 percent last year, respectively.

The honor trial that resulted in the expulsion of fourth-year student Jason Smith on Sunday, March 29 was one of the most appalling things I’ve witnessed in my time at the University. As a member of the University community, I have always revered the honor system and respected the Honor Committee’s role in maintaining the high standards that are demanded of its students. That said, I feel that it is cases like these that are more detrimental to the integrity of the honor system than the offenses themselves. This case should never have been brought up to the Committee in the first place; the degree of triviality of missing a few assignments and suspicious excuses should have been significant enough to dismiss the case from the beginning.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the apparent irony that the class was centered on the subject of honor was not ignored in the proceedings. I am embarrassed to be a part of a community that would so quickly and so coldly turn a fellow student’s life upside down for the sake of making an example of out him. The single sanction is not merely controversial for its severity, but for the arbitrariness in its implementation. If the Committee would like to police the student body for missing assignments, we are going to have a very small community of “trust” left.

Lastly, the class itself was a pass/fail one-credit class. By definition, the class demanded very little effort from its students. It is evident that Smith chose to not put forth effort, and therefore deserved a failing grade, but beyond that I am hard pressed to find the justice in expelling him from the University for the minor offenses he is guilty of. Unfortunately, today is one day in which I am not proud to be a Cavalier.

After deliberating for more than four hours at an open honor trial, a random student jury found fourth-year College student Jason Smith guilty of lying yesterday.

The charges were brought forth by third-year College student Mary Siegel, incoming vice chair for investigations, and second-year College student Michelle Fox. Both Siegel and Fox acted as facilitators in Smith’s LASE 151 class, “Honor and Ethics Everyday Life,” in the past fall semester.

The class was a pass/fail one-credit course that met once a week in small sections.

According to testimony given by Siegel, the primary witness during the trial, LASE 151 was a class of about 40 students divided into three small sections, which were led by student facilitators. Fox and Siegel, who were two of the six students chosen to facilitate the small sections, led the section of 10 students of which Smith was a part.

During the semester, the class was assigned to turn in an informal one- to two-page reflection paper Oct. 1 that discussed “what you were feeling about the class” Siegel said during the trial.

Smith did not turn in the assignment and then was absent the next class meeting Oct. 8, she said. Smith e-mailed Siegel Oct. 9, explaining that his absence was a result of a family emergency. According to statements made by the counsel for the accused, Smith’s aunt was incarcerated during that time and Smith went home to help his family.

Jeff Smith, brother of the accused and the fourth witness at the trial, said there was “a lot of fallout that needed to be attended to.”
Smith again did not attend the class Oct. 15, however, and still had not turned in his reflection paper, Siegel said in her testimony.
According to the facts of the trial presented by the counsel for the accused, Smith did not e-mail the facilitators about this second absence and “accepted that it was unexcused.”

The entire LASE 151 class met in the Honor Committee’s trial room on the fourth floor Newcomb Oct. 22 for a guest speaker and Siegel and Fox decided to pull Smith aside to discuss his absences and reflection paper.

During this time, Smith told Siegel and Fox that one of his absences was because his wallet had been stolen and that he had to go to the Bank of America to replace his credit cards and that the other absence was because he had a paper due in another class the next week and chose to miss LASE 151 to work on that assignment, Siegel said.

While Smith provided explanations for his absences, he did not discuss why he had not turned his reflection paper in yet. Additionally, he did not mention the family emergency that he had discussed previously in an e-mail.

When asked why he did not mention this excuse, he said he “didn’t want to reveal the extent of the nature of the family emergency.”

According to the class’ syllabus, one-third of the student’s grades in the class came from participation and attendance and each student was allowed one unexcused absence and all other absences had to be discussed with Siegel or Fox.

Though it was never clarified with Smith whether his absences were excused or not, Smith still expressed interest in passing the class, Siegel said during the trial.

“Jason kept telling us he wanted to put forth effort” so that he could pass the class, Siegel said.

As a result, Siegel and Fox assigned Smith an alternative assignment that consisted of two papers that were each to be three to four pages in length.

Of the two papers, one of them was supposed to discuss the importance of the class, the purpose of coming to class and Smith’s reasons for missing the class twice.

Siegel and Fox assigned the papers to be due Oct. 29.

On that particular day, Siegel and Fox chose to cancel class to give their students the opportunity to work on their group projects for the class and Smith was given the option of submitting his papers either via e-mail or to Siegel’s mailbox in Newcomb.

By Nov. 3, half a week after Smith’s modified due date, Siegel said she was sitting on the Lawn that day when Smith walked by her. Siegel told Smith that she still had not received his two papers. According to Siegel’s testimony, Smith told her he had already written the papers, they were on his flash drive and he would e-mail them to Siegel as soon as he got out of class.

During the trial, Smith said he did not “particularly remember” telling Siegel his papers were on a flash drive. Both of the papers were turned in size-14 font and not in Times New Roman font, Siegel claimed. Though there were no references on the class’ syllabus about paper formatting, Siegel said she decided to “standardize” them into size 12 Times New Roman font.

Once Siegel changed the size of the font, neither of the papers met the length requirements assigned to Smith by Siegel and Fox. When Fox asked why Smith had used the font that he did, Smith responded that his “computer does that.”

Fox said Smith’s papers had “little to no effort put into them,” and that it was obvious he was “just doing the bare minimum.”

Siegel and Fox asked Smith when he actually wrote the two papers and he said he had written each of them before their original due date of Oct. 29. Siegel said she then checked the date created function on the papers and saw that each of the papers were typed Nov. 3, the day Smith turned them in.

In his paper, Smith attributed his absences to being sick and working to finish another assignment; he did not mention the family emergency or his allegedly lost wallet. Fox then held a meeting with Smith Nov. 11 to confront him about this discrepancy. Fox told Smith that she and Siegel felt he was being dishonest with them.

Smith said he had completed the papers Oct. 27 or 28, before his Oct. 29 deadline, but that he had written the papers by hand because of a “nasty virus” on his computer. It was not until Nov. 3 around 7 p.m., after he had run into Siegel on the Lawn, that he typed the papers on a computer in the library.

Smith said Siegel’s e-mail only asked him to clarify when he wrote the papers and not when he typed the papers and admitted that he could see how his comments “could be perceived as deceiving.”

According to Fox’s testimony, Smith seemed to treat the situation very casually and said, “Hey, I’m a nice guy,” when she met with him.
In addition to speaking with Smith, Fox asked him to bring his laptop to the meeting so she could check and see when the papers were typed on the laptop. Neither of the papers were on Smith’s laptop.

Both Siegel and Fox said they decided Smith would not receive credit for the course, but were unsure as to whether they should bring him up on honor charges. Siegel decided to print out all of the e-mails and create a timeline of the actions in question.

“After really looking at that on Nov. 15, we decided we would go forward with honor charges,” Siegel said.

Siegel said she believed something like this “would change the way students interact with students” if left unchallenged, as Siegel and Fox were acting in the role of teachers for the class.

“A degree from the University of Virginia has a certain significance,” Fox said during the trial, and “leaving this to go unnoticed” would diminish that.

Smith said the comments he made to Siegel may have been “misleading, but I didn’t mislead her intentionally.”

During his testimony, Smith said he had not yet enrolled in LASE 151 before its first class session and had thus not received the syllabus when it was passed out to the large group during the first day of class. He did, however, receive a copy of the syllabus during the first small section class and said he “glanced over it.”

Siegel said the first couple of weeks of the class “were dedicated just to honor,” and despite the fact that the honor code was not discussed in the LASE 151 syllabus and that Smith missed the first day of class, honor was “discussed during the first couple of weeks of class” and Smith was aware of it, Siegel said.

In the end, the evidence brought forth against Smith was enough for jury members to convict.

Third-year Law student Robert Baldwin, who attended the trial, however, expressed some concern about Siegel’s role within the Honor Committee and about how that role could have influenced jury members to find Smith guilty.

“When that first community witness was testifying, she [Siegel] very clearly knew the language of the procedure … and in my mind I thought she must be a counselor or be on the committee,” Baldwin said.

Current Committee Chair Jess Huang, however, said she does not believe Siegel’s role in honor had any impact on the trial.

“I think this is just a great example of a student who really wanted to enforce the standards of the community of trust and brought it up for another student panel to decide,” Huang said in an interview later Sunday night.

To be found guilty of an honor offense, four-fifths of a jury has to find a student guilty of act and intent and a simple majority has to find him guilty of non-triviality. Smith chose a random student jury that consisted of 11 undergraduate students and one graduate student; the jury yesterday included five first-year students, three second-year students, three third-year students and one Darden student.

After the first break, one jury member was asked to leave after she was caught reading a book under her desk during the trial.

According to the Committee’s bylaws, if he so chooses, Smith can appeal the jury’s decision either on the grounds of new evidence or good cause.

An alleged incident of racial discrimination last week led a student group to demand an apology from a local restaurant and also led that student group to question the fairness of the business’ dress policy.

At about 1:30 a.m. Friday morning, a Sikh University student was denied entry into the X-Lounge, a restaurant and bar near the Downtown Mall, for refusing to remove his turban.

The student, who wished to remain anonymous because of the relatively low number of practicing Sikh students on Grounds, wanted to attend a party hosted by the Indian Student Association, of which he is a member.

The student said as he was entering, the restaurant’s doorman quickly confronted him.

“He said, ‘I can’t let you in with that thing on,” the student said, adding that it would have been against his faith to remove the turban.
After the student was denied entry by the doorman, ISA Co-President Aparna Baheti said she then spoke to the restaurant’s manager. Baheti said the manager could not distinguish whether the headwear was for “religious or gang use.”

Following her conversation with the manager, Baheti said most ISA members attending the party promptly left.

“The ISA believes it’s a discriminatory policy,” Baheti said.

Some ISA members, however, remained at the X-Lounge and called Charlottesville Police, who responded but “couldn’t do anything about it,” Baheti said.

The police told the Sikh student that the restaurant’s owners had the right to not allow people into their private establishment, Baheti said.

Following the incident, the ISA released a statement via e-mail to various student organizations discouraging them from holding parties or events at the X-Lounge.

“We are contacting you because we feel that members of the University community would not stand for this kind of discriminatory behavior,” the statement reads. “The Indian Student Association is demanding … a change in [X-Lounge] policy regarding head coverings.”

In response to various student organizations’ complaints, X-Lounge issued an apology to the ISA Saturday afternoon via e-mail. The statement calls the incident “an unfortunate mistake” in judgement.

“The X-Lounge has a ‘no head covering’ policy and at times this policy has created difficult situations,” the e-mail states.

The statement also notes that the incident showed a “lack of common sense” and that the restaurant has taken steps to “make sure that this situation is never repeated.”

While the apology was prompt, Baheti said she believes it is not enough to reconcile the situation and stop similar incidents from occurring in the future.

“The part about what specifically is going to be done [to prevent future incidents] needs to be more specific,” Baheti said. “What’s happening to the manager who did this?”

Although the incident occurred off Grounds, it still raised some concern within the University community. Baheti said ISA received many replies from organizations and individual students that were “pretty positive responses.”

“We appreciate the gestures other organizations have made towards us,” Baheti said.

Graduate Darden student Abhilekh Kumar also said he is currently working with Darden student representatives to have Darden refuse to officially hold events — more specifically, Thursday night bar events — at the X-Lounge until the venue issues a sufficient apology.

“This is a most unfortunate and disappointing incident and shows that there are still people in our community who do not understand the basic tenants of our country,” University spokesperson Carol Wood said. “We are, however, grateful that an apology was issued quickly and hope that this will be a learning experience for all involved.”

X-Lounge management did not return phone calls as of press time.

Four Chi Phi brothers charged with abduction last September were sentenced Thursday to four days in jail after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct.

Second-year College students Jordan Davis, Joseph Uzcategui, Chase Whitlow and Gabriel Rust-Tierney kidnapped an older fraternity brother and left him in Crozet last April, when they were then-pledges of Chi Phi fraternity. The four brothers pled guilty after charges were dropped from felony abduction to disorderly conduct, Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Claude Worrell said.

Disorderly conduct is a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by 90 days in jail. Worrell said the case’s judge suspended 86 days of the sentence for what defense attorney Bud Treakle called a “fraternity prank” that was taken more seriously than it should have been.

“The police investigated it as a serious crime,” Treakle said, explaining that because the incident was reported as an abduction, law enforcement officials opened an investigation of the case. “The actual facts were that it was something similar to hazing.”

Worrell said concerned citizens viewed the incident as a serious crime and filed a police report.

“Part of what made this so particularly important from our perspectives is [that] citizens saw this happen … witnesses to the event saw it, went after the car that did this … went looking for them to record their license plate,” Worrell said. “It wasn’t that the victim in the case made a report. Citizens made a report because they saw something that was shocking to them [and] they felt something needed to be done.”

Worrell added that the victim was not a willing participant.

“That person did not want to be abducted; it’s certainly something that he didn’t want to have happen,” Worrell said. “It’s important to recall that people have a right to be left alone and not dragged someplace they don’t want to be.”

Treakle, though, said he interpreted the four brothers’ actions differently.

“My own personal feeling is that it was a fraternity prank,” Treakle said. “If the alleged victim had been honest with the police from the beginning, it would not have gone this far.”

Following the incident, the University’s Inter Fraternity Council Judiciary Committee investigated Chi Phi. Adam Parsell, IFC vice president for judiciary, said the case already has been handled.

“The case has already been adjudicated within the IFCJC,” Parsell said. “As of right now, they [Chi Phi] are still a member of the IFC.”
Parsell did not say if any sanctions were imposed on the fraternity but said the IFC strictly forbids hazing.

“With respect to hazing, we defer to the state and University regulations as stated in our bylaws,” Parsell said.

The University Judiciary Committee elected the voting members of its new Executive Committee Thursday. Fourth-year Curry student Michael Chapman was elected UJC chair.

According to UJC’s bylaws, the Executive Committee is elected by a majority vote among the members of the incoming committee in an election overseen by the outgoing committee chair. The four voting members of the Executive Committee include the chair, vice chair for first-years, vice chair for trials and the vice chair for sanctions, and are voted upon in that order.

Chapman, who will replace fourth-year College student Merriam Mikhail, served as vice chair for first-years during the past year.Chapman said one of the incoming Executive Committee’s goals is to better educate students about UJC.

“We are ready to not just engage the fellow members of UJC but also the community as a whole,” he said.

Chapman said his role as UJC chair is to not only oversee UJC’s day-to-day operations but to also be “the face of UJC.”

Second-year College student Will Bane, who was elected to replace Chapman as vice chair for first-years, also emphasized the importance of education and communication during the new committee’s term.

“We’re trying to make sure every U.Va. student and member of the community has an idea of what UJC does [and that they] have a sense of ownership over UJC,” Bane said.  

Bane, who served as a UJC counselor and chair of the Issues Subcommittee during the past year, said there are three major components to his role as vice chair for first-years: orienting new students to UJC’s system, “spearheading the recruitment process” and selecting and overseeing the First Year Judiciary Committee.  

“The student body has a low level of [knowledge about] UJC because they didn’t have a thorough and interesting training or orientation,” Bane said. He also said he hopes to work on improving summer and fall orientation sessions so that students gain an understanding about UJC even before they step on Grounds.

Third-year Architecture student Marnie Coons, meanwhile, was elected as the vice chair for trials and said she looks forward to addressing different areas of concern. Coons, who will replace fourth-year College student Grayson Lambert and previously served as an Architecture representative, said one of her personal goals is to increase cohesiveness among UJC judges. She also said she hopes to get judges more involved in the organization’s various subcommittees, noting that if judges become more involved, they will better understand their role in “the larger picture of UJC.”

Lastly, third-year Engineering student Eric Schneiter will continue to serve as the vice chair for sanctions. Though Schneiter served in this position last year, he said there are still several changes that he wishes to make during the next year.

“What’s happened in the last couple of years is we’ve seen a decrease in the number of sanctions organizations,” and it is now important to find other avenues for students to complete the possible community service requirements they can receive if sanctioned, he said. He also plans to streamline the sanctioning process, making it easier to understand.

The streamlining will make “sanctioning a lot easier for myself, the students involved, and the sanction contacts,” Schneiter said.

In addition to outlining its goals for the next year, one of the Executive Committee’s first tasks was to fill the rest of the Executive Committee’s non-voting positions.  

Alison Deich and John Zettler were appointed as Senior Counselors, Meghan Iorianni was appointed as Senior Investigator and Portia Henry was appointed as Senior Educator. Additionally, Gavin Reddick and Yiding Li were jointly appointed to fulfill the new position of Senior Data Manager.

Chapman, Bane, Coons and Schneiter all noted that because they each are from a different school and have all had different experiences within UJC, their diversity will benefit both the student body and the entire UJC throughout their terms.

“We are here to promote the safety, respect, and freedom” of students here at the University, Chapman said.

According to UJC’s bylaws, the new Executive Committee will take charge after April 1.

Halley Epstein, chair of the First Year Judiciary Committee and Madison Rabb, vice-chair of the First Year Judiciary Committee, also serve as non-voting members of the Executive Committee. Their terms started in October and last one year.

The Virginia men’s lacrosse team made history at Klöckner Stadium during a 10-9 victory Saturday against Maryland. After clawing their way back from a three point deficit and leveling the score at 9-9 with 4:39 left to play in regulation, it took an NCAA record seven sudden-death overtimes for the Cavaliers to edge the Terrapins.

“It was definitely a moment I’m always going to remember — we came together, we played really hard at the end,” senior attackman Danny Glading said. “It’s good to come away with a win here. It’s too bad there has to be a loser. I’m happy — very happy — that it wasn’t us.”

Sophomore goalkeeper Adam Ghitelman, who racked up 22 saves on the day, six of which were in the extra periods, was especially impressive as the game continued.

“There are six guys out there on defense and we knew we weren’t going to lose this game,” Ghitelman said. “It was just a matter of time until the offense scored.”

One of the more dramatic saves of the game, though, came from junior goalkeeper Mark Wade. Wade got a chance between the pipes for Virginia when Ghitelman had to serve a one-minute penalty at the beginning of the second overtime after committing a goal-saving illegal body check. After warming up during the two minutes between the first and second overtime period, Wade had to anchor his short-manned defense for 60 seconds until Ghitelman could return to the game. After working the ball around for a good fraction of the penalty, Wade stopped a bounce shot heading toward the lower-right corner of the cage. Wade got net on the ball and had to dive to try to keep it in his stick.

“He is an unbelievable goalie,” Ghitelman said. “He could start for any team in the country. Every time he seems to go out there he’s playing man down. He’s got some experience for that I guess and he just made the big play.”

After Wade came up with the save, Virginia managed a clear to its offensive zone and ran off the penalty. Ghitelman returned to the game and Wade left with his job accomplished and the game saved.

“You get in a situation like that and your teammates are playing as hard as they can and you just want to help them,” Wade said. “You just want to do your best when you get the chance to.”

Even as Ghitelman made save after save to keep the Cavaliers’ hopes of victory alive, though, Virginia’s offense struggled to find its rhythm.

Hampered by the muddy and rainy conditions, both teams slowly began to show signs of fatigue as unforced offensive turnovers kept the game level at 9-9.

“If we had lost this game today,” Virginia coach Dom Starsia said, “I would have been telling you that our effort in the first half was not what w\e would have wanted.”

The normally high powered Virginia offense found itself in a stalemate after the first half. The 3-2 halftime score favored the Cavaliers only after freshman attackman Steele Stanwick’s shot beat the clock by two seconds going into the break.

A workman-like offensive effort from the Cavaliers continued for the next 24 and a half minutes, as Virginia found itself down 9-6 with only 5:41 left to play in the game.

“I thought that there was enough game left and they didn’t pull far enough away from us,” Starsia said.

As the game wound down and the Cavaliers found themselves in a crunch, Stanwick ignited a comeback that consisted of three goals in less than two minutes. Glading contributed a goal as well, and the game-tying score came from junior midfielder Brian Carroll.

The offensive burst Virginia took advantage of in the waning minutes of regulation, though, fizzled during the six tense and sloppy overtime periods that followed.

Finally, after more than an hour of overtime play, Carroll ended the epic contest one minute into the seventh extra period.

“I’ve had a few left handed goals this year — all of them on the run,” Carroll said. “The alley was open and they had a guy standing there who didn’t end up sliding so I decided to take a shot.”

With a left-handed shot on the run from about 15 yards, Carroll fired the ball past the Maryland goalie for the third game-winning goal of his career, a new Virginia record.

“I heard them say this was the longest game ever,” Carroll said. “We would have kept going, however long it took.”

I’ve always felt it’s the seventh overtime that separates the men from the boys. And if that’s the case, then the members of the Virginia men’s lacrosse team are men. If you watched the Big East basketball tournament, you know any scrub can go six. It’s really in that seventh OT where heroes dwell, especially when the overtimes are sudden death. One hero from Saturday’s game is sophomore goalie Adam Ghitelman. He’s a man. He stood between the pipes with the knowledge that any mistake by him would mean the end of the game. In addition to the 16 saves he made during regulation, he snatched six more in extra periods — each time effectively saving the game, each save equivalent to a game-winning goal. These weren’t chump shots, either: I’m talking about rips from 15 yards or closer. He definitely didn’t have any gimmies.

You know who else is a man? Junior midfielder Brian Carroll. It’s not just that he scored the game-winning goal, but it’s the way he did it. This rocket was a shot and a half. It was a lefty shot — from a natural righty, mind you — on the run, moving away from the goal, 15 yards away and at a very narrow angle. That’s pretty much as tough as a shot gets, and I still don’t blame the Maryland goalie for not stopping it — this thing had a motor. Oh, and yeah, he also had the game-tying goal that sent the game to overtime. If you’ve followed Carroll’s career, you’ll know why his new nickname is “Mr. Overtime.” Saturday was the third game-winning goal of his career — a Virginia record.

Another person who is a man, though a lesser-known man, is junior goalie Mark Wade. He doesn’t get as much playing time as Ghitelman does, but certainly made the most of his limited time Saturday. When Ghitelman was penalized at the end of the first overtime and had to serve a minute in the penalty box, Virginia called on Wade to take Ghitelman’s spot. Wade had been on the sideline for two hours just standing there. It was sudden-death overtime, and Virginia was a man-down on defense. The ground was miserably wet, which plays havoc with a goalie’s ability to judge bouncing shots. And the game was put on the shoulders of Wade. As Maryland worked the ball around the goal, I thought to myself that if the Terps had a chance to score, this was it, and after the Maryland offense ripped a shot at the goal, I was sure they would. Clearly Wade had another idea. His idea — which he perfectly executed — was to make the save of the game. After stopping it, he then had to dive to keep the momentum of the ball in his basket and come up with possession that allowed Virginia to then run out the rest of the penalty on offense. Wade made his way off the field to be replaced by Ghitelman after playing for just 60 seconds, but he managed to squeeze an entire game’s worth of awesomeness into that one minute.

Suffice to say, if you came to the game Saturday, you got to see it all. The first half started out as slow as a soccer match in the offensive department. I had been spoiled with high-scoring games from the Cavaliers up to this point, so I was a bit nonplussed by the 3-2 score going into halftime — even if it did favor Virginia.

The game really started to heat up after the break, though. The Terrapins slowly began to pull away from Virginia as the fourth quarter began, stubbornly clinging to a three goal lead.

I kept asking myself when Virginia was going to turn it on and win the game. Up until this point in the game, the Cavaliers didn’t deserve to win. They came out lazy and lackadaisical. Though some mistakes were simply because of the poor field conditions, Virginia’s passing and catching was inexcusably abysmal.

At around the six-minute mark, the tides began to turn. Freshman attack Steele Stanwick scored a goal that launched a comeback that erased Maryland’s three-goal lead in just 62 seconds. Apparently, Virginia was not content to go quietly into the night. Minutes later, with the score still tied, Virginia found itself with a two-man advantage, and I was sure between that and the momentum, Virginia had it. Maryland, however, also was not going to lay down and die.

Even as the teams prepared for overtime, though, I was sure the Cavaliers had the game in the bag. Virginia was the better team, so more time just meant more of a chance for the Cavaliers to prove this.

When the Terps won the faceoff that kicked off overtime and charged toward the Cavalier cage with the rest of Virginia’s midfield trailing behind, I was quickly proven wrong — more so when Maryland whipped a shot by Ghitelman into the back of the goal to apparently win the game. As I packed up my belongings to leave the press box, I wondered if I had just witnessed the shortest overtime in history — just nine seconds. In hindsight, this thought would turn out to be very ironic.

Controversy ensued. Did Maryland call a timeout before the shot? That doesn’t make sense — they had a fast break going, a perfect scoring opportunity. Why would they call timeout?

I’m not going to call it luck on Virginia’s part, but … yeah, ‘luck’ is exactly what I’m going to call it. It seemed Virginia had just been defeated, plain and simple. But it turned out the Maryland coach had asked the officials to call his team’s timeout if the Terps won the faceoff and immediately advanced the ball into an offensive play. As a Wahoo, of course I want to think Virginia beat Maryland with pure skill. But, in actuality, Virginia lucked out because of a goofy Maryland mistake. And so, what at first appeared to be the shortest overtime in history, slowly — very slowly — became the longest.

It’s usually by the fourth overtime of a drawn-out classic like this that everyone realizes that they are watching something special. In fact, if you go beyond three or four overtimes, the names for the extended periods start to sound silly. It’s called quintuple overtime, right? And after that, I have no idea. Is the sixth called hextuple or sextuple? Then septuple overtime?

Games with seven overtimes aren’t supposed to happen in this sport. Lacrosse is an offensive game. It’s designed for scoring. A good defense doesn’t stop scoring — it limits it. The 3-2 first half was weird enough, but 25 scoreless minutes? That’s borderline absurd. While all this was happening, we in the press box were scurrying around, trying to figure out what length records the game was breaking, minute by minute. We were sure that by the third overtime it was the longest game in Maryland’s history. By the fifth it was the longest in either school’s history. As we entered the seventh (which we looked up the name for: septuple overtime), we confirmed that this was the longest game ever in NCAA lacrosse.

Meanwhile, some of the best and worst lacrosse I have ever seen was being played on the field. While each team had its own share of boneheaded turnovers, each team was also making viewers of ESPN2, which covered the game, salivate because of all the astounding defense on display. With more games reaching national broadcast demonstrating the drama of pitting elite lacrosse teams against each other, maybe lacrosse won’t lose out national coverage to far less interesting fare such as women’s NIT basketball and third-time reruns of the World Series of Poker.

This astonishing game — 85 minutes of stalwart defense punctuated by spurts of explosive offense — saw Virginia studs Ghitelman, Wade and Carroll, along with the entire line of Virginia defenders, stave off disaster after disaster, including three Terrapin extra-man advantages from penalties. Virginia overcame its poor play during regulation with a little help from a phantom timeout call at the start of OT to walk away with a hard-fought win, even though Maryland contained some of the best, fastest and most athletic players in the country for most of the game.

We all know, though, that all good things must come to an end. In collegiate lacrosse, there are winners and losers — there are no ties. Mr. Overtime delivered, and another page in what is shaping up to be one of the greatest seasons in Virginia lacrosse history was written. As the Wahoo cheers erupted and the Virginia squad piled on Ghitelman and Carroll, Terrapins were strewn in agony across the pitch.
The evening wore on, longer than any had ever expected, but after all was said and done, and after Virginia came the closest yet to tarnishing its immaculate record, the Cavaliers again refused to go quietly into the night.

Back in February, conference series against Florida State, Miami and North Carolina loomed large on a young and largely inexperienced Cavaliers’ schedule. Unranked, Virginia was picked to finish fifth in the ACC Coastal Division in what appeared to be a rebuilding year.
What a difference one month can make.

Though the Cavaliers dropped two of their three games against host North Carolina this weekend, the squad finds itself ranked in the nation’s top ten and with a solid 6-4 conference record heading into what should prove to be an easier stretch of its schedule.

“There’s no question about the character and the pride on this team, and how they handle adversity,” Virginia coach Brian O’Connor said. “We’ve just got to find a way to be just a little bit better. We’re right there.”

Although the squad only managed to pick up one win Saturday, Virginia nearly took the series away from the collegiate baseball heavyweight Tar Heels in Sunday’s rubber match, which saw both squads get off to quick starts.

The Cavaliers kicked off a wild first inning as sophomore rightfielder Dan Grovatt notched his first two RBIs of the series with a hard-hit double down the left field line, knocking in sophomore centerfielder Jarrett Parker and sophomore second baseman Phil Gosselin.

Virginia freshman starter Will Roberts got off to a shaky start, allowing as many Tar Heel hits in the first inning alone as North Carolina managed through eight innings Saturday. North Carolina senior rightfielder Garrett Gore, after reaching on a dribbler up the middle, scored on a double by junior third baseman Kyle Seager. The hit by the junior extended his hitting streak to 16 straight games and kept the Tar Heels, down 2-1, within striking distance.

Although Virginia failed to capitalize on a bases-loaded opportunity in the second inning as first baseman Danny Hultzen flied out to left to continue his recent struggles at the plate — the freshman went one for 13 during the weekend with five strikeouts — the Cavaliers continued attacking Tar Heel sophomore starter Matt Harvey in the third. Harvey walked Grovatt to lead off the inning, and after freshman third baseman Steven Proscia reached on a hit, Harvey filled the bases for the second time, delivering his fourth walk of his short outing to junior shortstop Tyler Cannon. Harvey was then replaced by junior lefthander Brian Moran, who came through for North Carolina in the no-outs, bases-loaded situation. The lefty allowed just one Cavalier run to score on a sacrifice fly from freshman designated hitter John Hicks.

The lead was not large enough for Virginia, however, as Roberts continued to labor on the mound. The Tar Heels, fueled by a pair of triples from secondbaseman Levi Michael and catcher Mark Fleury, evened the score at three runs apiece after three innings. Michael’s knock down the left field line to score junior first baseman Dustin Ackley marked his second hit en route to going a perfect four-for-four on the day.

After walking the first Tar Heel batter of the fourth inning, Roberts was replaced by junior reliever Neal Davis; the rookie exited the game having giving up three earned runs on six Tar Heel hits. Although Davis managed a quick three outs to escape the inning with no more damage, the lefty struggled in the fifth and the Tar Heels took full advantage of Davis’ lack of control. North Carolina got three hits to lead off the inning, including a two-run home run from third baseman Kyle Seager, to take a 5-3 edge.

Although Virginia relievers sophomore Tyler Wilson, freshman Sean Lucas, freshman Shane Halley and junior Matt Packer combined to stifle the Tar Heel offense through the sixth, seventh and eight frames, Moran also continued to put together an impressive relief outing for North Carolina. Never having gone more than three innings before, Moran shut down the Cavalier lineup — which mustered only two hits in the next three innings.

“He’s their main guy out of the bullpen — a big lefty,” O’Connor said. “He’s got a lot of experience; he did a great job for them last year. He’s tough – he’s tough to pick up the ball off of. After four innings or so, we started to figure him out a little bit, just not enough in the middle innings when it counted.”

It was not until the ninth that Virginia finally broke through. With one out, Hultzen picked a good time for Virginia to notch his first hit of the series, reaching first on an infield grounder. Grovatt rebounded from a lackluster series against Miami — in which he struck out twice in clutch bottom of the ninth situations — to hit a home run to right, evening the score at 5-5 and giving the Cavaliers hope of winning the series after trailing for four innings in the decisive third game.

“Coach talked to me,” Grovatt said. “He said, ‘You’re getting a little long on your swing, maybe take a day and refocus.’”

Last year’s College World Series runner-up refused to settle for going to extra innings, however, as Ackley led off the inning with a walk and Michael followed with a single. After intentionally walking the bases loaded with one out in the hope of a inducing a double-play ball, Packer instead hit Fleury with a pitch, allowing Ackley to come home for the winning, walk-off run.

“I was hoping that we might be able to get in on Graepel a little bit, and get a groundball, and have a chance to get out of it,” O’Connor said. “That’s tough. When you’re on the road and you’re the visiting team, and you’ve got runners on second and third, one out, that’s not an easy situation to pitch in.”

While Sunday’s late-game loss against the Tar Heels was disappointing for the Cavaliers, Friday’s tight 4-3 defeat was just as crushing.

Bolstered by a lead-off, first pitch home run from Parker and a solid outing by Hultzen — who went seven innings while only giving up two Tar Heel runs on six hits in an impressive 118-pitch performance — the Cavaliers managed to take a 3-2 lead in the top of the eighth on a RBI double by Gosselin to score Parker from first. The Tar Heels, just like Sunday, however, had an immediate answer, as junior centerfielder Michael Cavasinni hit his longest ball of the season — a triple just over a drawn-in John Barr in left field — to score two North Carolina runs and hand the Cavaliers their third straight conference loss.

North Carolina coach Mike Fox “told me [after the game] that, ‘I think that’s the farthest the kid’s hit the ball in his career,’” O’Connor said after Friday’s loss. “We had our outfield really shallowed in, taking a chance that we didn’t want a hit to drop in the outfield, and he got it good. That’s baseball, and you reward a kid for stepping up in the clutch like that.”

Virginia’s one dominant performance of the weekend came Saturday, when senior righty Andrew Carraway toed the mound for the Cavaliers and turned in another strong performance to improve his record to a perfect 4-0 this season.

Both Carraway and Tar Heel senior starter Adam Warren managed to shut down both sides’ starting lineups in the early going, but the Cavaliers finally broke through. In the fifth, Cannon — who led off the inning with a single — scored on a RBI single by sophomore second baseman Corey Hunt, and Parker hit a sacrifice fly to left to knock in catcher John Hicks. Proscia followed with a two-run homer in the sixth, and Parker hit his second long ball of the series to give the Cavaliers an insurmountable four-run lead.

“It’s the first kind of club that we’ve had here that we can put pressure on teams by running and playing that style, but we can also drive the ball out of the ballpark when we need to,” O’Connor said. “We’re not one of these teams that’s gonna hit 70 or 80 home runs, it’s significantly more power than we’ve had in the past.”

Carraway allowed just one run on three hits in seven innings of work, and though Gore hit a home run in the bottom of the ninth against Packer, the closer struck out Fleury and forced a Graepel grounder to end the game.

After the series against the Tar Heels, the Cavaliers now find themselves heading into a comparatively easier stretch of play. Following mid-week matchups against non-conference foes Norfolk State and Radford, Virginia will host Maryland in a three-game series next weekend.

“We’re right there,” Grovatt said. “We just need to finish the game. I feel like we’re with everybody, we’re playing with everybody, it’s just we’re one more hit away or maybe one more big pitch away, and then we’ll be fine.”

For the Virginia baseball team, next year was going to be the year. With merely a few of the team’s best players draft-eligible after this season, Virginia coach Brian O’Connor had the ingredients for a team that could finally get to a Super Regional of the NCAA Tournament for the first time in the program’s history.

This year? It was supposed to be, as the phrase goes, a rebuilding year. Get the freshmen infielders some experience. Figure out who can be relied on to start on the mound during weekend matches. Solidify a young bullpen.

From the perspective of a fan, it all sounded well and good. To senior pitcher Andrew Carraway, however, “rebuilding year” didn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

“If you come into your senior season and it really is a rebuilding year,” Carraway said, “then you’re gonna be disappointed.”

It has been far from a rebuilding year, though. Picked fourth in the Coastal Division to start the season, the Cavs went 19-0 for the best start in the nation. This past weekend, Virginia paid a visit to the preseason national No. 1 North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Though the Cavs lost two games in heartbreaking fashion to lose the series, they emerged with a win Saturday thanks in large part to seven innings of brilliant work from Carraway: one earned run on three hits and one walk.

This was a team that supposedly wasn’t going to be able to compete with North Carolina coming into the season. The Tar Heels are stacked; many of the Cavs’ key cogs are fresh off their senior proms.

The Tar Heels have “Dustin Ackley at first base who’s gonna be a first round pick; pitcher Alex White is gonna be a first round pick,” Carraway said. “You see these guys all over the paper.”

And yet, the Cavaliers came into Chapel Hill against a Tar Heel team fired up by a series loss to Duke the weekend before, and snagged one win and competed their brains out in two losses. The Tar Heels needed a two-run eighth to pull out a 4-3 win Friday, and a hit batter with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth to walk away with a 6-5 win Sunday.

“We’re just as good as these teams we’re playing,” said sophomore Dan Grovatt, who hit a two-run blast in the top of the ninth Sunday to tie the game at 5-5 to allow for the bottom of the ninth. “We could very well be on the winning side of both of these [losses], and driving home with a sweep.”

Alas, though, the Cavaliers boarded the team bus with disappointment on their faces — and, a critic might observe, the series with UNC continued a pattern that has revealed the Cavaliers’ youth. In conference play, Virginia has lost four games decided by two runs or less. The aforementioned young bullpen has been spotty. In each of the team’s four conference losses — two to North Carolina and two to Miami the previous weekend – Virginia’s opponent scored the go-ahead run in the seventh inning or later.

It is a pattern of falling short that even extends to Virginia’s past. Five times in O’Connor’s tenure, the Cavaliers have been to the Regional, twice as the host and No. 1 seed; and yet, Virginia has failed to advance to the Super Regional each time.

The beauty of this year’s team, though, is that it is as resilient as any squad O’Connor has ever fielded. O’Connor as well as numerous players have said that this is the most tight-knit team they have been a part of at Virginia.

And no one has been rewarded more by this cohesive group than Carraway.

“On the field, off the field, it’s a group of guys that kind of sticks together,” Carraway said. “There are no cliques that pull teams apart sometimes.”

Though Carraway isn’t the only senior, he is the team’s most valuable and most decorated. A Lawn resident, Carraway was used in middle relief during his freshman and sophomore seasons before being moved to the starting rotation on weekends last season. Each year he has suited up as a Cavalier, he has played an integral role.

Now, Carraway is the only senior that makes regular contributions to a team dominated by underclassmen. Carraway even admitted that “it’s definitely a strange feeling.”

“A couple of the freshmen actually found out the other day that I was 22,” Carraway said. “[Freshmen Danny] Hultzen and Will Roberts are 18 I guess, and so they thought that was really funny.”

Each year he has suited up as a Cavalier, Carraway has stowed away his uniform for the off-season a little sooner than he had hoped. While many had written off this team as too inexperienced perhaps to even make the postseason, Carraway didn’t elect to return for a fourth year to follow the same dreary path as years past.

“One of the main reasons that I wanted to play this season was because I’ve got some unfinished business — that we haven’t been to the College World Series, haven’t been to a Super Regional,” Carraway said. “I want to be on the team that does that.”

Will Virginia finally get over that hump and make a Super Regional? Maybe, maybe not. But during Carraway’s final season, just being part of a team that has a shot is rewarding enough.

“It’s awesome,” Carraway said. “To come out and absolutely just dominate teams the way we started out, and then not only that, but to be able to play in the close ones like this, it’s just a great feeling.”