Thomson Reuters recently ranked the University Medical Center as one of the 100 Top Hospitals in the United States and one of the top 15 major teaching hospitals.

This is the eighth time the hospital has been named one of the 100 Top Hospitals, University Health System spokesperson Sally Jones said.

“The hospital’s very proud to have received this honor yet again,” she said. “The 100 Top Hospitals are chosen because they have higher survival rates, keep more patients complication-free and have lower expenses — all while maintaining financial stability. It’s a testament for us that we’re able to maintain the highest level of excellence.”

The rankings are based on a measurement of the reliability and strength of the hospital in serving the community, said Jean Chenoweth, senior vice president for performance improvement and 100 Top Hospitals at Thomson Reuters. The specific rankings are not released because the goal of the survey is to come up with a common benchmark.

“The balanced score card requires that you look at a series of major performance areas that are important for the hospital to function well as an organization,” she said, “and all of our measures are equally weighted.”

Thomson Reuters uses only publicly available data like Medicare billing files and Medicare cost reports that reflect the costs and expenses of the entire hospital, Chenoweth said. The rankings are also based on patient satisfaction, adherence to evidence-based medicine and clinical quality.

“Core measures are reflective of treating the patient the way they should be treated according to standard practices of care,” she said.

Thomson Reuters allows for the fact that different hospitals should be measured by different standards, though. It adjusts the rankings in terms of risk, so that hospitals with very sick patients are not unfairly compared to hospitals without them, Chenoweth said. Hospitals are also divided based on their type and size. The University Medical Center, therefore, is compared with other major teaching hospitals, whereas a hospital like Martha Jefferson Hospital is compared to other medium-size community hospitals.

Chenoweth noted that the entire Charlottesville community has a strong health system because both hospitals have been on the list of top hospitals.

Hospitals on the list have strong cultures of performance improvement and care quality, Chenoweth said.

“It’s an organization where change and improvement is a constant, rather than a major event,” she said. A hospital on the 100 Top Hospitals list is cognizant of patient satisfaction, able to react quickly to change and active in seeking to improve efficiently, Chenoweth said.

“U.Va. has consistently been a very high performer over the years, and not just across the clinical measures,” she said, explaining that the University Medical Center has high scores on patient perception of care and is financially secure.

“That’s the meaning of being a benchmark hospital,” she said. “It’s setting the bar very high which for other hospitals to follow, and the beneficiary is your community.”

University Law School alumnus and former Sen. John Warner, R-Va., recently auctioned off items accumulated throughout his political career to benefit his alma mater.

The proceeds — which are expected to range from $10,000 to $12,000 — will provide money for law students working on “pro bono challenges for the legal representation of the indigent and the poor,” Warner said.

Of the money to be donated, $5,000 will be given to a student one summer to study with a practicing lawyer, and $5,000 will be given to a different student to do the same the following summer, Warner said. If the auction and his personal funds can support it, Warner may donate a third installment of $5,000 as well, he said.

“I was fortunate, like all politicians … to receive the mementos from organizations that respected the work we were doing,” Warner said.

Warner also accumulated memorabilia from the University, as well as from Washington and Lee University, where he studied as an undergraduate, said Susanna Brockman, director of gallery relations for the Potomack Company, which assisted Warner during the auctioning process.

Plaques, figures of eagles and presentation platters made up a large portion of the collection, which comprised about 35 to 40 items, Brockman said.

Warner said he chose to donate to the Law School as a means of expressing gratitude to the faculty who helped him focus on his education after serving in the Korean War.

Law School Dean Paul Mahoney expressed appreciation for the donation.

“I’m grateful that [former] Sen. Warner has chosen to help students who follow his example of public service,” Mahoney said.

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.