>>>>> "Terry" == Terry Paul Kasdan <[log in to unmask]> writes:
Terry> On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, Mark Lewin wrote:
>> Also, what is the rule regarding coincidental minors? Sometimes the
>> teams go 4 on 4, other times they stay 5 on 5. There must be some
>> rule behind it but it sure escapes me.
 
Terry> [...]  However (for example) if a player is
Terry> caught tripping and the referee's arm goes up for a delayed
Terry> whistle, and in the meantime another player is caught holding,
Terry> then these would not be coincidental.  The two penalties are
Terry> the result of separate instances, and as a result the teams
Terry> will skate 4 on 4.
 
Actually, those penalties are also deemed to be coincidental.  Anytime
a penalty is assessed to a player from each team at the same stoppage
in play, the penalties are coincidental.  The confusion is in how the
NC$$ is handling coincidental penalties.
 
If exactly 2 penalties are assessed (one to each team) and no other
players are currently serving penalties, the teams will skate 4-on-4.
If this is not the case, then any coincidental penalties will not
result in a loss of on-ice manpower.  For example, in the UM/CC game
there was a situation where a UM player and a CC player each received
double minor penalties.  Because more than 2 penalties were assessed,
the teams skated 5-on-5.  If the players had received only 1 penalty
each, the teams would have skated 4-on-4.
 
Confusing?  Yes.  The rule was basically a compromise between those
that wanted to do away with the coincidental penalty rule and those
that wanted to keep it.  I'm just glad that USA Hockey didn't adopt a
similar rule so I didn't have to be constantly explaining things to
clue-less coaches. ;-)  [Not to mention irate parents.]
 
I'd also like to add my congratulations to Michigan and thank Colorado
College for a great championship game!
 
Peter Kester
[log in to unmask]
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.