Clay Satow wrote:
>From the looks of this discussion, it looks as if I'm not the only one
who's
>confused about the difference between "coincidental" and "matching."
There really isn't any. The rulebook only ever uses coincidental.
Announcers, et al, will use matching, probably because it's easier to
understand than coincidental.
>even if there is some clear definition that differentiates the two terms,
>can anyone explain to me any rationale for treating them differently (i.e.
>why one results in a 4x4 and the other in a 5x5)? There is no reason that
>they HAVE to be treated differently, so why are they?
The whole things starts in the mid-80s with the Edmonton Oilers. Before
then, when someone got a minor penalty, he went off for two minutes and the
penalty went on the clock. Period. It was amazingly simple. When the mid-80s
came around, Edmonton became quite good at scoring during four-on-four
situations. They were good enough at it that some figured they were trying
to deliberately set them up. (Dave Semenko did have a purpose, after all!)
So in about 1985 or 86 (IIRC), the NHL passed a rule saying that
coincidental minors were to be subsituted for. Most other leagues followed
in the years after that. Some years later (I think in the early 90s), they
came to the realization that people actually *liked* seeing four-on-four
hockey. So they brought in the exception to bring about four-on-fours, but
left in substitution for all other coincidental minors. Some other leagues
followed.
So, there really is no reason to treat them diferently, but they have been.
Personally, I think the exception is silly. Either you substitute for
coincidental minors (like USA Hockey and Canadian amateur hockey) or you
don't (like the IHL now).
John