My idea on the following as Forwarded from HOCKEY-L:
 
Who will Shawn nominate to watch the opponents and find the player who
isn't using a mouthpiece in the third period in a crucial game?
 
One more weapon in the quiver....
 
>Sender: The College Hockey Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Jay Robert Kleven <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      Mouthguards (last time for me)
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>The old mouthguard rule (Rule 3-4(c)) stated that mouthguards are mandatory,
>and that any violation be assessed a 10 min misconduct.  The old rule is
>more severe than the new one, which allows a single warning to a team before
>assessing a 10 minute misconduct on the next and subsequent violations.  The
>new rule is given more "teeth" by allowing the opposing team to challenge a
>player's compliance with the new rule.  Challenging a mouthguard now uses
>the same procedure as challenging a stick.  Allowing challenges will force
>the referee to be strict about calling mouthguard violations, or risk being
>forced to call it when a mouthguard is challenged.  Most referees will
>prefer to make the call on their own and not have the players force the
>issue.
>
>I can't wait for the season to start.  Perhaps we can generate more
>interesting dialogue.
>
>p.s.  I feel Wisconsin may be a bit underrated.
>Jay, Miranda, and Norah Kleven
>
>***********************************
>Write Soon!
>**********************************
>
>HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
>[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.
>
 
 
Dan Doucette
UMaine 78 MPA 80
 
*** Isn't it fitting someone named Garth Snow is playing for ***
***                  a team in Canada   ???                  ***
 
            Title IX for Women's Hockey Discussion -
         When will someone sue for a Women's HOCKEY-L ?